Dialogue about the two main systems of the world Ptolemy and Copernicus. Polemical strategies in the "dialogue about the two main systems of the world" Galileo Galilei Dialogue about the main systems of the world
DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD - PTOLEMAI AND COPERNIC *
Second day
<...>Salviati. I also want you to continue to hold firmly that the phenomena on Earth should correspond to the phenomena on the ship; for if it were not to your purpose, you would not be sorry to change your mind. You say: since when the ship is stationary, the stone falls to the foot of the mast, and when it moves, it falls far from the foot, then, therefore, and vice versa, from the fall of the stone to the foot it follows that the ship is motionless, and the fall of the stone at some distance proves that the ship is in motion; and since what happens on the ship also happens on Earth, then from the fall of a stone to the foot of the tower follows with the necessity of immobility the globe. Isn't that your reasoning?
Simplicio. Quite right, this is it, stated in a simple form that makes it eminently easy to assimilate.
Salviati. Tell me, then, if a stone, thrown from the top of the mast of a ship moving at high speed, fell exactly in the same place where it falls when the ship is stationary, what service would this experience with the fall serve you in deciding the question, Is the ship stationary or is it floating?
Simplicio. Decidedly none; in the same way, for example, by the beating of the pulse it is impossible to know whether someone is sleeping or awake, since the pulse beats the same in both sleeping and waking people.
Salviati. Excellent. Have you ever experimented on a ship?
Simplicio. I did not produce it, but I am quite sure that those authors who produced it carefully considered it; moreover, the reasons for the difference are so clear that they leave no room for doubt.
Salviati. It is possible that these authors referred to experience without producing it; you yourself are a good example of this when, without making an experiment, you declare it reliable and invite us to believe them on the word; in exactly the same way, it is not only possible, but also certain that the authors acted in the same way, referring to their predecessors and never reaching the one who did this experiment himself, for anyone who does it will find that experience shows exactly the opposite of what was written , namely, that the stone will always fall in the same place on the ship, whether it is stationary or moving at any speed. From here, since the conditions of the Earth and the ship are the same, it follows that from the fact that the stone always falls vertically to the foot of the tower, no conclusion can be drawn about the motion or rest of the Earth 1 .
A stone falling from a ship's mast always hits the same place, whether the ship is moving or standing still.
Simplicio. If you would refer me to other arguments, and not to experience, then our disputes, I think, would not end so soon, because this subject seems to me so inaccessible to the human mind that the possibility of asserting or assuming anything is excluded.
Salviati. And yet, I believe it is possible to do so.
Simplicio. How is it that, having not gone through a hundred tests, not even one, you act in such a decisive manner? I return to my disbelief and belief that the experience was produced by the original authors who refer to it, and that it shows what they claim.
Salviati. I am sure even without experience that the result will be as I tell you, since it is necessary that it should follow; moreover, I will say that you yourself also know that it cannot be otherwise, although you pretend or pretend that you do not know this. But I'm a good enough mind-catcher, and I'll forcefully wrest a confession from you. However, Signor Sagredo was completely silent, although I think I noticed some movement, as if he wanted to say something.
Sagredo. I really wanted to say something, but the curiosity aroused by your statement that you would force Signor Simplicio to reveal the knowledge deliberately hidden from us made me put aside all other care; I ask you to fulfill the promise.
Salviati. So long as Signor Simplicio deigns to answer my questions, it will not be up to me.
Simplicio. I will answer what I know, and I am sure that I will have few difficulties, since, I think, nothing can be known about things that I consider false, since science is the science of the true, and not of the false.
Salviati. I want nothing more than that you say or answer only what you yourself know enough. So tell me if you have flat surface, completely smooth, like a mirror, but of a hard substance, like steel, not parallel to the horizon, but somewhat inclined, and if you put a perfectly round ball on it of a heavy and very hard substance, for example, bronze, then what do you think it will will do, being left to himself? Don't you think (as I do) that it will be immobile? 2
Simplicio. If this surface is inclined?
Salviati. Yes, as we assumed.
Simplicio. In no way do I think that he would remain motionless; on the contrary, I am sure that it would move along the slope by itself.
Salviati. Consider carefully what you say, signor Simplicio, for I am sure that he will remain motionless wherever you place him.
Simplicio. If you, Signor Salviati, begin to use such assumptions, I will cease to be surprised that you will draw completely false conclusions.
Salviati. So you consider it absolutely certain that the ball will move along the slope by itself?
Simplicio. Is it possible to doubt this?
Salviati. And you consider it indisputable, not because I suggested it to you (after all, I tried to convince you otherwise), but on the basis of your own judgment?
Simplicio. Now I understand your trick; did you speak in such a way as to test me or to trick me, as they say in common parlance, and not at all because you really thought so?
Salviati. Exactly. And how long would the ball continue to move and at what speed? Note that I have spoken of the ball being perfectly round and the plane being perfectly smooth, in order to eliminate all external and accidental obstructions. I also want you to take your mind off the resistance of the air to its separation and all the random interferences that may be encountered.
Simplicio. I understood everything perfectly and I will answer your question as follows: the ball would continue to move indefinitely, if only such a plane continued, and, moreover, with a movement continuously accelerating, for such is the nature of heavy moving bodies, which vires acquirant eundo 3 ; and the greater the slope, the greater will be the speed.
Salviati. But if someone wanted the same ball to move upwards along the same plane, do you think that he would go in this way?
Simplicio. Not on your own, but you can drag it in or throw it up with force.
Salviati. And if it were set into such a motion by an impulse forcibly transferred to it, what and how long would its motion be?
Simplicio. The movement would go on, gradually weakening and slowing down, because it is unnatural, and would be longer or shorter, depending on the greater or lesser steepness of the ascent.
Salviati. It is as if you have just explained to me cases of motion along two different kinds of planes: on an inclined plane, a moving body spontaneously descends, moving with continuous acceleration, so that force is required to keep it at rest; on a plane rising upward, a force is required to move the body upward, and even to keep it at rest, and the movement imparted to the body is continuously decreasing, so that in the end it is completely destroyed. Let us add that, in addition, in both cases a difference arises depending on whether the slope or rise of the plane is greater or less, and with a greater slope there is a greater speed, and vice versa, with a rising plane, the same body, driven by the same by the force itself, it advances the greater the distance, the lower the height of the lift. Now tell me, what would happen to the same moving body on a surface that does not rise or fall?
Simplicio. Here I need to think a little about the answer. Since there is no inclination there, there can be no natural inclination to move, and since there is no rise, there can be no opposition to movement, so that the body would be indifferent to both inclination to movement and opposition to it; It seems to me, therefore, that it must naturally remain motionless. However, I completely forgot that Signor Sagredo only recently explained to me that this is how it should be.
Salviati. So, I think, it would be if the ball were put motionless; but if you give it an impulse to move in some direction, what would follow?
Simplicio. His movement in this direction would follow.
Salviati. But what kind of motion would this be: continuously accelerating, as on an inclined plane, or gradually slowing down, as on an ascending plane?
Simplicio. I cannot discover here the reasons for accelerating or for slowing down, since there is no slope or rise.
Salviati. So, but if there is no reason for slowing down, then there can be a reason for resting here all the less. So how long do you think this body would continue to move?
Simplicio. As long as the length of such a surface without descent and ascent is great.
Salviati. Therefore, if such a space were infinite, would the movement along it likewise have no limit, i.e., would it be constant?
Simplicio. It seems to me that it would be so if the body were made of durable material.
Salviati. This is already assumed, since it was said that all incoming and external obstacles are eliminated, and the destructibility of a moving body is one of the incoming obstacles. Tell me, what exactly do you think is the reason why this ball moves on an inclined plane on its own, and on a plane that rises only by force?
Simplicio. The fact that heavy bodies tend to naturally move towards the center of the Earth and only forcefully upward towards the periphery, while the inclined surface is such that it brings it closer to the center, and the rising one removes it.
Salviati. Therefore, a surface that had neither inclination nor rise would have to be equally spaced from the center in all its parts. But are there such planes anywhere in the world?
Simplicio. There are such - at least the surface of our globe, if only it is completely smooth, and not as it really is, that is, uneven and mountainous; such, for example, is the surface of water when it is still and calm.
Salviati. Therefore, a ship moving on the surface of the sea is one of those moving bodies that slide on one of these surfaces without inclination and rise, and which therefore have a tendency, if all random and external obstacles are removed, to move constantly and evenly with the momentum received?
Simplicio. Seems like it should be.
Salviati. And that stone, which is at the top of the mast, does not it move, carried by the ship along the circumference of the circle, around the center, therefore, by a movement that cannot be destroyed in it in the absence of external obstacles? And isn't this movement as fast as the movement of a ship?<...>
* In the book: G. Galileo. Selected works in two volumes, vol. 1. M., 1964, p. 242-247.
1 Here and below, Galileo uses the fact of relative rest and uniform motion to prove the possibility of the annual movement of the Earth.
2 Galileo proceeds to present the principle of inertia.
3 Gain strength on the way (lat.).
GALILEO GALILEI
DIALOGUE ABOUT THE TWO MAIN SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD PTOLOMEAN AND COPERNIC
TRANSLATION A.I.DOLGOVA OGIZ - USSR STATE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF TECHNICAL AND THEORETICAL LITERATURE MOSCOW * 1048 * LENINGRAD
FOREWORD
Almost four hundred years ago, on March 24, 1543, lying on his deathbed, little known until then, Canon Nicholas Copernicus of Thorn touched with his hand a freshly printed copy of his brilliant work in six books De revolutionibus Orbiumo celestium (i.e. "On the Conversion celestial worlds”), which summed up his observations and reflections on this issue for more than thirty years and contained the foundations of the heliocentric system of the world. The ideas of Copernicus, presented by him in a strictly mathematical form and worked out on the basis of the richest factual material, only slowly and gradually began to spread among scientists from different countries, meeting different assessments from them. Thus, the most famous astronomer-observer of the era under consideration, Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), did not recognize the Copernican system and, in contrast to it, put forward his own in 1588, according to which all the planets revolved around the Sun, with the exception of the Earth; the latter remained motionless and the Sun with the planets and the Moon revolved around it. This was a step forward in comparison with the Ptoleomean system, but a decisive step backward in comparison with the Copernican system (De Mundi Aetherei recentioribus phenomenis liber secundus, 1602). At the same time, Kepler (1571-1630) was not only a staunch supporter of the heliocentric system, but also a brilliant scientist who managed to develop the teachings of Copernicus, establishing three laws of planetary motions that bear his name (the first two were published by him in Astronomia sweat, 1609; the third was installed by him in May 1618). The opinion of other, less prominent scientists of the Central European countries is of no significant interest to us; one can only state that the teachings of Copernicus, however, with a delay of 50-60 years, became familiar to them and were interpreted by them as a serious * scientific theory. As the teaching of Copernicus was initially perceived in Italy, Galileo narrates very colorfully at the beginning of the second day of the "Dialogue", putting into the mouth of the Sagredo a description of his conversation with visitors to the lectures of Christian Wursteisen (1544-1588), in which the latter propagated this teaching. However, even in this country there were, although few in number, adherents of the "Pythagorean" doctrine. Among them, the deep thinker Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who was burned at the stake in Rome by the Inquisition, deserves special attention. The same views were held by Giaccobo Mazzoni, teacher of Galileo, the only one of the professors at the University of Padua who did not belong to the peripatetic camp. It is also interesting that under the influence of new facts and evidence, i.e., much later, even such an honored scientist as Clavius (1537-1612), the author of many reprinted comments on Sacrobosco's "Sphere", who throughout his long life he was engaged in presenting and defending it. 1* 4 PREFACE As for Galileo, he apparently inclined very early towards the ideas of Copernicus. This is evidenced by his letters to Mazzoni and Kepler, and in a letter to the latter (dated August 4, 1597) Galileo indicates that he continues to work on the teachings of Copernicus, which he adheres to "for many years." The fact that, since 1592, a professor of mathematics at the University of Padua and, as a result, a lecturer in spherical astronomy and the theory of the planets, Galileo in the initial period, at least, expounded these subjects in an established form (as evidenced by partially published after his death Lecture Trattato delta Sfera on Cosmografia, 1656) should not be taken as a fact in conflict with Galileo's own statement. Hardly any other presentation was at that time possible within the walls of the university; besides, Galileo did not yet possess any fully developed mechanical views (see, for example, his even earlier work Sermones de motu gravium, published only in 1854 and relating to the Pisan period of his activity, i.e. 1589-1592 .), nor such clear arguments against the Copernican system as the presence of the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, sunspots, etc. Thus, slowly and gradually, the ideas of Copernicus found acceptance by a few large and independent scientists. The church treated them differently. One of the first to be frightened by the really deep “revolutionary” books of Copernicus, which shook the foundations of the geocentric system of the world, and at the same time not only the narrowly astronomical, but also much further general provisions of Aristotle’s philosophy, turned out to be well-known figures of the Reformation: Luther (1483-1546) and Melanchthon (1497-1560). The first called Copernicus a fool who intends to turn the whole universe upside down, and the second, who was a scientific ideologue of the Reformation, considered it necessary that the civil authorities tame the astronomer who made the Earth move and the Sun stand still. There is no essential difference between these judgments and the later acts of the Catholic Church. The latter turned out to be only more consistent in its conclusions, as is clear from the "decree of the holy congregation" of March 5, 1616. and the sentence announced to Galileo on June 22, 1633. But this had its own, special, reasons. The nature of the official science of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, which was cultivated in the universities, in particular the Italian ones, is fairly well known. The authority of Aristotle was still very high; the study of the actual phenomena of nature has long since receded into the background and has been replaced by a comparison of the opinions expressed about them by Aristotle or other authorities from among his commentators and followers; scientific works were therefore only in the nature of scholastic philological exercises; new discoveries and scientific data, which could not be ignored, were explained by summing them up under ready-made formulas, borrowed from the same rich book arsenal without new experimental verification. To this it must be added that the philosophy of Aristotle and his followers was officially shared by the Catholic Church, and a very influential Jesuit order, founded in 1534, paid great attention to ensuring that all new scientific data did not stand in apparent contradiction with the teachings of the peripatetics and in order to to ensure the unity of the direction of thought, they did not allow any of the members of the order to publish their works without the sanction of its highest spiritual administration. Thus, criticism of the philosophy of Aristotle bordered on speaking out against church canons, and the controversy with individual Jesuit priests affected the interests and dignity of this order as a whole. From this it is clear how difficult and dangerous was the scientific activity of those innovators who, under the influence of profound changes in the entire structure of their contemporary economic relations and the development of technology, were inevitably drawn into conflict with scholastic doctrines. Getting to know life and scientific activity Galileo, we clearly see how his initial struggle against individual delusions of Aristotle, concerning the laws of falling bodies, their swimming, etc., flared up more and more fiercely and captured all larger areas of knowledge, until it resulted in a clash of two worldviews. Ultimately, Galileo was tried and condemned for propagating the teachings of Copernicus, not by the ten monks who were appointed for this, and not by the seven who signed the verdict, but by the Catholic Church, as such, which saw in the Dialogue an extremely dangerous essay that severely undermines its authority. . She was not mistaken in this: despite the reservations made by Galileo (which we will discuss a little later), the Dialogue is an exceptionally striking document directed against those provisions with which the Catholic Church has come in solidarity. Indeed, the latter took the geocentric system of Aristotle-Ptolemy under its protection, declaring that the recognition of the Sun as the fixed center of the world is stupid and absurd from the point of view of philosophy and heretical in essence, as clearly contradicting many texts of scripture; giving the Earth a daily motion is at least a delusion in matters of faith. Meanwhile, the entire main text of the Dialogue testifies that Galileo considered the heliocentric system of Copernicus to be the only real system of the world, in defense of which he collected a large number of various convincing arguments. This is the strength of the Dialogue as a work that has an objectively anti-religious character, which it has not lost to this day. The full title of the work of Galileo under consideration, placed on the title page, may mislead an insufficiently prepared reader. It is possible that he will treat her as a big, seasoned classical style mathematical work and will seek in it a detailed exposition of the teachings of Ptolemy and Copernicus, an explanation of the advantages that the latter gives in comparison with the theory of epicycles, an indication of weak spots this teaching, perhaps a partial improvement of it, an interpretation of Kepler's laws, etc. But almost nothing of this is contained in the Dialogue. Galileo, in his presentation, simplifies the Copernican system to the extreme, considering the motion of the planets as taking place exactly in concentric circles, and only in one case does he slip the expression - the average distance from the Earth to the Sun; he mentions Kepler only in passing and not at all in connection with his laws; leaves the theory of epicycles almost untouched. Instead, he sums up all the data at his disposal from the field of mechanics, physics and astronomy to prove, as an immutable child, that the Earth has a daily and annual motion, and the Sun is stationary, skillfully breaking down opposing arguments and consciously allowing for reasoning that may at first glance seem to be deviations from the main train of thought, but which are actually subordinate to one holistic idea. True, both in the address to the reader, and in the final part of the fourth day of the Dialogue, and in many places in the text, Galileo speaks of the Copernican system only as a hypothesis; however, these formal and forced explanations in no way shake the most convincing arguments in favor of its reality and do not allow the reader to doubt for a minute the true intentions of the creator of the Dialogue. Galileo divides the content of his work into four days. The first is assigned to them to criticize the teachings of the Peripatetics about the completely different nature of the heavenly bodies and the Earth, and to prove their great similarity; the second day is devoted to proving the compatibility of the movements of bodies on the Earth with the daily rotation of the latter around its axis; during the third day, the question of the revolution of the Earth around the Sun is mainly dealt with, and the proof of a large distance from the Earth is attributed to the same day new star, which appeared in 1572 in the constellation of Cassiopeia, although this issue, as affecting the variability of the sky, is more related to the theme of the first day; finally, the fourth day is devoted to a consideration of how the phenomena of tides are easily explained by the presence of a diurnal rotation in the first place ...
Price Realized: $173,000
Galilei, Galileo. Dialogo... sopre i due massimi sistemi del mondo Tolemaico, e Copernicano. Florence: Gian Battista Landini, 1632. PMM 128.
Care: $173,000. Auction Christie "s. Fine Printed Books and Manuscripts Including Americana. December 04, 2014. New York, Rockefeller Plaza. Lot No. 216.
Lot description:
4° (221x158 mm.). Etched frontispiece by Stefano della Bella, italic type, shoulder notes in roman type, printer's woodcut device on title-page, 31 woodcut illustrations and diagrams in text, woodcut initials, type ornament head- and tail-pieces and factotum initials, errata leaf Ff6, manuscript addition of letter H to diagram on M8v (p.192), with the printed correction slip pasted in margin of F6v (p. 92). the corners, spine in six compartments with five raised bands, gilt and gauffred edges, marbled pastedowns (upper and lower spine compartments with some slight worming, some minor rubbing). Provenance: Raicewich (inkstamp on front flyleaf); sold Sotheby's London , 17 July 1967, lot 148.
Full title of the polemical work in Russian:
"Dialogue" of Galileo and the dishonor of the Inquisition
On Tuesday, April 12, 1633, in the palace of the Inquisition, the Florentine Galileo Galilei was asked the following question:
“Does he know, or suppose, for what reason he is commanded to come to Rome?”
"I think replied the scientist- that the reason why I was ordered to appear in Rome before the Holy Inquisition is to give an account of my recently printed book, I also think the same about the order presented to the bookseller and me a few days before the order announced to me to appear in Rome, not to publish more than these books, and also about the order of the inquisitor to the bookseller to present the original of my book to the Holy Inquisition in Rome.
Galileo was shown the book Dialogue, printed in Florence, and asked if he recognized it as his own. The answer was:
“I recognize the book presented to me as one of those printed in Florence, and I recognize everything contained in it as composed by me.”
Thus began the most shameful trial of an outstanding book and its creator, which ended with the prohibition of the "heretical" book and the imprisonment of Galileo. Until the end of his days, the greatest scientist - astronomer, mathematician, poet, philologist and critic - remained a prisoner of the Inquisition. After graduating from the University of Pisa, Galileo Galilei, at the age of 25, took the chair of mathematics here. Then for almost two decades (1592-1610) he taught mathematics in Padua. From 1610 he lived and worked in Florence, where he became "the first philosopher and mathematician of the Grand Duke of Tuscany." In addition, he translated from Greek into Latin, studied the classics of antiquity, left sketches of the play, wrote "Satire on the Wearers of the Toga", sonnets, was a co-author of the canzone "On the Medici Stars" - Jupiter's satellites. ... What is so frightened almighty Catholic Church? Galileo dared - after the official prohibition of the revolutionary teachings of Copernicus and the "delay of his book until corrected" - to stand up for him, dared to propagate this teaching in every possible way. Throughout his life, he argued that the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus was not an abstract mathematical hypothesis, but the truth ... Galileo got acquainted with the teachings of Copernicus in his student years: his notebook was preserved, where there is a mention of the Polish astronomer. Having become a professor at the University of Padua, Galileo in his lectures touched upon the problems of astronomy, following the official point of view on the structure of the Universe. However, the facts show that already at that time Galileo was a supporter of the heliocentric system of the world. Having received his first book Cosmographic Mystery from Johannes Kepler (1596), Galileo admits in a letter to its author: nature, which, no doubt, cannot be explained on the basis of generally accepted provisions. I have written down many proofs and many refutations of reasoning based on the opposite point of view; but I did not dare to release all this into the light, frightened by the fate of Copernicus, our teacher, who, although he earned immortal fame from a few, was only ridiculed and booed by countless people (for so many fools are). The letter has a date - August 4, 1597. And thirteen years later, Galileo, with the help of his spotting scope, makes amazing astronomical discoveries, "until now unknown to any person." It turns out that there are mountains on the moon and deep depressions, Jupiter has four satellites orbiting this planet; sunspots move across the sun's surface. Furthermore, Milky Way- a huge white stripe in the sky is a cluster of individual stars. And each discovery clearly confirmed the teachings of Nicolaus Copernicus. Now Galileo made up his mind. He proceeds to his Starry Herald, where, in a calm business tone, he gives an account of his observations and draws general conclusions. It contains neither praise of the creator, nor references to the texts of scripture. Galileo was in such a hurry that the first sheet of the Messenger was printed and sent out before the entire book, which was published in Venice on March 8, 1610. On the first day of March, censorship permission was received, which indicated that Galileo's Star Messenger "does not contain anything contrary holy catholic faith, laws and good morals. The book made a stunning impression on contemporaries. And the great scientist was rightly called "the Columbus of the sky." Some contemporaries, comparing his discovery with the discovery of America, said that if the past century is rightfully proud of the discovery of new lands, then this century will forever gain glory for itself with the discovery of new heavens ... When Tommaso Campanella learned about the Starry Herald in his dungeon, he addressed to its author with an enthusiastic letter. The enemies did not doze, sharply condemning the "Vestnik". The voices of the ignoramuses and obscurantists were heard louder and louder. Galileo had no intention of laying down his arms. In connection with the description of the Moon, he mentions the "System of the World" that he is preparing, in which he confirms with "six hundred proofs and natural-philosophical reasoning" that the Earth "moves and surpasses the Moon with its light." This is the first mention of Galileo in print about heliocentric system world, and "The System of the World" is the first draft of the "Dialogue ...". Meanwhile, Galileo's first confrontation with the Inquisition was approaching. In May 1610, the pamphlet “The Shortest Journey Against the Starry Messenger” was published. Its author, the Czech Martin Gorky, claimed that Galileo "sold the probable instead of the true to mortals." The attacks on Galileo soon became public. They began to talk about the prohibition of the treatise of Nicolaus Copernicus. Galileo wrote bitterly:
“My adversaries demand that a book long admitted by the holy church, which they have never seen, be banned, let alone read and understood.”
The Inquisition received denunciations against Galileo, accusing him of proving the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun. The Inquisition asked its censors for an opinion on the two main provisions of the Copernican theory, which Galileo defended and developed. When asked about the immobility of the Sun, the censors unanimously answered that this statement was "foolish and absurd in philosophical terms and heretical in formal terms"; just as unanimously the censors-theologians rejected the idea of the motion of the earth. This conclusion was signed on February 24, 1616. Shortly before this, Galileo wrote:
“To ban Copernicus now, after the truth of his statements has been increasingly revealed by scientists in numerous observations and in studies of his work from the day on, and his doctrine is more and more strengthened; to ban it after it had been tolerated for several years... would be a crime against the truth.”
On March 5, 1616, the teaching of Copernicus was banned as "false and completely contrary to the Holy Scriptures", and his treatise was included in the Index of Forbidden Books "until correction." However, given the enormous influence of Galileo, the inquisitors decided to reach an agreement with Galileo. The decree of March 5 does not mention the name of Galileo, and in the list of detained and condemned books there is neither his "Star Messenger" nor "Letters on sun spots ". Galileo was summoned to Cardinal Bellarmino for “exhortation” - so that he would no longer, at least publicly, defend the heliocentric system of the world, Bellarmino issued a certificate to the scientist stating that Galileo had been declared a decree - “the teaching of Copernicus is contrary to the Holy Scripture and cannot be neither defend nor adhere to. And again, T. Campanella spoke in defense of Galileo. For many years he was imprisoned, the commandants of prisons in Naples received an order: "to take measures so that Tommaso Campanella is deprived of any opportunity to write." But the condemned "heretic" managed to write. He wrote the Apology of Galileo. In 1622, one of Campanella's students published an "Apology" in Frankfurt am Main. The Inquisition immediately banned the book; and its author found himself in even more terrible conditions. He was thrown into the dungeon. Pitch darkness, mud, water squishing underfoot, chains - such is the payment for the "Apology". (Note that several first printed copies of the Apology of Galileo have survived in the world. One of them is kept in the funds of the M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library. This rare copy belonged to the 17th-century Polish astronomer Jan Hevelius, he personally there is an inscription on it.) Galileo, despite the prohibition of the heliocentric system, decided to take a bold step - to complete his great work, promised in the Starry Messenger and in some letters. On May 7, 1610, he spoke of his desire to "complete" the book "On the System of the World." Over time, a form of labor arose - dialogue. He wrote to one of his friends: “So far, I am moving forward my “Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow”, and at the same time the Copernican system is advancing.” Galileo considered the tides of the sea to be irrefutable evidence of the movement of the Earth. Friends of Galileo and even the secretary of Pope Ciampoli in 1624 the scientist gave a brief sketch of the "Dialogue ..." in his famous letter to F. Ingoli, a theologian from Ravenna. The author's reasoning about why he decided on this answer is curious. (The reasoning is repeated in the preface to the “Dialogue ...”) “The teaching of Copernicus,” says Galileo, “is now banned in Italy and in the countries of Catholicism; but let others not think that this happened only because in Rome they were not able to understand doctrine of Copernicus; no, erudition and talents are alive in Italy. An Italian scientist cannot leave unanswered ignorant assertions, presented as scientific refutations of Copernicus. " A few more years of hard work, and the book is completed. Galileo's letter of December 24, 1629 states:
“I brought my Dialogue almost to the pier and revealed very clearly much that seemed to me almost inexplicable.”
Now it was necessary to obtain permission to publish a grandiose work - the fruit of the author's thoughts for three decades. Work, where the correctness of the views of Copernicus was convincingly and conclusively defended. Galileo had to apply a lot of strength, endurance, wisdom and cunning to lull the vigilance of the authorities. Suffice it to say that the book has five permits (two of them were obtained in Rome, three in Florence). At the beginning of May 1630, Galileo went to Rome and began to work hard on his "Dialogue"; he was assisted in this by Ambassador Niccolini and other friends, of whom Galileo had many. He was favorably received by the pope himself, he also had meetings with the papal censor M. Riccardi and the papal secretary Ciampoli. The manuscript was given to the Dominican R. Visconti for viewing. A month later, he sent a note to Galileo stating that "he (i.e., Riccardi) likes the book and that tomorrow he will talk with dad about the title page." Referring to the pope, the censor suggested that the title be changed, the words "tides" and "ebb" removed from it. Riccardi also demanded that in the preface and concluding part of the book the hypothetical nature of Copernicus' teaching be clearly emphasized and the thesis of the omnipotence of God be developed. Other - already minor - amendments were also proposed. They were supposed to be taken care of by Visconti. After that, a preface was drafted. In mid-June, the scientist returned to Florence with the permission of the papal censor Riccardi. Here, at home, Galileo intended to compile the table of contents, write the dedication, and finalize the text. Unexpectedly, Galileo received a notification from Rome from his oldest student B. Castelli: the book must be printed in Florence and as soon as possible - there are serious reasons for that. Galileo used the Roman permission to lull the vigilance of the Florentine Inquisition. He quickly found a publisher and already on September 11 he achieved the consent of both spiritual and secular authorities (the book has permission from the Florentine inquisitor, vicar general and ducal censor). There was a real danger that the Florentine inquisitors might catch on, because Riccardi's permission had no legal force in Florence. It needed permission coming from the pope himself. On September 21, 1630, B. Castelli informed Galileo that Riccardi was asking for the manuscript of the Dialogue. But they did not dare to send it - it could be lost during shipment. Riccardi later requested a preface and conclusion. Only by making sure that they meet the requirements, he will be able to confirm that the book is approved by him. Galileo agreed without hesitation to place the preface compiled at the direction of Riccardi and to change the end of the Dialogue. He introduced what he opposed all his life. But it is important for a great scientist to publish his work at any cost. Sending a sketch of the introduction and conclusion to Rome, Galileo wrote that "high-ranking officials may, at their own discretion, add, omit, and make remarks as they deem necessary." After a rather lengthy correspondence between Florence and Rome, the papal censor finally sends the approved texts of the beginning and end of the "Dialogue", and in a cover letter to the Florentine inquisitor K. Egidio says that he does this "at the command of our Master" (i.e., the pope) . All the formalities have been completed, and the printing of the book has begun at full speed. Finally, in February 1632, the book was published in Florence. Its frontispiece depicts Aristotle, Ptolemy and Copernicus talking. Their names are engraved along the bottom edge of the robes. Above - the ducal crown, below - the trademark of the publisher Batista Landini. The engraving was done by the artist Stefano della Bella.
Frontispiece of the first edition of Galileo's Dialogue. Florence, 1632.
On the title page is the full title of the work:
"Dialogue of Galileo Galilei, academician Lincei, extraordinary mathematician of the University of Pisa, philosopher and senior mathematician of His Serene Highness the Grand Duke of Tuscany, where in meetings lasting four days, discussions are held on the two most prominent systems of the world, Ptolemaic and Copernican, and arguments are offered vaguely as many for one of them as much for the other. And the publisher's mark is repeated on the title, under it is the inscription:"Florence, edition of Batista Landini, 1632".
Even lower, under the line:
"With the permission of the authorities."
The "Dialogue" includes all the works of Galileo - "The Starry Herald", "Treatise on Accelerated Motion", "Letters on Sunspots", "Message to Ingoli", "Message to Cardinal Orsini on the Ebb and Flow" - in a word, everything created by him from 1590 to 1625. The goal of the scientist is to present not only astronomical, but also mechanical arguments to prove the truth of Copernicus. The author chose the "amazing city of Venice" - the pearl of the Adriatic - as the scene of the "Dialogue". Three people gather in the palace for four days in a row. One (fictitious person) - the representative and defender of Aristotle and Ptolemy; his name is quite symbolic - Simplicio (in Italian "simpleton"), Another - Sagredo (the owner of the palazzo where the conversations take place) - a friend of Galileo, who died in 1620. Ego is a man of "a very sharp mind." The third - Salviati - was a student of Galileo in Padua (died in 1614), had a "noble mind that did not know a higher pleasure than research and reflection." Galileo's point of view is developed and proved by Salviati; Sagredo quickly learns everything, sometimes supplements; Simplicio is certainly a fan of old views. About Galileo himself, the interlocutors say: "Academician" or "Our mutual friend." The dialogue convincingly proved the truth of the Copernican system of the world and the falsity of the Ptolemaic one. Summing up, for example, the results of telescopic discoveries, Sagredo exclaims: “Oh, Nicolaus Copernicus! How glad you would be if you could live to see new observations that so brilliantly confirm your thought! And Salviati adds:
"All diseases nestle in the Ptolemaic system, yet medicines are found in the teachings of Copernicus."
Galileo not only crushed the dilapidated geocentric system. He infinitely expanded the size of the universe. The book is distinguished by clarity of presentation and wit, it is written in the form of a lively conversation in colloquial Italian.
“I wrote in the vernacular because Galileo explained, what I need so that everyone can read my work.”
"Dialogue" is a monument not only to the scientific genius of Galileo, but also to his brilliant literary talent. This is one of the outstanding works of scientific prose. The high scientific significance of the "Dialogue" and the extraordinary literary talent of its author were also noted by A. Einstein in the preface to the "Dialogue". After the publication of the book, Galileo presented several copies to the Grand Duke of Tuscany Ferdinand II and his courtiers, sent two copies to Rome - to Cardinal Barberini and the papal secretary of Ciampoli. Copies intended for high-ranking persons were bound in leather with gold embossing. The remaining copies were more modest and had a paper cover. Then another 30 copies went to Rome, one of them for Campanella, 52 - to Bologna. Part of the circulation was sent abroad... "Dialogue" was an unprecedented success. For this work - a book of five hundred pages - the author was responsible before the Inquisition. The work was published in February, and already at the end of September the order of the papal inquisition was given to the scientist to come to Rome in October. Galileo was ill and asked that his case be examined in Florence. He was only able to get a few reprieve. Finally, he was threatened that he would be delivered in shackles, and he went voluntarily to Rome, where he arrived on February 13, 1633 and stayed in the palace of the Florentine ambassador ... Tommaso Campanella boldly defended Galileo. Now he was at large and defiantly demanded that his book The Apology of Galileo be reviewed by the Holy Office. Contrary to the decree of March 5, the Apology proved that there was nothing criminal in adherence to the ideas of Copernicus. Having been refused, Campanella announced that he would act as the official defender of the accused at the trial. Several charges were brought against the scientist.
“Galileo, without permission, put a Roman permission on the book, without informing him of the one who signed it”;
"He printed the preface in a different font, and thereby made it useless, separating it from the text of the book itself."
"In many places in the book, he goes beyond the hypothesis, absolutely affirming the movement of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun."
During interrogations, Galileo chose a cautious tactic: contrary to evidence, he categorically denied that he shared the Copernican doctrine after the Inquisition declared him heretical. Galileo stood firmly on the fact that in the discussion about the heliocentric system of the world, it was not forbidden to write and speak. And the book itself was released to the public with the permission of censorship. It turned out that formally the scientist is not to blame for anything. Then he was reminded of the decision of the court of 1616, in which it was allegedly forbidden to speak and write in any way about the teachings of Copernicus. In response to this, Galileo stated that the words "in no way" were announced to him. As evidence, he showed Bellarmino's letter, which made sure that Galileo was not subjected to the procedure of official prohibition. According to modern researchers, the document dated February 26 is falsified. It was important for the clergy to wrest the abdication from Galileo at all costs, and they resorted to forgery. After interrogation, Galileo was arrested and imprisoned in the palace of the Inquisition. For 18 days, the Commissar of the Inquisition "exhorted" the scientist... After that, he submitted a written statement to the investigation. He re-read the Dialogue again and admitted that many passages of his book are expressed in such a way that, by their strength, they can rather strengthen the “false opinion” than facilitate its refutation. But at the same time, he resolutely denied the presence of malice:
“My error is based on empty vanity, complete ignorance and imprudence.”
Galileo further suggested that the Dialogue be completed in order to completely refute the arguments in favor of a false and condemned opinion. It was, of course, a trick. After that, Galileo was released and awaited his fate in the palace of the Florentine ambassador. Meanwhile, the denouement drew near. At a meeting of the Inquisition on June 16, 1633, the fate of Galileo was decided; public recantation, imprisonment of the author, and banning of the book. There is a rather curious amendment in the act. Where it says that the book of Galileo "should be banned", the original words were "should be publicly burned." It is interesting what the scientist thought about this:
“If they decide to burn my Dialogue, I don’t know where they will find even one copy. It's good if they print it again so they have something to burn."
At this meeting, Pope Urban VIII (a former friend of the scientist) ordered that Galileo be interrogated under threat of torture, which was done at the last interrogation on June 21. Galileo, under interrogation, insisted on his previous explanations and was therefore declared "highly suspicious of heresy" and not "an incorrigible heretic." Moreover, he agreed that Ptolemy's opinion was indisputable. And he was threatened not with a fire, but with imprisonment. The verdict was announced the next day with a large gathering of people in the church of St. Mary. Galileo read his "repudiation". The verdict stated:
“We decided to ban a book called Dialogue by Galileo Galilei, and imprison you yourself under St. judgment for an indefinite time.
“It is from this moment,” wrote Professor N. Idelson, “The Dialogue of the three interlocutors will go down in the history of culture not only as one of the remarkable works of Italian literature and world science, but also as a book marked with the seal of Galileo’s personal suffering, as a symbol of the struggle advanced science with dilapidated doctrines that do not give up their last positions without a fight.
There is an opinion that Galileo did not show sufficient courage, that he "retreated", that he had to "proudly climb the fire", etc. But for Galileo it was important to defend the objective truth. And in his mind, "Conversations and Mathematical Proofs" were already taking shape, in which the ideas of the "Dialogue" received further development. Soviet researcher, Professor B. Kuznetsov claims that Galileo foresaw the further evolution of classical science. He was convinced that the battle between tradition and science had already ended in the victory of science, that renunciation was an episode of those rearguard battles that could no longer change the outcome of the battle. He's writing:
“Galileo, despite the renunciation, was a martyr of science, but for the historical assessment of this renunciation and the fate of the scientist, the possibility of further objectification of the new science, which was realized after the process of 1633 in Conversations and Mathematical Proofs, is essential- this real equivalent of the legendary: "She's still spinning."
In recent years, Galileo has been working hard. On a copy of the first edition of his Dialogue, he makes marginal corrections, new remarks and additions. So, in one place of the Dialogue, Simplicio's remark was omitted in the main text, it was given on a separate sheet. Galileo did not have this insert, and he restored the text from memory. The most significant addition to the "Dialogue" shows the true attitude of Galileo to the prohibitions of the Inquisition not to talk about the new theory:
“Beware, theologians who wish to make the question of the motion or rest of the Sun and the Earth an article of faith; you are in danger of condemning as heretics in due time all those who maintained that the earth is fixed and the sun changes place; I say “in due time” when it will be clearly and irrefutably proven that the earth moves and the sun is motionless.”
(The original text of the notes was published in the seventh volume of the National Edition, a copy of the Dialogue with Galileo's notes is kept in the library of the Padua Seminary.) It is known that there was a decree of the Inquisition forbidding a scholar to print any works. Galileo ignored this decree. The famous firm of Elseviers in 1635 in Strasbourg published a Latin translation of the Dialogue. Professor of mathematics M. Bernegger writes in the preface that the edition was published without the knowledge of the author. The publication was carried out on the initiative of the scientist E. Diodati, who was close to Galileo, communicated and corresponded with T. Campanella. Galileo wrote to Diodati that the release of the book is revenge on his enemies: now everyone will see their ignorance, "the source of malice, envy, rage and all other monstrous and disgusting vices and sins." In the same year, 1635, an English translation of the Dialogue was published. A year later, the French ambassador de Noaille visited the prisoner of the Inquisition. Galileo gave him his manuscript of the Discourses, which were published by the same firm (1638). It is the “Conversations” that are the best proof of the intransigence of the great scientist: “stubborn Galileo” (Pushkin’s words) puts his former heroes into action, and in dedication to de Noaille emphasizes that he is again inspired to fight with his opponents. "Conversations" start a new era in science - the era of mathematical science. Academician A. Ishlinsky noted that Galileo "with amazing insight brought to the fore the mathematical methods of studying nature." Six months before his death, Galileo received a letter from the representative of Florence in Venice, F. Rinnuccini, in which he expressed doubts about the truth of Copernicus' theory. Galileo replied caustically and ironically:
“The falsity of the Copernican system is beyond suspicion after it has been declared by the highest authority of the church. All arguments of Copernicus and his followers are refuted by the argument of the omnipotence of God, for whom everything is possible, even what seems absurd. But the system of Aristotle and Ptolemy is even more erroneous, because to refute them there is no need to resort to the authority of the church and the omnipotence of God, but rather simple human reason ... "
Galileo passed away in the 78th year of his life. One of the most brilliant thinkers, a great astronomer, mechanic, physicist and mathematician, has passed away. The tragic fate of the prisoner of the Inquisition, his great books, which began the science of modern times, attract more and more generations to the image of Galileo, who personifies in the eyes of our contemporary the struggle against prejudice for new ideas about the Universe, Earth, space, time and movement. Open speech against medieval world view, started by Galileo, was supported by Dutch, German and French scientists. From their midst came Huygens, Newton, Euler, d'Alembert, Laplace... For the first time, the "Dialogue" was printed on Italian in Florence in 1632, three years later his translation was published in Strasbourg in Latin, and then in English and Flemish. After that, Galileo's work was published several times. In 1842, the first edition was undertaken in Florence. Complete collection works of the great scientist; the first volume included "Dialogue". Half a century later this volume was translated into German (Leipzig). Finally, in Florence, a 20-volume collected works of Galileo, the so-called "National" is published. Dialogue" was included in the seventh volume (1896). At the end of the volume are Galileo's notes made by him on the book of the first edition. In America, the translation was published in 1953 with a preface by A. Einstein (Los Angeles). In Russian, this preface can be found in the 16th issue of "Problems of the History of Natural Science and Technology" (M., 1964). The first Russian translation of Dialogue was published in 1948 (translated by A. I. Dolgov). There were other publications as well. It must be said that Galileo and his discoveries were already known in Muscovite Russia. In the astrological compilation "The Tale of King Solomon" (also known as "The Wisdom of Solomon"), when describing the planet Zeus (Jupiter), it is said that she "walks in four stars, herself the fifth." It is clear that we are talking about the four satellites of Jupiter, discovered by Galileo in 1610. The compiler of the Tale was familiar with the Star Messenger. The "Wisdom of Solomon" was compiled in 1633. In the time of Peter the Great, many translated books appeared in Russia. Some of them mention Galileo as a follower of Copernicus. The last edition of Galileo's "Selected Works" (in 2 volumes) was published in our country in 1964. His biography was known from many books, including the one published in the Pavlenkov series "The Life of Remarkable People". In the same series, founded by Gorky, the book "Galileo" by E. Zeitlin was published in 1935 in the fifth or sixth edition. Such is the history of Galileo Galilei's famous "Dialogue", which shook the foundations of the Church's worldview so much that the clergy, in order to condemn it, resorted to both a direct forgery and a "crime against the truth." The torch of scientific knowledge lit by Galileo was picked up by Isaac Newton. In his Principia Mathematica, the life work of the Italian scientist found its brilliant conclusion. Author of the article: Alexey Glukhov.
Galileo's "Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World" attracts researchers with the variety of argumentation strategies presented in it and the flexible combination of different positions and methods (empiricism and rationalism, optimism about human cognitive abilities and skepticism, reasoning based on qualitative characteristics, and the use of geometric models, etc.). e.) . Indeed, what is striking in the Dialogue is Galileo's ingenuity in the construction of arguments and examples and the impossibility of reducing the polemical strategies he uses to any one general formula.
This feature of the "Dialogue" is inextricably linked with its main content. After all, it is devoted to purely scientific issues, but its addressee is not a specific scientific community. The fact is that such a community has not yet been formed, and the issue of the structure of the Universe aroused burning interest and was discussed by an educated public, including illustrious persons. Galileo works in a situation where there are still no well-defined methods of justification that are acceptable in the discussion scientific question. Galileo, in fact, in many respects will have to create them, because the existing standards of argumentation (reliance on authorities, for example) just do not suit him.
However, there is another important circumstance connected with the main content of the "Dialogue", which forces Galileo to use various and very sophisticated polemical techniques. The particular complexity of the question of whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth comes from the fact that it cannot be solved by pointing to the facts. As Galileo himself explains in the Dialogue, no matter how things are - whether the Earth is stationary and the heavens are rotating, or whether the Earth is rotating and the celestial sphere is motionless - we who are on Earth will observe the same thing.
A significant part of the scientific theses defended by Galileo concerns phenomena that cannot be observed directly, whether it be the actual movement of the Earth or the movement of a body in the absence of environmental resistance. Galileo's task is to bring the theory he defends out of the state of "empirical weightlessness". To do this, he must prepare his readers so that they can see in what is accessible to observation and what is sometimes quite familiar to them, what is inaccessible to direct observation. We need to change our way of seeing. This is what the methods of argumentation invented by Galileo are aimed at.
However, the peculiarity of the situation in which he finds himself is that it is not only cosmological or astronomical theory that is in question. To refute the geocentric picture of the world, Galileo must convince his readers of what destroyed the very foundations of Aristotelian and medieval science: that the sense organs given by God are neither the only nor the best instrument of perception, that the observed movements are not true movements, that the Universe is vast and boundless etc. That is, Galileo changes the very idea of what arguments in physical and cosmological matters can rely on, what can generally be considered as an observation, what human reasoning can - or cannot - rely on. It is clear that in such a situation, the construction of an argument requires special ingenuity. For the task of Galileo's "Dialogue" is to educate an audience that will be able to perceive his arguments.
Let us begin our study by examining the form and structure of the Dialogue. Here it should be said that the form of dialogue was generally characteristic of the culture of the Renaissance. As noted by L.M. Batkin, “dialogue was not just one of the literary genres of the Italian Renaissance. ... The composition of the dialogue corresponded to the Renaissance ability to take completely different spiritual positions as mutually and equally necessary, to coordinate them in order to approach the inexhaustible-single Truth, to use them as adjacent and, therefore, inconclusive. The dialogical exposition corresponded well to what I would call the dialogic character of humanistic thinking...” . We cited this quotation in order to emphasize that these characteristics are inapplicable to Galileo's Dialogue. In it, despite the inevitable reservations and rather careless attempts to deceive the censorship, one correct position, from the point of view of the author, is indicated with sufficient certainty, and every effort is made to finally refute the opponents.
In this case, one could assume that the form of dialogue is external for Galileo's "Dialogue", imposed by circumstances and serving only to avert the eyes of censorship. This, however, is not the case. Galileo uses this genre very productively, building on its basis some special polemical strategies.
Let's look first of all at the characters of the Dialogue. They are three Venetian patricians - Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio. The first two characters bear the names of Galileo's deceased friends, while the name of the third is "speaking". On the one hand, it is an Italianized version of the name of the famous commentator Aristotle - Simplicius - and is quite appropriate for a character who throughout the dialogue invariably defends the Aristotelian position. On the other hand, the word "simplicio" in Italian means "simpleton". Thus, this name is part of the means by which Galileo draws the image of this character and expresses his attitude towards him, and through him - to the adherents of geocentrism.
At the level of the most superficial consideration, it looks like the Dialogue presents a symmetrical structure of the distribution of beliefs. Salviati consistently defends Copernicanism and criticizes Aristotelian physics and cosmology. Simplicio likewise unfailingly and consistently defends Aristotelianism. Sagredo acts as an open-minded and unbiased judge of their dispute.
And since, at the end of the Dialogue, all three characters unanimously emphasize that the teaching of Copernicus is nothing more than a hypothesis and fantasy, and that the human mind is incapable of penetrating into the abyss of divine wisdom, then, indeed, one might think that the form of dialogue serves exclusively for averting the eyes of censorship.
However, let's take a closer look at the characters in the Dialogue and their roles. First of all, we note that a certain Academician also appears on the pages of the Dialogue, whose name is mentioned with great respect. Salviati refers to the results of his research. The named character supports the position of Salviati with his authority. As for Sagredo, he is presented as an open-minded and at the same time very inquisitive and sensible person. However, in fact, he plays on the side of Salviati. Either he highly appreciates Salviati's argumentation, or he recalls an example that is very suitable for Salviati's reasoning, or he encourages him to consider the proof in more detail, which gives Salviati a reason to develop his thoughts and add arguments. Galileo puts the most caustic remarks against the Aristotelians precisely into the mouth of the Sagredo. Here you can see a subtle psychological device, because the remark is all the more effective, the more unbiased the person who expresses it is presented. Thus, thanks to the form of dialogue, the position of
Pernicans and opponents of Aristotle seem to be supported by many voices and agree with normal common sense.
As for Simplicio, throughout the entire "Dialogue" he is invariably distinguished by a certain stupidity, ignorance in matters of the exact sciences, dogmatic narrow-mindedness and a panic fear of losing support in the form of recognized authority, which can be followed thoughtlessly. The bright opposite of him is the inquisitive,
open, witty, grasping "on the fly" the complex scientific argumentation of the Sagredo.
The characters of the "Dialogue" have bright individual characteristics, which also contribute to the polemical strategies of the named text, since they correlate with one of the important value oppositions of the revivalist culture. In the Sagredo one can see the embodiment of the Renaissance ideal of a free, independently thinking, independent individual. Again, in his mouth, Galileo puts a deadly description of the way of thinking that Simplicio represents: “the slaves of Aristotle, (who) can only think with his mind and feel with his feelings” (p. 230).
Elsewhere, the Sagredo says:
I very much sympathize with Signor Simplicio... I think I hear him say: “To whom shall we resort to resolve our disputes if the throne of Aristotle is overturned? What other authority will we follow in schools, in academies, in teaching?.. .So, it is necessary... to destroy that shelter, that Prytaneum, where so many thirsty for knowledge hid so comfortably, where, not subject to weather changes and only turning over a few sheets paper, they acquired all the knowledge of nature?<...>"(p. 154).
guided solely by the arguments of the mind, all the time continued to assert what sense experiences apparently contradicted, and I cannot be surprised enough at how he kept insisting all the time that Venus revolves around the Sun and that it is 7 times farther away from us in in one case than in another, despite the fact that it always appears to us the same, when it should appear 40 times larger (p. 434).
Elsewhere, speaking of new data obtained through telescopic observations, Salviati again says:
Here it is necessary to once again loudly express the surprise of Copernicus's foresight and at the same time regret that he does not live in our time, when, in refutation of the seeming absurdity of the joint movement of the Earth and the Moon, we observe that Jupiter, as it were, the second Earth, in the society of more than one Moon , and, accompanied by four moons, makes its way around the Sun in 12 years, along with everything that can be enclosed within the orbits of the four Medicean stars (S. 435).
In such an assessment of Copernicus, one can clearly hear the Platonic assessment of the mind as the only source of true knowledge, in contrast to feelings. But not only. The high appreciation of the free, independent human individuality sounds no less clearly here.
It should be noted here that a characteristic feature of the Galilean text is the intense presence on its pages of arguments appealing to values and evaluations. At one time, A. Koyre, describing the essence of the scientific revolution of the 17th century, singled out such a feature as “the exclusion from scientific use of all judgments based on qualitative assessments, concepts of perfection, harmony, imagery and intentions” . Result the scientific revolution was just that. However during scientific revolution, arguments of this kind were necessary, firstly, because they were often used by Aristotle, and secondly, because Galileo, as already mentioned, does not refer to a specific professional community, but to a wide circle of the educated public, for whom the question of the true structure of the universe, which directly affected worldview issues, aroused a burning interest. Therefore, the appeal to values was inevitable. It is felt, however, that for Galileo it is quite organic.
The ideological significance of the Copernican doctrine was due to the fact that it undermined the opposition of the earthly and the heavenly, i.e. lower, imperfect, transient and higher, perfect, unchanging. This opposition is the supporting structure of Aristotelian cosmology. And at the same time, it has a pronounced value character. Therefore, Galileo, like Aristotle and his followers, appeals to values. It's just different values.
Sagredo. I cannot listen without great surprise and even great resistance of the mind to how, as attributes of special nobility and perfection, the natural and integral bodies of the universe are credited with equanimity, immutability, indestructibility, etc., and, on the contrary, consider the emergence, destruction, variability to be great imperfection etc., I myself consider the Earth especially noble and worthy of admiration for the many and very different changes, transformations, occurrences, etc., which continuously take place on it; if it did not undergo any changes, if it were all a huge sandy desert or a mass of jasper, or if during the flood the waters that covered it froze, and it became a huge ball of ice, where nothing is ever born, changes or transforms, then I would call it a body useless for the world and, to put it briefly, superfluous and, as it were, not existing in nature; I would draw here the same distinction that exists between a living and a dead animal; I will say the same about the Moon, Jupiter and other world bodies. The more I delve into the vanity of popular opinions, the more I find them frivolous and absurd. ... Those who exalt indestructibility, immutability, etc., are driven to say such things, I believe, only by a great desire to live longer and fear of death; they do not think that if people were immortal, then they should not have been born at all. They deserve a meeting with the head of Medusa, who would turn them into a statue of diamond or jasper, so that they become more perfect than they are now. Salviati. Perhaps such a metamorphosis will do them good, since, in my opinion, it is better not to reason at all than to reason wrongly (p. 366).
Here we see that Galileo (through Salviati), like Aristotle, uses arguments from values and perfection in his argument, but his values are opposite to those on which Aristotelian physics and cosmology relied. Galileo appeals to the values of the Renaissance culture, such as novelty and creativity, in order to make the arguments of the Aristotelians unconvincing.
And even when Galileo apparently appeals to the same values as his opponents, he gives them a completely different meaning. So, he agrees with Aristotle in togas that the universe is perfect. But if for Aristotle this meant a harmonious and stable hierarchy of higher and lower, then for Galileo the postulate of the perfection of the Universe becomes a weapon against the Aristotelian hierarchy of the sublunar and supralunar worlds. Galileo says that in the Universe, all parts of which are in perfect order, rectilinear motion cannot be natural for any body. If there is natural movement, then it could only be
circular for any bodies, says Galileo. This statement undermines the main Aristotelian opposition of the supralunar and sublunar spheres: according to Aristotle, for the bodies of the supralunar world, circular motion is natural, and for the bodies of the sublunar, rectilinear. Galileo substantiates his statement by the fact that in a perfect, ordered Universe, all parts are in their places, therefore, they must move in such a way that everything remains in their places, and this is possible only with circular motion.
At the same time, Galileo's statement that rectilinear motion is infinite in nature is interesting, because a straight line is infinite. Arguing in this way, Galileo clearly ignores the words of Aristotle himself. Aristotle explicitly rejects the possibility of an infinite line - after all, he considers the universe to be finite. Galileo's attitude to infinity is fundamentally different from Aristotle's and brings to mind Nicholas of Cusa.
Let us see, further, how the Dialogue discusses the question of why there are boundless outer spaces and celestial bodies. This question arises in connection with Galileo's explanation of why astronomers do not observe any effects of the Earth's annual motion. This is because the distance to the stellar sphere is much greater than hitherto thought. This assumption evokes the following remark by Simplicio
Simplicio. These reasonings are absolutely correct, and no one denies that the size of the sky can exceed our imagination, and also that God could create it a thousand times larger, but we dare not allow anything to be created in vain and exist in the universe in vain. . And since we see this beautiful order of the planets located around the Earth at proportional distances in order to influence it for our benefit, then why else place some vast space between the upper orbit of Saturn and the stellar sphere, without a single star, superfluous and in vain ? For what? For whose pleasure and benefit? (S. 461).
Arguments about the expediency of all created things and that the revolutions of the heavens serve to pour beneficial influences into the sublunar world are characteristic of medieval physics. Galileo's argumentation strategy in this case is to point out that we know nothing definitively about the nature of these influences and how they relate to distances. But the main argument is the following: reasoning about the purpose for which the heavenly bodies were created exceeds the capabilities of the human mind. The opinion that everything was created for the sake of the Earth and its inhabitants seems to Galileo to be too naive, on the one hand, and impudent, on the other. We do not have the right to consider ourselves capable of judging why God created many heavenly bodies, or to make a judgment about what sizes are suitable for the Universe, and what are "too huge." These arguments of Galileo seem interesting to us because behind the external form of humility, something directly opposite is hidden here: confidence in the possibility of the human mind take into account that natural limitation that forced a person to consider himself the center of the world and the focus of all the cares and thoughts of God and, thereby, her overcome, standing on a certain universal point of view, slightly revealing to the mind what really is.
Thus we see that Galileo's use of reasoning based on goals and values does not serve to establish a connection between recognized and new paintings of the world, and not to (as Feyerabend argued) disguise the depth of the break between the new scientific thinking and tradition, but to show the discrepancy between Aristotelian cosmology and the new values and ideas about the Universe born in the Renaissance.
In view of the deep break not only with cosmology and physics inherited from Aristotle, but also with the standards of scientificity and traditional ideas about human knowledge, the baggage of provisions jointly shared by Galileo and his opponents turns out to be clearly insufficient, on which Galileo could rely when building his argument. In such a situation great importance acquires internal criticism of Aristotelian physics and cosmology. She is constantly present on the pages of Dialogue. Galileo points to paralogisms or vagueness of the fundamental concepts of Aristotelian physics.
For example, Aristotle identified three types of movement: from the center, to the center and around the center. Galileo puts a remark into the mouth of the Sagredo, that thus Aristotle already proceeds from the fact that there is only one circular movement in the world and, consequently, only one center, to which rectilinear movements up and down alone belong; ... if I say that in the universe there can be thousands of circular motions and, consequently, thousands of centers, then we will get thousands more movements up and down (p. 112).
This division of the modes of movement, notes Sagredo, into movement around the center and movement up and down, “supposes the world not only completed, but even inhabited by us” (Ibid.).
Thus, the position about the center of the world, which coincides with the center of the Earth, Galileo wants to present as an arbitrary and purely subjective idea, due to the fact that a person cannot but consider the place where he himself is the center. For Aristotle, of course, this position seemed to be confirmed by all observations of the movements of heaven and earth, and also consistent with common sense and the harmonious and expedient arrangement of the Cosmos. If we remain within the Aristotelian system, then there is no paralogism here. Therefore, Galileo's criticism, in essence, is not internal. He appeals to readers - contemporaries and invites them to take a more universal than Aristotelian point of view, free from the limitations of human ideas.
Here is another example of how Galileo seeks to bring out the logical inconsistency in Aristotle's reasoning. Aristotle argues that for the earth, understood as one of the four elements, a rectilinear movement towards the center of the world is natural. Because of this movement, the center of the Earth coincides with the center of the world. In Salviati, Aristotle's reasoning is reversed and leads to the opposite conclusion:
Salviati. Does he not say (i.e. Aristotle. - 3. S.), that a circular motion would be violent for the Earth and therefore non-eternal? And that it would be absurd, since the world order is eternal? Simplicio. He speaks.
Salviati. But if what is violent cannot be eternal, then conversely, what cannot be eternal cannot be natural; But the motion of the Earth downwards cannot be eternal, and consequently, it is not and cannot be natural, like any motion that is not eternal. But if we attribute a circular motion to the Earth, then it can be eternal both in relation to the Earth itself and its parts, and therefore natural (S. 233).
And in this reasoning we see a complete change in the Aristotelian position and its replacement by another. For Aristotle, movement is the transition of a thing from one state to another. When a steady state is reached, the thing is at rest. What is natural is precisely the movement that brings the thing to its natural place, in which, of course, it rests. As for the invariably revolving celestial bodies, their movement keeps them in their natural place. But because of this, their circulation is the unity of motion and rest, and because of this, a more perfect type of motion than rectilinear motion. For Aristotle, rest has an ontological primacy. Whereas in Galileo the emphasis is placed precisely on constant, unchanging movement, in which even those bodies that seem to us motionless are involved.
Or consider how Galileo criticizes Aristotle's assertion that the heavenly bodies are immutable. We have already become acquainted with how Galileo changes the value opposition of the changeable and the unchanging. Let us now turn to purely conceptual criticism. Aristotle justifies the absence of changes in the supralunar sphere by the absence of opposites. To this, Galileo objects that immutability has an opposite - this is variability.
It might seem that Galileo discovered a logical inconsistency in Aristotle. But for Aristotle himself, there was no inconsistency here. The variability of the sublunar world was, of course, the opposite of the immutability of the supralunar world.
Simplicio. It can only be sophistry...
Sagredo. Listen to an argument, then name it and unravel it. Heavenly bodies, since they do not arise and are indestructible, have opposites in nature, i.e. bodies arising and annihilating; but where there is opposition, there is generation and destruction; This means that the heavenly bodies come into being and are destroyed.
Simplicio. Didn't I tell you that this can only be a sophism. This is one of the peculiar reasonings that are called sorites; such, for example, is the argument about the Cretan, who said that all Cretans are liars; ... In this kind of sophism, you can spin for an eternity without coming to any conclusion.
Sagredo. Until now, you have only named it, now you have to unravel it, showing an error.
Simplicio. As regards his resolution and the explanation of his error, don't you see, first of all, the obvious contradiction: celestial bodies do not arise and are not destroyed, which means that celestial bodies arise and are destroyed? Moreover, there are no opposites among the celestial bodies, they exist only among the elements that have the opposites of motions vishit e1 beokit, and the opposites of lightness and heaviness; but in the heavens, where the motion is circular—and no other motion is opposite to this motion—there are no opposites, and therefore the heavens are indestructible, and so on.
Sagredo. Allow me, Signor Simplicio. Does that opposition exist, by virtue of which, in your opinion, some simple bodies destroyed, in such a body itself, or is it connected with another body? Does, for example, I ask, the humidity, by virtue of which some part of the Earth is destroyed, reside in the Earth itself, or in another body, for example, in air or water? You will say, I think that both movement up and down, and heaviness and lightness, which you consider to be the main opposites, cannot be in the same object, and this cannot be the same with moisture and dryness, with heat and cold. ; You must therefore be told that when a body is destroyed, the destruction is due to that property which is in another body and is opposite to its own. Therefore, in order to make a celestial body annihilated, it is enough to find in nature a body that has the opposite of a celestial body; and such are the elements, if indeed destructibility is the opposite of indestructibility.
Simplicio. No, that's not enough, dear sir. Elements change and are destroyed because they come into contact and mix with each other and thus can act on each other with their opposites; but the heavenly bodies are separated from the elements; the elements have no effect on them, although the celestial bodies do act on the elements. If you want to prove the creation and destruction of heavenly bodies, then you need to show that there are opposites among them.
Sagredo. Then I will find them for you among the heavenly bodies. ... density and rarity are opposite, so widespread in celestial bodies that you consider the stars to be nothing more than denser parts of the heavens ... ”(S. 138-141).
But Aristotle did not have this kind of opposites in mind when he spoke of opposites as a condition for change. In the case of a change, the substrate passes from one state to another, the opposite. Speaking of opposites, Aristotle constantly means the opposites that one substrate can take. And the properties of the sublunar and supralunar worlds are separated by him according to different ontological levels, and there can be no question of the transition of the substrate from one of these properties to another. After all, the substratum of celestial bodies is ether - “another, isolated body, which has a much more valuable nature, as far as it is farther away from the world here” . It could be said that Aristotle's proof of the immutability of the supralunar world already presupposes an ontological difference between the supralunar and sublunar worlds, and only gives a further explication of this difference. However, this in itself is not a logical error.
Galileo, on the other hand, changes the meaning of Aristotle's words, putting the opposite qualities of the changeable and the unchanging in the same row. He is simply unwilling to start from the premise that was self-evident to Aristotle. She lost for him, as well as for Nicholas of Cusa, N. Copernicus, J. Bruno, its evidence.
Thus, Galileo's criticism of Aristotle is not internal. Each time we are faced with different basic assumptions on which different conceptual systems grow. But are all assumptions equal? Can't they be tested by experience? Of course, both the followers of Aristotle and Galileo agree with the need for experimental verification and confirmation. The problem, however, is that Galileo makes statements about processes and phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Indeed, Galileo speaks of the motion of the earth and at the same time explains that it cannot be seen. He discusses motion without environmental resistance, which is not only unobservable, but at the same time impossible. He talks about how the light reflected from the Earth would be perceived from the Moon, about the structure of the Moon's surface, and similar things that were by no means given to his contemporaries in experience.
It is not for nothing that Galileo speaks of what would be observed “if not with the eyes in the forehead, then with the eyes of the mind” (p. 242), and in these words it is legitimate to see a hint at the words of Plato, who said, explaining his understanding of astronomy, that it is necessary to contemplate celestial phenomena with the mind, not with the eyes.
The most important part of the Galilean argument and his polemical strategies is the inventive construction of such ways of interpreting observations and experiments that make it possible to make the unobservable observable. It is here, first of all, that we see the significance of Galileo as the founder of a new science.
Galileo's strategies for dealing with experimental data have been the subject of numerous studies.
The problem, as has been said, is that the phenomena Galileo speaks of are not directly observable; and what is directly observed needs to be critically interpreted in terms of what is actually observed. Appearance differs from reality, and sometimes in a fundamental way. In the constant emphasis on this, one can see a sign of Galileo's belonging to the Platonic tradition. But the peculiarity of Galileo's position is that, for him, the "gap" between appearance and reality, due to the position of the observer on the moving Earth, the structure and capabilities of the human eye, the distance to the observed object, etc., can be rationally determined and taken into account .
For example, at the beginning of the First Day, Galileo, through the mouth of Salviati, puts forward the assertion that a falling body, leaving a state of rest and continuously accelerating, passes through all degrees of slowness. So in the first moments of the fall, the heavy cast-iron core has such a speed that, if not for further acceleration, it would not have traveled its path with this speed in a hundred, or even a hundred thousand years. This statement is blatantly at odds with experience showing how fast the falling core is rushing. Infinite degrees of slowness are, of course, impossible to observe. This is a purely speculative construction, an application to the case of the fall of certain ideas about the structure of the continuum. However, Galileo finds a way to make it visible and even confirmed by experience. Under his pen, what was originally an unobservable theoretical construct is replaced by a mental series experimental situations. Galileo replaces falling in a straight line with rolling down an inclined plane. Such a replacement is justified by the fact that the velocities of falling and rolling are in a certain proportional relationship with each other. After that, we need only imagine an unlimited series of increasingly gentle inclined planes to realize that rolling down them begins with very small degrees of speed. This is quite conceivable, and also realizable in practice. As a result, a similar - imaginary, but practically possible - series of rollings acts as a real, material embodiment of such abstract concept as "an arbitrarily small degree of speed." In this case, of course, we still will not be able to observe "all degrees of slowness." Then what role does the proposed experiment play? Is he mental or real? It turns out that one cannot be separated from the other, since a real experiment serves to induce us to see in rolling down an inclined plane - a vertical fall, and in a series of decreasing speeds - an arbitrarily small speed. That is, the mental representation of a series of increasingly gentle inclined planes encourages readers to make the ultimate transition and supplement what is observed with what is already unobservable. It is important that the observable and the unobservable turned out to be connected in one series of continuous transitions.
Let us pay attention to the characteristic features of the Galilean method: a speculative construction is associated with a model that is as material as it is speculative. Strange as this last phrase sounds, we insist on it: the model is both material and speculative. Moreover, it is precisely the creation of models of this kind that distinguishing feature developed by Galileo experimental method. Let us also pay attention to the following extremely important point (which in this example, perhaps not yet so obvious): the intertwining of a speculative construction and an empirical model, the ability to substitute one for the other, are based on a real objective manipulation, to the opportunity create arbitrarily even and gentle inclined planes. The transition of the speculative into the material and experimental becomes possible thanks to a kind of technical activities.
Here is the next illustration of how Galileo substantiates his assertion by taking one phenomenon as a model for another. This is one of the arguments justifying the unevenness of the lunar surface. This question is of great importance for the refutation of the notion of the "lunar edge", i.e. qualitative opposition of the supralunar and sublunar worlds. Galileo tries to prove resemblance between the Earth and the Moon where Aristotelian cosmology sees a fundamental difference. The moon, says Galileo, referring to the fact of solar and lunar eclipses, shines by reflected light. But then, the Earth also shines with the reflected light of the Sun. She, like the Moon, is able to reflect the light of the Sun and even illuminate the Moon. From the Moon, the Earth would be seen luminous, just as we see the Moon. The fact that we see the Earth not luminous, like the Moon, but dark, is determined by our observation conditions - the fact that we are not on the Moon, but on the Earth (p. 161).
All these statements of Galileo run into the provisions of Aristotelian cosmology, according to which the Moon is transparent and absolutely smooth. etheric body. Therefore, Galileo begins to prove that only a body with an uneven surface can reflect light in the way that the moon does. The surface of the moon is not directly visible. (Here it must be emphasized that the famous Galilean telescopic observations, and among them the observations of mountains and depressions on the Moon, are also not direct. Mountains and depressions are the result of an interpretation of changes in the visible appearance of the Moon throughout the night.) However, Salviati suggests an observation, in during which this surface is replaced by others. Instead of an unattainable object, we are offered its model.
Salviati. Please, take this mirror hanging here on the wall, and let's go out into the yard... Hang the mirror right here, on this wall where the Sun falls; Let's get out of here and hide in the shade. There are two surfaces on which the Sun falls, i.e. wall and mirror. Tell me now, which one seems lighter to you - the surface of the wall or the surface of the mirror? You do not answer?
Sagredo. I leave Signor Simplicio to answer, for he had difficulties; I myself, from the very beginning of the experiment, was convinced that the surface of the moon must inevitably be extremely poorly leveled.
Salviati. Tell me, Signor Simplicio, if you had to paint this wall with this mirror hanging on it, where would you use darker colors - painting the wall or painting the mirror?
Simplicio. Much darker, depicting a mirror.
Salviati. This means that if a stronger reflection of light comes from the surface that appears to be lighter, then the wall will more vividly reflect the rays of the Sun to us than a mirror (S. 169-170).
True, Simplicio objects that there is a place from which the surface of the mirror seems not only bright, but as blinding as the Sun itself, whose rays it reflects. However, Salviati immediately explains that this circumstance only reinforces his assertion:
Salviati. You, with your usual perspicacity, warned me, since I needed the same observation to clarify what remained. So you can see the difference between two reflections caused by two surfaces, a wall surface and a mirror surface; the sun's rays fall on them in exactly the same way, and you see how the reflection from the wall extends in all directions opposite to it, and the reflection of the mirror goes only in one direction, and it is not at all larger than the mirror itself; you see in the same way how the surface of the wall, from whatever place it is viewed, always appears uniform in brightness, and in general much brighter than the surface of the mirror, with the exception of only that small place where the reflection of the mirror falls, so that from there it appears much brighter than the wall. From these so tangible and visual experiments, it seems to me, one can very easily come to the knowledge of whether the reflection that comes to us from the moon comes from a mirror or like from a wall, i.e. from a smooth surface or from a rough one (pp. 170-171).
Whereupon the Sagredo declares:
Sagredo. If I were on the moon itself, then I think I could not be more tangibly convinced of the unevenness of its surface than now, observing it from the angle of our conversation (Ibid.).
Thus, the reader is again led to the idea that direct observation can be dispensed with if one looks at things not with the eyes of the forehead, but with the eyes of the mind, i.e. correctly interpret what is observable. Then it is possible to achieve an evidence more undoubted than that evidenced by the senses. Let us pay attention to the fact that this is possible only from a certain point of view, i.e. only in a certain theoretical context, when the observed objects play the role of models for observing something else.
But on what basis are they assigned such a role? After all, Salviati himself immediately notices that a serious objection can be raised against the observations he proposed: after all, the wall and the mirror are flat, and the Moon is a ball. After that, a spherical mirror is brought. Now it will play the role of a model object, since it has a great resemblance to the modeled object. A new observation is being made, which should show that even a spherical mirror does not reflect light uniformly in all directions. The observation is preceded by the reasoning of Salviati, who explains that a spherical mirror scatters the rays of light, so that only a small part of them enters the eye. Therefore, the reflection from a spherical mirror cannot look like the reflection of light from the moon. Which is confirmed by observation.
So in this case, we see a sequence of model objects, in this case there are two of them. Galileo does not claim that they - or the last of them - are sufficiently similar to the Moon. Yes, this is not required for his argumentation. After all, they act as empirical models of the process of reflection of light rays, because we are talking about this process. So, ultimately, both the first model and the second are special cases of the general theoretical model of light reflection and its perception by our organs of vision. And without a theoretical model, we would not be able to understand the significance of these observations.
Finally, the third example we would like to consider is the experience of a stone falling from the top of a moving ship's mast. Here the complex structure of the argument, in which this experiment is woven, attracts attention. It is intended to serve as a refutation of a refutation: namely, a refutation of the Copernican claim about the rotation of the earth by reference to the directly observable fact that a stone falling from the top of a tower falls in a sheer line at its base.
This observation was presented as a refutation of Copernicanism, because it was assumed that if the Earth rotated, then the stone would fall not at the base of the tower, since during the time of the fall of the stone the tower would move to the east. And this, further, was illustrated by the statement about the following observation: if the ship is stationary, then the stone falls from the top of the mast exactly at its base, and when the ship moves, closer to the stern.
It is curious that in the "Dialogue" it is Salviati who cites a whole series of observations and experiments that testify against the statement about the rotation of the Earth: this is the aforementioned fall of a stone, and shots from a cannon vertically upwards or to all cardinal points (the nucleus flies the same distance in all directions), and the movement of clouds and birds that do not lag behind the Earth, and much more. As a result, Simplicio cheers up and gains confidence. For the reader, an intrigue is tied up here: what will happen next, how will Salviati be able to answer so many evidence that refutes him?
And Galileo, through this method, once again makes it clear that the supporters of Copernicus hear the arguments of the opposing side and think them through, which cannot be said about the supporters of traditional ideas. Here we are once again convinced of how skillfully Galileo uses the psychological methods of polemics. But at the same time, his arguments are by no means reduced to methods of this kind.
In response to the above experiments and observations, Galileo must prove that both a stone falling vertically from the top of a tower and a ball fired, whether upward, whether to the east or west, participate in the motion of the Earth, so it is impossible to conclude from their observed motion about whether the earth is moving or not. However, the idea of "participation" of one body in the motion of another without their direct contact is unacceptable for an Aristotelian.
Galileo faces a difficult task: to somehow make observable what, in principle, cannot be observed. In the course of a long and whimsically developing discussion, there is a mention of observations of a stone falling from the mast of a moving ship.
At the same time, Salviati warns Simplicio that the case with the ship is too different from the case with the Earth, because if the Earth rotates, then this movement is natural for it, while the movement of the ship is not natural. However, having pointed out this difference, Salviati is content with Simplicio's acceptance of the following premise: "the phenomena on Earth must correspond to the phenomena on the ship" (p. 242). So, the model object is chosen, in this case - by agreement with the opponent. Following this, Salviati declares that no one has actually carried out such an experiment on a moving ship. Simplicio is indignant:
Salviati. ...Have you ever made an experiment on a ship? Simplicio. I did not produce it, but I am quite sure that those authors who produced it carefully considered it ...
Salviati. It is possible that these authors referred to experience without producing it; you yourself are a good example of this when, without making an experiment, you declare it reliable and invite us to believe them on the word; in exactly the same way, it is not only possible, but also certain that the authors acted in the same way, referring to their predecessors and never reaching the one who did this experiment himself, for anyone who does it will find that experience shows exactly the opposite of what was written , namely, that the stone will always fall in the same place on the ship, whether it is stationary or moving at any speed. Hence, since the conditions of the Earth and the ship are the same, it follows that from the fact that the stone always falls vertically to the foot of the tower, no conclusion can be drawn about the movement or rest of the Earth.
Simplicio. How is it that, having not gone through a hundred tests, not even one, you act in such a decisive manner? I return to my disbelief and belief that the experience was produced by the original authors who refer to it, and that it shows what they claim.
Salviati. I am sure even without experience that the result will be as I tell you, since it is necessary that it should follow; moreover, I will say that you yourself also know that it cannot be otherwise, although you pretend or pretend that you do not know this. But I am a good enough mind-catcher and will forcibly wrest a confession from you (Ibid.
Elsewhere Galileo gives an interesting interpretation of this Platonic recollection. There the question of the trajectory of a body fired from a sling is discussed, and at one point Simplicio exclaims:
Simplicio: Let me think a little, since I never thought about it.
Salviati: Between us, signor Sagredo, here it is quoddam reminisce, correctly understood, is evident (p. 292).
Consequently, recollection called the work of thinking, freeing itself from the pressure of authorities, dogmas and from blind trust in the evidence of feelings and relying only on its own, i.e. logical foundations.
As regards the question of the fall of a stone from the top of the mast of a moving ship, here Salviati directs the process of recall in the following way. He proposes to imagine a perfectly smooth and hard sloping surface and a perfectly hard and round ball. A ball placed on a plane would, as Simplicio guesses, roll down the slope with acceleration for as long as the given plane would continue. If you put a ball and give it momentum by pushing it up on such a plane, then it will move with deceleration and eventually stop. After that, Salviati raises the question of what will happen to the ball if the plane has neither ascent nor descent, but is parallel to the horizon, if the ball is given momentum and all obstacles to movement are removed.
Simplicio. I cannot discover here the reasons for accelerating or for slowing down, since there is no slope or rise. Salviati. So, but if there is no reason for slowing down, then there can be a reason for resting here all the less. So how long do you think this body would continue to move? Simplicio. As long as the length of such a surface without descent and ascent is great.
Salviati. Therefore, if such a space were infinite, the movement along it would likewise have no limit, i.e. would it be permanent?
Simplicio. It seems to me that it would be so if the body were made of durable material.
Salviati. This is already assumed, since it was said that all incoming and external obstacles are eliminated, and the destructibility of a moving body is one of the incoming obstacles. Tell me, what exactly do you think is the reason why this ball moves on an inclined plane on its own, and on a plane that rises only by force?
Simplicio. The fact that heavy bodies tend to naturally move towards the center of the Earth and only forcefully upward towards the periphery, while the inclined surface is such that it brings it closer to the center, and the rising one removes it.
Salviatp. Therefore, a surface that had neither inclination nor rise would have to be equally spaced from the center in all its parts. But are there such planes anywhere in the world?
Simplicio. There are such - at least the surface of our globe, if only it is completely smooth, and not as it really is, i.e. uneven and mountainous; such, for example, is the surface of water when it is still and calm.
Salviatp. Therefore, a ship moving on the surface of the sea is one of those moving bodies that slide on one of these surfaces without inclination and rise, and which therefore have a tendency, if all random and external obstacles are removed, to move constantly and evenly with the momentum received?
Simplicio. Seems like it should be.
Salviatp. And that stone, which is at the top of the mast, does not it move, carried by the ship along the circumference of the circle, around the center, therefore, by a movement that cannot be destroyed in it in the absence of external obstacles? And isn't this movement as fast as the movement of a ship?
Simplicio. So far everything is going well. But further?
Salviati. Will you not at last draw the last conclusion yourself, if you yourself know all the premises ahead of time? (S. 247-248).
The conclusion to which Galileo brings Simplicio, and with him the reader, is that, since the equivalence of situations with a moving ship and with a rotating Earth is recognized, then of all the observed facts listed - a sheer fall of a stone from the top of a tower, the same distance , which flies the cannonball to the east and west, etc. - no conclusion can be made about the motion or rest of the Earth.
In this structured argument, we see that the question of the motion of the Earth is first replaced by one model - a ship, and then, in turn, this model is replaced by another - an ideally smooth plane and the movement of an ideally round and rigid body along it. If the first model can be considered empirical, then the second one is obviously ideal, speculative. However, one acts as a model for considering the processes taking place in the other. Here we see once again that Galileo sees the gap between the ideal and the material as surmountable. Reasonings based on this principle are not uncommon in the text of the Dialogue. For example, later in the text the question arises of whether there can be a perfectly spherical material body, and Salviati answers:
Of all the forms that can be given to a solid body, the spherical one is the lightest, since it is the simplest ... And the formation of a sphere is so easy that if a round hole is made in a flat plate of solid metal, in which some solid, very roughly rounded, then by itself, without other tricks, it will take on a spherical shape, arbitrarily perfect, so long as such a solid body is no smaller than a sphere passing through this circle ... (S. 308-309)
So, in matter, you can embody arbitrarily perfect smoothness, straightness, sphericity with the help of fairly simple technical methods.
In the argument we are discussing about the conservation of momentum to motion, a stronger assumption is made about the elimination any resistance to movement. Obviously, this experiment is a mental one. But it gives a clue to what can be observed in the next, more empirical model - a ship smoothly sliding on the surface of the sea. However, the latter model is a combination of empirical and speculative. You can think about how feasible it is, i.e. is it possible to observe an absolutely smooth movement of the ship, neglect the resistance of water, pitching, etc.? However, the first, purely speculative experiment sets the way of seeing the movements associated with the second model, and through it leads to the idea of the relativity of any movements observed on the Earth. Now falling objects, clouds, birds hovering in the air, and so on. become incarnations of a ball, infinitely moving along a plane parallel to the horizon, from the thought experiment proposed by Galileo.
Thus, Galileo's argumentation is built on gradual transitions from the speculative to the real. But, we emphasize once again, such a complex strategy of argumentation is due to the nature of the subject he studies.
Chapter XI. Dialogue on the two main systems of the world: Ptolemaic and Copernican
Of the natural things worthy of study, in my opinion, the study of the structure of the Universe should be put in the first place. Since the Universe contains everything and surpasses everything in size, it determines and directs everything else and dominates everything. If any of the people managed to rise mentally above the general level of humanity, then it was, of course, Ptolemy and Copernicus, who were able to read, see and explain so much that is high in the structure of the Universe.
Galileo Galilei. "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", 1632
In 1597, in a Latin correspondence between Galileo and Kepler prompted by the publication of Kepler's Cosmographic Mystery, an Italian Catholic professor admitted that he had long been a "secret Copernican", but could not openly support his belief in a moving Earth for fear of being ridiculed by his colleagues. In his response, the German Lutheran urged him to join the pro-Copernican movement: "Isn't it better to pull the wagon to the destination together, by joining forces?"
Galileo answered Copernicus with silence. Only in 1610, after improving the optical instrument, which he called the telescope, and discovering through its lenses such celestial wonders as the satellites of Jupiter, Galileo publicly announced his support for the concept of Copernicus.
Galileo's telescope discovery of Jupiter's four largest moons in January 1610, described and schematically illustrated here by his own hand, was further proof that the Earth is not the only center of motion in the universe.
Before Galileo's innovations made it possible to improve the primitive spyglass, instruments only helped astronomers determine the position of celestial bodies. Galileo's telescopes allowed observers to learn something about their composition. For example, the lunar landscape rose up in rocky mountains and fell into deep gorges, much like the surface of the Earth. The sun was highlighting dark spots, gathering and sliding on its surface, like clouds driven by the wind. The telescope further disturbed the calm of the heavens by showing unknown bodies - not "new" formations, such as Tycho's supernova in 1572 (or Kepler's in 1604), suddenly becoming visible to the naked eye, but objects never before observed beyond the limits of human capabilities. vision, including the ear-like protruding sides of Saturn and the hundreds of faint stars that filled the borders of the constellations. In addition, the planet Venus showed a phase change (from a crescent to a full disk), which, without any doubt, testified to its rotation around the Sun. The phases of Venus fit equally well into the systems of Tycho Brahe and Copernicus, but the Ptolemaic Universe could not explain such a phenomenon. Galileo published his findings. The thin Starry Herald, which explained the "message of the stars," sold out within a week of being printed at Padua in March 1610. After that, Galileo did not have time to build telescopes to meet the demand.
Information about new discoveries spread quickly and to loud cheers, but Galileo also became a lightning rod for all the criticism, ridicule and rage that Copernicus feared. Partly because of Galileo's lavish praise, On Rotations came under the suspicion of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, the Church's 16th-century watchdog for banning books that it believed threatened faith or morality.
Copernicus foresaw trouble from "talkers who consider themselves experts in astronomy, but are completely ignorant of this subject" who will distort the meaning of Holy Scripture in order to condemn it. Rheticus also expected a flood of slander and tried to contain it by supplementing the provisions of the Copernican system with chapters and verses of the Bible with the sincere approval of the Bishop of Giza. Even Osiander, whose anonymous Address to the Reader so offended Giese and Kepler, probably only wanted to defend the book by writing off Copernicus's bold assertions as clever computational tricks. And indeed, as expected, "On Rotations" almost immediately provoked the wrath of the religious authorities.
Pope Paul III, to whom the book is dedicated, established the Holy Roman and Ecumenical Inquisition in 1542, a year before the publication of the book, as part of a campaign against Lutheran heresy. Through the efforts of Retik or Giza, His Holiness received a copy of On Rotations. He handed it over to his personal theologian Bartolomeo Spina from Pisa, prefect of the Sacred and Apostolic Palace. However, Spina fell ill and died before he could review the book, and the task was given to his friend and Dominican brother Giovanni Mario Tolosani. In an appendix to the treatise On the Truth of the Holy Scriptures, published in 1544, Tolosani called the late Copernicus a braggart and a fool who risked deviating from the faith.
“Get together people who are versed in all sciences and let them read the first book of Copernicus about a moving Earth and a fixed starry sky,” Tolosani challenged. “No doubt they will find that his arguments lack strength and can be easily refuted. For it is foolish to contradict a belief accepted by everyone for very good reasons a long time ago, unless the skeptic uses more serious and undeniable evidence, completely refuting the contrary arguments. You can't say the same about Copernicus."
Criticized in this way, the book "On Rotations" for a time escaped official condemnation. However, all the works of Rhetic, along with the works of Martin Luther, Johann Schöner and many other Protestant authors, were included in the Roman Index of Forbidden Books in 1559. Petraeus's name was included in the accompanying list of banned printers that same year, prompting a number of Catholic fanatics to destroy their copies of On Rotations because of their association with the disgraced publisher. Fortunately, in 1564 his name disappeared from the Index. Two years later, when his relative Petri brought out his Basel edition, several Catholic readers obediently cut out the text of the First Narrative that was included in it with scissors and knives. Some have also removed Retik's name from the title page by crossing it out or pasting it over with a piece of paper.
In Protestant lands, where the Index had no weight, On Rotations was still attacked on religious grounds. Therefore, Kepler defended the idea of Copernicus in the introduction to his New Astronomy of 1609. He argued that the Holy Scriptures, in both colloquial and poetic language, spoke of ordinary things, such as the apparent movement of the sun in the sky, "about which it has no purpose to teach mankind." Given the Bible's emphasis on salvation, Kepler advised readers to "consider the Holy Spirit as a divine messenger and refrain from dragging it into the realm of the physical without any reason."
Galileo supported Kepler in the matter of interpreting the Bible. “I believe that the purpose of Holy Scripture was to convince people of the truths necessary for salvation,” he explained his position in 1613, “which neither science nor any other means could make convincing, but only the voice of the Holy Spirit. But I do not consider it necessary to believe that God, who endowed us with feelings, speech and reason, would teach us such things instead of us ourselves, with their help, knowing the structure of nature. This applies especially to the sciences, about which there are only a few words in Scripture, and especially to astronomy, which is not given attention at all, because even the names of the planets are not mentioned in it. It is obvious that if the sacred texts were to teach people astronomy, they would not bypass this subject.”
Galileo greatly expanded his comments two years later, in 1615, in response to rumors that the Inquisition was planning to add "On Rotations" to the Index. Addressing the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Christina of Lorraine, he pointed out the shortsightedness of such an action:
“Forbid Copernicus now, when his doctrine is reinforced daily by many new observations and scientists reading his book; after this opinion has been tolerated and endured for many years without being much popular or confirmed, it would, in my opinion, be a contradiction to the truth and an attempt to hide and suppress it, which revealed itself so clearly and undoubtedly. If not to destroy and ban his entire book, but only to condemn it as false individual parts, then this would (if I am not mistaken) still more damage to the minds of people, since it would allow them to see a proven statement, which is considered heresy to believe. And to ban all science is almost the same as to censor hundreds of passages of Holy Scripture that teach us that the glory and majesty of Almighty God are miraculously discernible in all His creations and read in the open book of Heaven.
Galileo Galilei, philosopher and mathematician at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Painting by Ottavio Leoni
Galileo also spoke decisively about Joshua. He considered this miracle first from a Ptolemaic (geocentric and geostatic) point of view, and then stated that the Copernican universe was much more capable of answering the prayers of Jesus.
“Now let us consider the extent to which it is true that the famous passage from the Book of Joshua can be taken literally, and under what conditions the day could be greatly lengthened as a result of the Sun's execution of the order given to it by Jesus to stop.
In the Ptolemaic system, this is not possible at all. The fact is that in it the movement of the Sun along the ecliptic occurs from west to east, which means that it is opposite to the direction of movement prime mobile(the celestial sphere farthest from the Earth, which was considered the cause of the movement of the entire system of heavens), which in this system causes the change of day and night. Thus, it is obvious that if the Sun stopped its own movement, then the day would become shorter, not longer. It would be possible to prolong the day by accelerating the own motion of the Sun; and in order for the Sun to remain above the horizon for some time in one place, without declining to the west, it would be necessary to accelerate this movement until it would be equal in speed to prime mobile. To do this, the generally accepted speed of the Sun would have to be increased by about 360 times. Therefore, if Joshua wanted his words to be taken literally in their true and exact sense, he would have ordered the Sun to speed up its movement so that the driving force prime mobile did not take him to the west. But since his words were intended for people who probably did not know anything about the movements of the heavenly bodies, except for the movement of the Sun from east to west, he condescended to their abilities and spoke according to their understanding, since he did not intend to explain to them the location of the spheres, but only show them the greatness of your miracle."
Following this, Galileo considered the possibility that Joshua meant stopping prime mobile, and with it all celestial movements. “Indeed, Jesus meant that the entire system of the heavenly spheres would come to a halt. This is clear from his simultaneous order to the Moon, which has nothing to do with the lengthening of the day. And the order to the Moon applies to other planets, although they are not mentioned in any way here, nor anywhere else in the Bible, which was not written to teach us astronomy.
Returning to the theory of Copernicus, Galileo reminded the Grand Duchess Christina of his own discovery that the Sun rotates on its axis with a period of about a month, which he described in his Letters on Sunspots.
“If we take into account the greatness of the Sun and the fact that it is a pool of light (which I am going to convincingly prove), which illuminates not only the Moon and the Earth, but also other planets, dark in themselves, then, I believe, it will be from a philosophical point of view view, it is permissible to say that the Sun is as the supreme ruler of Nature and in in a certain sense the heart and soul of the Universe - with its rotation transmits to other bodies surrounding it, not only light, but also movement. And just as if the heart of an animal stopped beating, it would paralyze all its other members, so the cessation of the movement of the Sun would cause the stop of all the planets.
So stopping the Sun was enough to immobilize "the whole system of the world." As a result of it, all rotations of celestial bodies stopped and "the day miraculously lengthened." For greater persuasiveness, Galileo noted how "gracefully" his script corresponded to "the literal meaning of the sacred text."
Vivaciously continuing, Galileo moved on to the question of the Sun standing still "in the midst of the sky" as written in chapter 10, verse 13 of the Book of Joshua, and carefully dismantled "Authoritative theologians raise the issue of this passage, for it seems very probable that, when Jesus wanted to lengthen the day, the sun was setting, but not at its zenith... After all, if it had been at its zenith, then either a miracle would not have been needed, or it would have been enough to pray for some delay.” This conundrum caused several biblical scholars, whom Galileo named by name, to shy away from interpreting the phrase "in the midst of heaven." But all contradictions were removed, “if, in accordance with the Copernican system, we place the Sun “in the middle”, that is, in the center of the celestial orbits and circular motions of the planets, as it should be done. Then at any hour, even at noon, even in the evening, the day would lengthen and all celestial rotations would stop as a result of the Sun stopping in the middle of the sky, that is, in the center where it is located.
Fascinated by the Copernican system, Galileo apparently forgot that Catholic law forbade the laity from interpreting religious texts. Only the holy fathers were allowed to explore the depths of biblical meanings. The Protestant Kepler in his own country could follow Luther's footsteps to a personal understanding of the Scriptures with impunity. However, Galileo, in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent issued in 1564, did not dare to interpret Scripture "other than in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."
The “fathers” included not only ancient saints and martyrs, but also cardinal inquisitors of the time of Galileo, among whom was the theological adviser to the pope, the Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino, who hit Galileo’s arguments with his authoritative statement:
“The words “the sun rises and the sun sets. Rising, it hurries to its place where it rises, etc. belong to Solomon, who not only spoke with divine inspiration, but was also wiser than other people, versed in human sciences and knew about all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Therefore, he would hardly have asserted anything contrary to proven truth. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only about the visible side of phenomena and that it only seems to us that the Sun revolves around the Earth, while the Earth actually moves, as if standing on the deck of a ship it seems that the shore is moving away from the ship, I will answer, that although the traveler may have this impression, he still knows that it is an illusion, and is able to correct it, because he clearly understands that it is the ship that is moving, and not the coast. But as regards the Sun and the Earth, there is no need for an intelligent person to correct his opinion, because his experience leaves no doubt that the Earth is at rest, and his eyes do not deceive him when they say that the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.
On February 23, 1616, a commission of eleven theologians put the idea of Copernicus to a vote. They concluded that "the idea that the Sun is fixed at the center of the world" is "formally heretical" because it is contrary to Scripture. In addition, they decided that the concept of a heliocentric universe was philosophically "stupid and absurd". Although the movement of the earth seemed to them no less ridiculous idea, they simply called it "erroneous belief" because it did not explicitly deny the truths of the Holy Scriptures. These judgments formed the basis of the edict adopted on March 5, in which the teachings of Copernicus were called "false and contradictory Holy Scripture". "On Rotations" will later be mentioned in an edict related to the Index of Forbidden Books. But instead of being destroyed (the fate of other banned books), further distribution of the book "On Rotations" was suspended until corrections were made. In the decades since its publication, this book has become so useful that the Church could not openly condemn it. Indeed, the much-needed calendar reform that Copernicus was engaged in has since been carried out with the help of this text. "On Rotations" and "Prussian Tables" provided data on the average length of the tropical year and synodic month, which enabled the Jesuit Father Christopher Clavius of the Roman College of the Jesuits to create the so-called Gregorian calendar, which replaced the Julian in 1582, during the reign of Pope Gregory XIII .
In 1619, another decree related to the Index was passed, banning Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and "all other works of this author." The following year, another decree listed ten corrections to be made to "On Rotations". These few changes (only ten points on more than four hundred pages) harmonized Copernicus's text with Osiander's address. They rephrased every piece of evidence for the Earth's motion to sound like it was purely hypothetical. The censors removed the part of the preface that stated that "astronomy is written for astronomers" because they appropriated this science to themselves. A line appeared in the paragraph that embodied Copernicus's fears about "talkers who consider themselves experts in astronomy, but are completely ignorant of this subject" who can distort "some passage of Scripture for their own benefit" and hit the author with it.
In its most famous work"Dialogue about the two main systems of the world" Galileo described a four-day conversation between three intellectuals. On the frontispiece of the first edition, these men appear as Aristotle, Ptolemy and Copernicus (on the right, with the symbol of the heliocentric cosmos in hand)
Each owner of "On Rotations" had to independently make the indicated changes in his copy of the book. Galileo obediently submitted them all, perhaps fearing scrutiny by church authorities. He himself, being in Rome in 1616, was instructed by Cardinal Bellarmino to stop teaching and writing about Copernicus and obeyed him. However, a few years later, in 1624, the new Pope Urban VIII, a seemingly open-minded man, encouraged Galileo to write a detailed comparison of the systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus. Galileo's book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in Florence in 1632, soon attracted accusations of heresy. The formal trial of the Inquisition over Galileo took place the following year and ended with his abdication. Then "Dialogue" took its place next to "On Rotations" in the Index of Banned Books. Both works, which caused continuous discussions and comments, remained in it for two centuries.
This text is an introductory piece. From the book The Beginning of Horde Russia. After Christ. The Trojan War. Foundation of Rome. author2.17. The dispute between two wives - Brynhild and Kriemhild - is a dispute between two "ancient" goddesses - Athena and Aphrodite. The dispute between two women leads to Trojan War XIII century 2.17.1. Summary dispute between Brynhild and Kriemhild As we have already said, the struggle between Gunther-Hector and
From the book The Foundation of Rome. Beginning of Horde Russia. After Christ. Trojan War author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2.17. The dispute between two wives - Brynhild and Kriemhild - is a dispute between two "ancient" goddesses - Athena and Aphrodite
From the book Reconstruction of True History author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichSamson is an allegorical description of the Zemshchina in the person of its two main leaders and two other well-known characters of the 16th century. The head of the Zemstvo opposition to Ivan IV and the oprichnina is the groom Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov, who enjoyed great influence and respect, p. 118.
From the book Ukraine 2046 author Lukshits Yuri MikhailovichChapter Four Dialogue May 18, 2046 Miami, USA, Good morning radio and television center 07.30 local time Formerly the only superpower of the United States, sixty years after the collapse Soviet Union managed, to the surprise of many, to survive, although it has undergone significant
From the book A Brief History of the Jews author Dubnov Semyon MarkovichChapter 11 Overview of the most important events of the XIX century 61. French Revolution At the end of the XVIII century, a coup took place that changed the political system of life of some European peoples. Great French revolution 1789 heralded the beginning of "equality, brotherhood and freedom" of people
From the book Tehran 1943 authorDialogue between two leaders At the conversation in question, except for Stalin, Roosevelt and me, the translator, no one else was present. Roosevelt warned that he would be alone, without Charles Bohlen, who usually acted as an interpreter for the American delegation. Looks like Roosevelt
From the book Blessing for Genocide. The myth of the worldwide conspiracy of the Jews and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" author Con NormanChapter I The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Dialogue in Hell 1 The people who in the 19th century propagated the myth of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy make up a rather motley society. These are Barrel and the "Letter of Simonini" at the beginning of the century; much later, in the last third of the century, - Gedshe
From the book Book 1. Western myth ["Ancient" Rome and "German" Habsburgs are reflections of the Russian-Horde history of the XIV-XVII centuries. Legacy of the Great Empire in a cult author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1. Biblical Samson is a slightly allegorical description of the Zemshchina in the person of its two main leaders and two other famous characters of this era 1.1. Konyushy Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov. Brief biography In 1565, Ivan the Terrible established the oprichnina. Karamzin writes: "This
From the book We are Aryans. Origins of Russia (collection) author Abrashkin Anatoly AlexandrovichChapter 14. Scythian-Aryan Dialogue We are those who were whispered about in the old days, Hellenic myths with involuntary trembling: A people who loved violence and war, The sons of Hercules and Echidna are the Scythians. Around the Black Sea, in the empty steppes, Like demons, we flew around quickly, Appearing suddenly to sow fear everywhere:
From the book Tehran 1943. At the conference of the Big Three and on the sidelines author Berezhkov Valentin MikhailovichDIALOGUE OF TWO LEADERS At the conversation in question, except for Stalin, Roosevelt and me, the translator, no one else was present. Roosevelt warned that he would be alone, without Charles Bohlen, who usually acted as an interpreter for the American delegation. Looks like Roosevelt
From the book Armed Forces of Austria-Hungary author General Staff HeadquartersChapter II Analysis of the main charters All charters, instructions, regulations and instructions, etc., existing in the Austro-Hungarian army, are placed in a special "List of charters", in which they are divided into various categories. The last list of the 1912 edition. Each
From the Vatican book [Zodiac of Astronomy. Istanbul and the Vatican. Chinese horoscopes] author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichChapter 1 Zodiac of Astronomy in the Vatican, dedicated to the creation of the Ptolemaic world system under King Ptolemy, he is Emperor Antoninus Pius, he is also the Jewish King Hezekiah (zodiac BG) 1.1. Zodiac of Astronomy in the chambers of Pope Alexander Borgia (1492–1503) in the Vatican In the Vatican Palace
From the book of Cornelius Tacitus. (Time. Life. Books) author Knabe Georgy StepanovichChapter nine. dialectics of history. "Dialogue about speakers" If the "Biography of Agricola" naturally arose at a certain stage in the development of Roman biography, and "Germania" continued the tradition of writings that compared the Romans with other peoples, then the last of the small
From the book Joan of Arc, Samson and Russian History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1. Biblical Samson is a slightly allegorical description of the zemstvo in the person of its two main leaders and two other famous characters of this era 1.1. Konyushy Ivan Petrovich Chelyadnin-Fedorov Brief biography In 1565 Ivan the Terrible established the oprichnina. Karamzin writes: “This part
From the book Medieval Europe. East and West author Team of authorsConsistency in observance of the ban on the marriage of two brothers to two sisters It should be noted that in Russia the restrictions regarding marriages between close relatives were quite consistently observed. Of course, as in any dynastic
From the book of 100 forbidden books: censored history of world literature. Book 1 the author Sowa Don B