I recently received a review copy of
Galileo by
Mitch Stokes (
Thomas Nelson Christian Encounters Series, 2011, 224 pages). I’ve been a fan of this pioneering astronomer and physicist ever since, as a child, I was given Zsolt Harsányi’s
novelised biography of him – which left me not only with a passion for Galileo, but also with a passion for the truth at all costs.
Galileo by Mitch StokesGalileo’s words of 1612 were almost prophetic of the trials he would face in the last 30 years of his life: “
But whatever the course of our lives, we should receive them as the highest gift from the hand of God, in which equally reposed the power to do nothing whatever for us. Indeed, we should accept misfortune not only in thanks, but in infinite gratitude to Providence, which by such means detaches us from an excessive love for earthly things and elevates our minds to the celestial and divine.”
Myths about Galileo’s encounter with the Inquisition continue to thrive – it was not, as Stokes correctly points out (p. 125), a Church
vs Science conflict, but rather a debate among Christians (of whom Galileo was one – indeed, Galileo eventually became a minor member of the clergy). Nor was Galileo “excommunicated.” Undoing such myths is a worthy cause, although it’s hard to compete with
Dava Sobel’s superb book
Galileo’s Daughter, let alone the extensive work by
Drake and Finocchiaro. Stokes’ book doesn’t attempt to do so, being an introductory book aimed more at teenagers than at scholars.
Galileo Facing the Roman Inquisition, painting by Cristiano Banti, 1857.The basic facts of this book are correct, and Stokes describes Galileo’s intellectual environment quite well, and in a readable way. Stokes does, however, oversimplify some aspects of Galileo’s life, such as the
Dante connection. Scholars did not find the dimensions of Dante’s Hell “recalcitrant” (p. 44) – its depth, at least, is specified in the
Inferno. Galileo’s lectures in fact defended the standard commentary by
Antonio Manetti (1423–1497) on this classic of Italian literature. Nevertheless, Galileo’s mathematical and literary skills helped clarify some of the issues, and he seems to have been a good public speaker (in modern terms, the kind of person you would get to lecture on the geography of
The Lord of the Rings). And perhaps Galileo just liked the poem (it has been suggested that the poem was one of his inspirations). Galileo’s main contribution to Dante studies seems to have been putting together several poetic clues in order to calculate that Satan (whom Dante places in the centre of Hell) would be roughly 1 km (or 0.7 miles) high. Stokes’ suggestion that mathematics is allied with Hell (p. 45) didn’t add much to this anecdote, as far as I was concerned.
Galileo lectured on, among other things, the geography of Dante’s conical Hell.Stokes unfortunately replaces the simplistic story of Science
vs the Church by an equally simplistic story of Galileo
vs “the philosophers.” Stokes attributes various motivations to “philosophers,” generally without naming any. It was, in the end, the compatibility or otherwise of Copernicanism with traditional Catholic interpretation of Scripture that got Galileo into trouble. Galileo had plenty of supporters within the Church, but when it came to the crunch, not quite enough – and the cheering from Protestant Holland and England didn’t help much in Rome. In oversimplifying, Stokes also tends to downplay valid criticism of Galileo: in hindsight, Galileo was right, but at the time, failure to observe
stellar parallax was indeed a weakness in the Copernican system. Galileo was a great scientist – perhaps the greatest ever – but he wasn’t a perfect one.
Galileo’s greatest relevance to the average Christian today (the series
is “Christian Encounters”) probably lies in his
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, which discusses the relationship between Scripture and Science. This is the letter where Galileo writes: “
the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of Heaven” (Stokes quotes several lines from the letter, but not that one). This letter is as relevant (and, to some people, as controversial) today as it was when Galileo first struggled to have it printed. Stokes summarises the key points quite well, but I would have liked a little more detail.
In this church, on 21 Dec 1614, one of Galileo’s opponents seriously misused the text Acts 1:11: “Viri galilaei quid statis aspicientes in caelum?” (Galileans, why do you stand looking up into the sky?) – photo by Georges Jansoone.Given Stokes’ fondness for editorialising, there are some lessons in the story of Galileo that I was surprised he did not draw, such as the important roles that even flawed human beings can play in history, the enormous value of friends when one is going through times of trial (Stokes does briefly discuss the great consolation provided by Galileo’s daughter), and the dangers of arrogance and a hot temper. For example, had he collaborated with
Johannes Kepler, Galileo’s work would probably have been even greater (as Stokes points out, Kepler had discovered the “other side” of the puzzle of gravity – that planets travel in ellipses). Had Galileo not loved humiliating his opponents in print, they might not have become such implacable enemies (and Galileo’s life might have been a little easier).
In terms of production, Galileo recognised the importance of pictures in writing (even though typesetting pictures in his day was expensive). His use of the telescope to make drawings of the moon (and of sunspots) helped to revolutionise astronomy. This makes it a little disappointing that Stokes avoids pictures (other than the cover). However, this may reflect a policy of the publisher.
Nobody had seen it like this before: one of Galileo’s published drawings of the moon, as seen through his telescope.Overall, as a big Galileo fan, I was a just a trifle disappointed by Stokes’ book. As a reader, I thought a little more of the excitement and drama of Galileo’s life could have been captured (this is, after all, the period of history in which
The Three Musketeers is set). However, I am sure that at least some teenagers will be as inspired by Stokes’ biography as I was by Harsányi’s, so I’m giving it 3 stars.
Galileo by Mitch Stokes: 3 starsHowever, I advise people outside the US to avoid dealing directly with Thomas Nelson; their shipping department does not appear to realise that other countries exist.
Disclaimer: I received a review copy of this book free from the publisher via BookSneeze®. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions I have expressed are entirely my own.
