伽利略在世之时曾是激烈争议的中心，然而科学界的尘埃早已落定，如今我们甚至能以近乎恰当的视角审视他与宗教裁判所之间那场著名的冲突。
In his own lifetime Galileo was the centre of violent controversy, but the scientific dust has long since settled, and today we can see even his famous clash with the Inquisition in something like its proper perspective.
然而，与此形成对照的是，恰恰是在近代，伽利略才成了科学史学家眼中的"难题"。
But, in contrast, it is only in modern times that Galileo has become a problem child for historians of science.
对于伽利略的旧有认识，曾是令人愉悦地简单明了。
The old view of Galileo was delightfully uncomplicated.
他最重要的特质是，他是一个以实验为本的人：他蔑视亚里士多德派的偏见与书本学问，他向自然而非向古代权威提问，并且他无所畏惧地得出自己的结论。
He was, above all, a man who experimented: who despised the prejudice and book learning of the Aristotelians, who put his questions to nature instead of to the ancients, and who drew his conclusions fearlessly.
他是第一个将望远镜指向天空的人，而且他在那里看到了足以同时推翻亚里士多德和托勒密学说的证据。
He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had seen there evidence enough to overthrow Aristotle and Ptolemy together.
他就是那个爬上比萨斜塔、从塔顶抛下各种重物、将球沿斜面滚下，继而将众多实验的结果归纳为著名自由落体定律的人。
He was the man who climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped various weights from the top, who rolled balls down inclined planes, and then generalized the results of his many experiments into the famous law of free fall.
然而，对史料更深入的研究——辅以对时代背景更深刻的理解，尤其是对科学革命中哲学潜流的新认识——已深刻地修正了这一对伽利略的认识。
But a closer study of the evidence, supported by a deeper sense of the period, and particularly by a new consciousness of the philosophical undercurrents in the scientific revolution, has profoundly modified this view of Galileo.
时至今日，尽管"旧有的伽利略"依然活在许多通俗读物之中，在科学史学家之间，一幅新的、更为复杂精密的图景已然浮现。
Today, although the old Galileo lives on in many popular writings, among historians of science a new and more sophisticated picture has emerged.
与此同时，我们对伽利略的反对者所给予的同情也有所增长。
At the same time our sympathy for Galileo's opponents has grown somewhat.
他的望远镜观测成果理所应当地流传不朽；它们在当时激起了巨大兴趣，产生了重要的理论影响，并对仪器和装置中所蕴藏的潜力提供了令人瞩目的示范。
His telescopic observations are justly immortal; they aroused great interest at the time, they had important theoretical consequences, and they provided a striking demonstration of the potentialities hidden in instruments and apparatus.
但是，如果我们记得在望远镜性能极限处使用它需要长期经验和对仪器的深度熟悉，我们还能责怪那些曾经观察却未能看到伽利略所见之物的人吗？
But can we blame those who looked and failed to see what Galileo saw, if we remember that to use a telescope at the limit of its powers calls for long experience and intimate familiarity with one's instrument?
那个拒绝通过伽利略望远镜观看的哲学家，真的比那些声称用罗斯勋爵大型望远镜在19世纪40年代观测到的螺旋星云只不过是磨镜工留下的划痕的人更有罪吗？
Was the philosopher who refused to look through Galileo's telescope more culpable than those who alleged that the spiral nebulae observed with Lord Rosse's great telescope in the 1840s were scratches left by the grinder?
如果我们想到，在伽利略那个时代，正如此前数百年来一样，弯曲的玻璃（透镜）是用来制造幻觉而非揭示真相的流行器具，那么我们或许可以宽宥那些声称木星卫星是由伽利略的望远镜制造出来的人；而如果一块弯曲玻璃就能扭曲自然，那么一对镜片又当如何？
We can perhaps forgive those who said the moons of Jupiter were produced by Galileo's spyglass if we recall that in his day, as for centuries before, curved glass was the popular contrivance for producing not truth but illusion, untruth; and if a single curved glass would distort nature, how much more would a pair of them?