diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-0.txt | 14667 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-0.zip | bin | 299459 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-h.zip | bin | 384490 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-h/60215-h.htm | 19336 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 28220 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-h/images/plan.jpg | bin | 18993 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-h/images/tree.jpg | bin | 5268 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 34003 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e1f0b37 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #60215 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60215) diff --git a/old/60215-0.txt b/old/60215-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bb63a95..0000000 --- a/old/60215-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14667 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, by Karl von Gebler - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia - -Author: Karl von Gebler - -Translator: Jane (Mrs. George) Sturge - -Release Date: September 1, 2019 [EBook #60215] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO GALILEI *** - - - - -Produced by ellinora and the Online Distributed Proofreading -Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from -images generously made available by The Internet -Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - - - - - -GALILEO GALILEI. - - * * * * * - -_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 32s._ - -THE RENAISSANCE OF ART IN FRANCE. By Mrs. MARK PATTISON. With Nineteen -Steel Engravings. - - * * * * * - -_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 24s._ - -THE CIVILIZATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. By JACOB -BURCKHARDT. Authorized Translation by S. G. C. MIDDLEMORE. - - “The whole of the first part of Dr Burckhardt’s work deals - with what may be called the Political Preparation for the - Renaissance. It is impossible here to do more than express a - high opinion of the compact way in which the facts are put - before the reader.... The second volume of Dr. Burckhardt’s - work is, we think, more full and complete in itself, more rich - in original thought, than the first. His account of the causes - which prevented the rise of a great Italian drama is very clear - and satisfying.”—_Saturday Review._ - -LONDON: C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. - - - - - GALILEO GALILEI - _AND THE ROMAN CURIA_. - - _FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES._ - - BY - KARL VON GEBLER. - - _TRANSLATED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY - MRS. GEORGE STURGE._ - - [Illustration] - - LONDON: - C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. - 1879. - - - - -LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR. - - -MADAM,— - -It is the desire of every author, every prosecutor of research, that the -products of his labours, the results of his studies, should be widely -circulated. This desire arises, especially in the case of one who has -devoted himself to research, not only from a certain egotism which clings -to us all, but from the wish that the laborious researches of years, -often believed to refute old and generally-received errors, should become -the common property of as many as possible. - -The author of the present work is no exception to these general rules; -and it therefore gives him great pleasure, and fills him with gratitude, -that you, Madam, should have taken the trouble to translate the small -results of his studies into the language of Newton, and thus have -rendered them more accessible to the English nation. - -But little more than two years have elapsed since the book first appeared -in Germany, but this period has been a most important one for researches -into the literature relating to Galileo. - -In the year 1869 Professor Domenico Berti obtained permission to inspect -and turn to account the Acts of Galileo’s Trial carefully preserved -in the Vatican, and in 1876 he published a portion of these important -documents, which essentially tended to complete the very partial -publication of them by Henri de L’Epinois, in 1867. In 1877 M. de -L’Epinois and the present writer were permitted to resuscitate the famous -volume, which again lay buried among the secret papal archives; that -is, to inspect it at leisure and to publish the contents in full. It -was, however, not only of the greatest importance to become acquainted -with the Vatican MS. as a whole, and by an exact publication of it to -make it the common property of historical research; it was at least of -equal moment to make a most careful examination of the material form and -external appearance of the Acts. For the threefold system of paging had -led some historians to make the boldest conjectures, and respecting one -document in particular,—the famous note of 26th February, 1616,—there -was an apparently well-founded suspicion that there had been a later -falsification of the papers. - -While, on the one hand, the knowledge gained of the entire contents of -the Vatican MS., for the purpose of my own publication of it,[1] only -confirmed, in many respects, my previous opinions on the memorable trial; -on the other hand, a minute and repeated examination of the material -evidence afforded by the suspicious document, which, up to that time, -had been considered by myself and many other authors to be a forgery -of a later date, convinced me, contrary to all expectation, that it -indisputably originated in 1616. - -This newly acquired experience, and the appearance of many valuable -critical writings on the trial of Galileo since the year 1876, rendered -therefore a partial revision and correction of the German edition of this -work, for the English and an Italian translation, absolutely necessary. -All the needful emendations have accordingly been made, with constant -reference to the literature relating to the subject published between -the spring of 1876 and the spring of 1878. I have also consulted several -older works which had escaped my attention when the book was first -written. - -May the work then, in its to some extent new form, make its way in the -British Isles, and meet with as friendly a reception there as the German -edition has met with in Austria and Germany. - -To you, Madam, I offer my warm thanks for the care with which you have -executed the difficult and laborious task of translation. - -Accept, Madam, the assurance of my sincere esteem. - - KARL VON GEBLER.[2] - - MERAN, _1st April, 1878_. - - - - -NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. - - -The Vatican Manuscript alluded to in the foregoing letter, and constantly -referred to in the text, was published by the author in the autumn of -1877, under the title of “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach -der Vaticanischen Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard. -This, with some introductory chapters, was intended to supersede the -Appendix to the original work, and to form a second volume, when a new -German edition should be called for. It did not, however, appear to me -that any purpose would be served by reprinting all the Latin and Italian -documents of the Vatican MS. in this country, as students who wish -to consult them can easily procure them as published in the original -languages in Germany, and I hope for a wider circle of readers than that -composed exclusively of students. I therefore proposed to Herr von Gebler -to give the History, Description, and Estimate of the Vat. MS., etc., -in an Appendix, together with a few of the more important documents; to -this, with some suggestions, as for instance, that some of the shorter -documents should be given as notes to the text, he fully agreed, with the -remark that I must know best what would suit my countrymen. The Appendix, -therefore, differs somewhat both from the original Appendix and from the -introductory portions of the new volume, for these also were revised for -the Translation. - -The translations from Latin and Italian documents have been made from the -originals by a competent scholar, and all the more important letters and -extracts from letters of Galileo have been compared with the Italian. The -Table of Contents, headings to and titles of the chapters, and Index, -none of which exist in the original, have been added by myself. - - JANE STURGE. - - SYDENHAM, _November, 1878_. - - - - -BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. - -ABRIDGED FROM THE “AUGSBURGER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG” OF 6TH DECEMBER, 1878. - - -The author of this work died at Gratz on the 7th of September, 1878. In -devoting a few lines to his memory we have not a long and distinguished -career to describe, for a brief span of life was all that was granted -him, but to the last moment he sought to turn it to the best account. - -The present work has enjoyed a wide circulation in Germany, but few of -its readers could have known anything of the author but his name. The -protracted studies which form the basis of it, the skilful handling of -documentary material which seemed to betray the practised historian, -must have suggested a man of ripe years, whose life had been passed in -study, as the author; no one certainly would have sought him among the -young officers of a cavalry regiment, whose tastes generally lie in any -direction rather than that of historical research. - -Karl von Gebler was the son of Field-marshal Wilhelm von Gebler, and -was born at Vienna in 1850. Although early destined for the military -career, he laid the foundations of a superior education in the grammar -schools. Having passed through the gymnasium, in 1869 he joined the 7th -regiment of the line as a private, and before long attained the rank of -lieutenant in the 4th regiment of Dragoons. Being an excellent draftsman -and skilled in military surveying, he was often employed on the general’s -staff in drawing maps. In addition to his extensive knowledge of military -affairs, he had many of the accomplishments befitting his calling; he was -an excellent shot and a bold rider. But the duties of a cavalry officer -were soon too limited for his active mind and intellectual tastes, and -he sought also to win his spurs on the fields of literature. He occupied -his leisure in translating the work of a French staff officer, “Success -in War,” to which he made some additions. He also published “The True -Portrait of a Royal Hero of the 18th Century,” in a newspaper; and -finally, “Historic Sayings.” - -A night ride, undertaken in the performance of his official duties, from -which he returned at daybreak to exercise at the riding school, brought -on severe hemorrhage and inflammation of the lungs. The two physicians -who attended him gave him up; in a consultation at his bedside, prudently -held in Latin, they gave him twenty-four hours to live. One of them -having taken leave, the other returned to the patient, who, with quiet -humour, greeted him with the classic words, “Morituri te salutant!” The -worthy doctor found, to his horror, that the patient had understood all -that had passed, and had no easy task to persuade him that his case was -not so bad after all. He had, however, in consequence of some local -circumstances, already ordered the coffin. - -Gebler’s constitution surmounted the danger; by the spring he was able to -join his parents at Gratz. But his health had sustained so severe a shock -that he was compelled to abandon the military career. His parents removed -to Gries, near Botzen, for the sake of a milder climate on his account. -Here he revived wonderfully; he seemed to have taken a new lease of -life, and devoted himself altogether to literary pursuits. The critical -studies before mentioned of the assumed historic sayings of great men, -and among them of Galileo’s famous dictum, “E pur si muove,” brought him -into closer acquaintance with this hero of science. He accumulated so -large a material for a biographical sketch of the great Italian, that -the limits of an essay seemed too narrow, and he resolved to undertake a -more comprehensive work on the subject, which he thought would fill up -a gap in German literature. In the autumn of 1875 the work, which had -occupied him four years, was completed. It was not a little gratifying -to the young author that one of the first publishers in Germany, Cotta, -of Stuttgard, undertook the publication on very favourable terms, and -brought it out in 1876. It met with great approval, and brought him -into association with many eminent literary men in Italy and Germany. -Galileo’s own country was foremost in recognition of his services. The -academies of Padua and Pisa, and the Accadémia dei Lincei sent him -special acknowledgments, and King Victor Emmanuel rewarded him with the -order of the Crown of Italy. - -Before this work was finished he had removed with his father, having -in the meanwhile lost his mother, to Meran, and during the first year -of his residence there his health improved so much that he was able to -take part in social life, and to enlarge the sphere of his labours and -influence. Society in this little town owed much in many ways to the -intellectual and amiable young officer. Whenever a good and noble cause -required support, his co-operation might be reckoned on. In common with -many other lovers of art and antiquity, he took a lively interest in the -preservation and restoration of the Maultasch-Burg, which promises to be -one of the chief sights of Meran. Unhappily he did not live to see the -completion of the work. - -With increase of health his zest for work increased also, and he -addressed himself to a great historical task. The subject he selected -was the Maid of Orleans. The preliminary studies were difficult in a -place destitute of all aids to learning. His researches were not confined -to the collection of all the printed material; in 1876 he had planned -to search out the documentary sources wherever they were to be found, -but before this he made close studies in the field of psychology and -mental pathology. The work of Ruf on the subject, the learned chaplain -of a lunatic asylum, attracted his attention, and he entered into -communication with the author. Ruf’s great experience and philosophical -acquirements were of great service to Gebler in his preliminary studies -on Joan of Arc. But the project was not to be carried out. Just as he was -about to write the second chapter, an essay of Berti’s at Rome occasioned -him to enter on fresh studies on Galileo. - -Domenico Berti, who had examined the original Acts of Galileo’s trial, -though, as his work shows, very superficially, spoke contemptuously of -the German _savans_, comparing them with blind men judging of colours, as -none of them had seen the original Acts in the Vatican. This had special -reference to the document of 26th February, 1616, which the German -writers on the subject, and Gebler among them, declared to be a forgery. -Being a man of the strictest love of truth, this reproach induced him, -in spite of his health, which had again failed, in May, 1877, to go to -Rome, where he obtained access to the Vatican. For ten weeks, in spite of -the oppressive heat, he daily spent fourteen hours in the Papal Archives, -studying and copying with diplomatic precision the original Acts of -Galileo’s trial. As the result of his labours, he felt constrained to -declare the document in question to be genuine. Actuated only by the -desire that truth should prevail, in the second part of his work, written -at Rome, he without hesitation withdrew the opinion he had previously -advocated as an error. - -His first work had made a flattering commotion in the literary world, but -the additional publication called forth a still more animated discussion -of the whole question, which the readers of this journal will not have -forgotten. Gebler took part in it himself, and, then suffering from -illness, wrote his reply from a sick bed. - -His sojourn in Rome had sadly pulled him down. On his return home, in -July, 1877, he had lost his voice and was greatly reduced. But in October -of the same year he once more roused himself for a journey to Italy. -The object of the previous one was to follow his hero in yellow and -faded historic papers, but this time the task he had set himself was to -pursue the tracks of Galileo in all the cities and places in any way -connected with his memory. The result of these travels was an article in -the _Deutsche Rundschau_, No. 7, 1878, “On the Tracks of Galileo.” In -this paper Gebler again dispels some clouds in which Galileo’s previous -biographers had enveloped him. We in these less romantic days are quite -willing to dispense with the shudder at the stories of the dungeon, etc., -and are glad to know that Galileo was permitted to enjoy a degree of -comfort during his detention not often granted to those who come into -collision with the world. - -“On the Tracks of Galileo” was Gebler’s last literary work. His strength -of will and mental powers at length succumbed to his incurable malady. -The mineral waters of Gleichenberg, which he had been recommended to -try, did him more harm than good. He wrote thence to a friend, “I am -in a pitiable condition, and have given up all hope of improvement.” -Unfortunately he was right. He had overtasked his strength. His zeal -for science had hastened his end, and he may well be called one of her -victims. - -His last days were spent at Gratz, where his boyhood had been passed, and -he rests beside his only brother. Both were the pride and joy of their -father, now left alone. - -In appearance Karl von Gebler was distinguished and attractive looking. -No one could escape the charm of the freshness and originality of his -mind, in spite of constant ill health. The refined young student, with -the manners of a man of the world, was a phenomenon to his fellow-workers -in the learned world. We have heard some of them say that they could not -understand how Gebler could have acquired the historian’s craft, the -technical art of prosecuting research, without having had any special -critical schooling. - -The writer of these lines will never forget the hours spent with this -amiable and, in spite of his success, truly modest young man in his snug -study. The walls lined with books, or adorned with weapons, betrayed at -a glance the character and tastes of the occupant, while a pendulum clock -dating from the time of Galileo recalled his work on the first observer -of the vibrations of the pendulum to mind. He always liked to wind up the -venerable timepiece himself, and took a pleasure in its sonorous tones. -When I once more entered the study after his death, the clock had run -down, the pendulum had ceased to vibrate, it told the hour no more. - - - - -PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. - - -While Italy and France possess an ample literature relating to Galileo, -his oft-discussed fate and memorable achievements, very little has been -written in Germany on this hero of science; and it would almost seem as -if Copernicus and Kepler had cast the founder of mechanical physics into -the shade. German literature does not possess one exhaustive work on -Galileo. This is a great want, and to supply it would be a magnificent -and thankworthy enterprise. It could only, however, be carried out by a -comprehensive biography of the famous astronomer, which, together with a -complete narrative of his life, should comprise a detailed description -and estimate of his writings, inventions, and discoveries. We do not -feel ourselves either called upon or competent to undertake so difficult -a task. Our desire has been merely to fill up a portion of the gap in -German literature by this contribution to the Life of Galileo, with a -hope that it may be an incentive to some man of learning, whose studies -qualify him for the task, to give our nation a complete description of -the life and works of this great pioneer of the ideas of Copernicus. - -We have also set ourselves another task; namely, to throw as much light -as possible, by means of authentic documents, on the attitude Galileo -assumed towards the Roman curia, and the history of the persecutions -which resulted from it. To this end, however, it appeared absolutely -necessary to give, at any rate in broad outline, a sketch of his aims -and achievements as a whole. For his conflict with the ecclesiastical -power was but the inevitable consequence of his subversive telescopic -discoveries and scientific reforms. It was necessary to make the intimate -connection between these causes and their historical results perfectly -intelligible. - -In the narration of historical events we have relied, as far as possible, -upon authentic sources only. Among these are the following:— - -1. Galileo’s correspondence, and the correspondence relating to him -between third persons. (Albèri’s “Opere di Galileo Galilei.” Vols. ii., -iii., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xv., and Suppl., in all 1,564 letters.) - -2. The constant reports of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, to -his Government at Florence, during and after Galileo’s trial. (Thirty-one -despatches, from August 15th, 1632, to December 3rd, 1633.) - -3. The Acts of the Trial, from the MS. originals in the Vatican. - -4. The collection of documents published, in 1870, by Professor Silvestro -Gherardi. Thirty-two extracts from the original protocols of the sittings -and decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office.[3] - -5. Some important documents published by the Jesuit Father Riccioli, in -his “Almagestum novum, Bononiæ, 1651.”[4] - -We have also been careful to acquaint ourselves with the numerous French -and Italian Lives of Galileo, from the oldest, that of his contemporary, -Gherardini, to the most recent and complete, that of Henri Martin, 1869; -when admissible, we have cautiously used them, constantly comparing them -with authentic sources. As the part of the story of Galileo of which -we have treated is that which has been most frequently discussed in -literature, and from the most widely differing points of view, it could -not fail to be of great interest to us to collect and examine, as far as -it lay in our power, the views, opinions, and criticisms to be found in -various treatises on the subject. We offer our warm thanks to all the -possessors of private, and custodians of public libraries, who have most -liberally and obligingly aided us in our project. - -One more remark remains to be made. Party interests and passions have, to -a great extent, and with but few exceptions, guided the pens of those who -have written on this chapter of Galileo’s life. The one side has lauded -him as an admirable martyr of science, and ascribed more cruelty to the -Inquisition than it really inflicted on him; the other has thought proper -to enter the lists as defender of the Inquisition, and to wash it white -at Galileo’s expense. Historical truth contradicts both. - -Whatever may be the judgment passed on the present work, to one -acknowledgment we think we may, with a good conscience, lay claim: that, -standing in the service of truth alone, we have anxiously endeavoured to -pursue none other than her sublime interests. - - KARL VON GEBLER. - - MERAN, _November, 1875_. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - - PART I. - - _GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST - CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN CURIA._ - - CHAPTER I. - - EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES. - - Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on - Music.—Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the - Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins to study Medicine.—Goes to - the University of Pisa.—Discovery of the Synchronism of the - Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic - Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of - Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at - Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter to - Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus orbium - Cœlestium” 3 - - CHAPTER II. - - THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS. - - Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New - Star.—The Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice - to exhibit it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request - of Henry IV.—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s - attack on Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition - of the Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler 16 - - CHAPTER III. - - REMOVAL TO FLORENCE. - - Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic - Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change - the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of - Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant - Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The - Inquisition.—Introduction of Theology into the Scientific - Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence 27 - - CHAPTER IV. - - ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY. - - Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about - the Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s Work - on the subject at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess - Christine.—The Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated - Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini - denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop Bonciani’s - attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the - Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd - accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s - favour 42 - - CHAPTER V. - - HOPES AND FEARS. - - Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s - Work.—Blindness of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the - Grand Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to - Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.—Caccini - begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican System at Rome.—His - mistake in so doing 59 - - CHAPTER VI. - - THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED - PROHIBITION TO GALILEO. - - Adverse “Opinion” of the Inquisition on Galileo’s - Propositions.—Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute - Prohibition to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.—Discrepancy - between Notes of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s - Documents.—Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts - the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s - Documents.—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican - System.—Attitude of the Church.—Was the Absolute Prohibition - ever issued to Galileo?—Testimony of Bellarmine in his - favour.—Conclusions 76 - - CHAPTER VII. - - EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT. - - Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect - his Recall.—Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the - Decree repealed.—Intrigues against him.—Audience of Pope Paul - V.—His friendly assurances.—His Character.—Galileo’s return to - Florence 91 - - CHAPTER VIII. - - THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS. - - Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work - of Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke - Leopold of Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The - three Comets of 1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s - Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s Treatise on them, inspired - by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical and Philosophical - Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His Death.—Death of Cosmo - II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” - on it.—Death of Gregory XV.—Urban VIII. 98 - - CHAPTER IX. - - MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII. - - His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when - Cardinal.—Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication of - “Il Saggiatore” with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the - Work.—The Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed - Prohibition 108 - - CHAPTER X. - - PAPAL FAVOUR. - - Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his - Accession.—Favourable reception.—Scientific discussions - with the Pope.—Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th - March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The Microscope.—Galileo not the - Inventor.—Urban’s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.—Galileo’s - reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s hypocrisy.—Spinola’s - harangue against the Copernican System.—Lothario Sarsi’s reply - to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his “Dialogues” 114 - - PART II. - - _PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF - THE WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO._ - - CHAPTER I. - - THE “DIALOGUES” ON THE TWO SYSTEMS. - - Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their popular style.—Significance - of the name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the - Copernican System.—Attitude of Rome towards Science.—Thomas - Campanella.—Urban VIII.’s duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. to - Rome.—Riccardi’s corrections.—He gives the _Imprimatur_ on - certain conditions.—Galileo returns to Florence to complete the - Work 127 - - CHAPTER II. - - THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE “DIALOGUES.” - - Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei - Lincei.—Galileo advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and - delays.—His impatience.—Authorship of the Introduction.—The - _Imprimatur_ granted for Florence.—Absurd accusation from the - style of the Type of the Introduction 138 - - CHAPTER III. - - THE “DIALOGUES” AND THE JESUITS. - - Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s friends - and the learned world.—The hostile party.—The Jesuits - as leaders of learning.—Deprived of their monopoly by - Galileo.—They become his bitter foes.—Having the _Imprimatur_ - for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly - safe.—The three dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did “Simplicius” personate - the Pope?—Conclusive arguments against it.—Effect of the - accusation.—Urban’s motives in instituting the Trial 151 - - CHAPTER IV. - - DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616. - - Symptoms of the coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade of - forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional - Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview - with the Pope and unfavourable reception.—Report of it to - Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—Real object of the Special - Commission to find a pretext for the Trial.—Its discovery in - the assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report of the Commission, and - charges against Galileo 163 - - CHAPTER V. - - THE SUMMONS TO ROME. - - Niccolini’s attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s - Parable.—The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His grief - and consternation.—His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed - order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s fruitless efforts - to save him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to - travel.—Castelli’s hopeful view of the case.—Threat to bring - him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to - go.—His powerlessness to protect his servant.—Galileo’s mistake - in leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati 175 - - CHAPTER VI. - - GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME. - - Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan - Embassy.—No notice at first taken of his coming.—Visits - of Serristori.—Galileo’s hopefulness.—His Letter to - Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the - Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that - he must appear before the Holy Office.—His dejection at the - news.—Niccolini’s advice not to defend himself 191 - - CHAPTER VII. - - THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION. - - The first hearing.—Galileo’s submissive attitude.—The events - of February, 1616.—Galileo denies knowledge of a special - Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s certificate.—Either the - Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s ignorance was - feigned.—His conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The - Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—“Opinions” of Oregius, - Inchofer and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the Palace - of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to - Geri Bocchineri.—Change of tone at second hearing hitherto an - enigma.—Now explained by letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. - Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency 201 - - CHAPTER VIII. - - THE TRIAL CONTINUED. - - Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His - hopefulness.—Third hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement - of it with previous events.—Confident hopes of his - friends.—Niccolini’s fears.—Decision to examine Galileo under - threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Informed - that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be Sentenced, - and would be Imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to - “_locum suum_.”—No evidence that he suffered Torture, or was - placed in a prison cell 217 - - CHAPTER IX. - - THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION. - - The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican - System had not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible” - authority.—The special Prohibition assumed as fact.—The - Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office - exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—The - Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred - and thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to - show that Galileo had really altered his opinion.—After the - Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’ - Monti.—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to - Siena 230 - - CHAPTER X. - - CURRENT MYTHS. - - Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si - Muove.”—The Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only detained - twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—Refuted in 18th - Century.—Torture based on the words “_examen rigorosum_.”—This - shown to be untenable.—Assertion that the Acts have been - falsified refuted.—False Imputation on Niccolini.—Conclusive - Evidence against Torture.—Galileo not truly a “Martyr of - Science” 249 - - PART III. - - _GALILEO’S LAST YEARS._ - - CHAPTER I. - - GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI. - - Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany - to ask for his release.—Postponed on the advice of - Niccolini.—Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican - System.—Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors - of Italy.—Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate - against the publication of any new Work of Galileo’s, - or new Edition.—Curious Arguments in favour of the old - System.—Niccolini asks for Galileo’s release.—Refusal, - but permission given to go to Arcetri.—Anonymous - accusations.—Death of his Daughter.—Request for permission - to go to Florence.—Harsh refusal and threat.—Letter to - Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention of the Count de Noailles - on Galileo’s behalf.—Prediction that he will be compared to - Socrates.—Letter to Peiresc.—Publication of Galileo’s Works in - Holland.—Continued efforts of Noailles.—Urban’s fair speeches 267 - - CHAPTER II. - - FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT. - - Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle - nuove Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method - of taking Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered - to Holland.—Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the - Moon.—Visit from Milton.—Becomes blind.—Letter to Diodati.—On a - hint from Castelli, petitions for his Liberty.—The Inquisitor - to visit him and report to Rome.—Permitted to live at Florence - under restrictions.—The States-General appoint a Delegate to - see him on the Longitude question.—The Inquisitor sends word - of it to Rome.—Galileo not to receive a Heretic.—Presents - from the States-General refused from fear of Rome.—Letter to - Diodati.—Galileo supposed to be near his end.—Request that - Castelli might come to him.—Permitted under restrictions.—The - new “Dialoghi” appear at Leyden, 1638.—They founded Mechanical - Physics.—Attract much notice.—Improvement of health.—In 1639 - goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily 284 - - CHAPTER III. - - LAST YEARS AND DEATH. - - Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious - Resignation.—Continues his scientific Researches.—His - pupil Viviani.—Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations - about Longitudes.—Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with - him.—Last discussion of the Copernican System in reply to - Rinuccini.—Sketch of its contents.—Pendulum Clocks.—Priority - of the discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from - Castelli.—Torricelli joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his - Deathbed.—Death, 8th Jan., 1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian - Burial.—Monument objected to by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. fears - to offend him.—Buried quietly.—No Inscription till thirty-two - years later.—First Public Monument erected by Viviani in - 1693.—Viviani directs his heirs to erect one in Santa - Croce.—Erected in 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican - System.—In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the clause in Decree - forbidding books which teach the new System to be expunged.—In - 1820 permission given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s work - and others not expunged from the Index till 1835 299 - - APPENDIX. - - I. HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 319 - - II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 330 - - III. ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 334 - - IV. GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS 341 - - V. DECREE OF 5TH MARCH, 1616 345 - - VI. REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION 347 - - - - -WORKS CONSULTED.[5] - - -ALBÈRI (Eugenio): “Le opere di Galileo Galilei.” Prima edizione completa -condotta sugli autentici manoscritti Palatini. Firenze, 1842-1856. - - *“Sul Processo di Galileo. Due Lettere in risposta al giornale - S’opinione.” Firenze, 1864. - -ANONYM: “Der heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei und das astronomische -System des Copernicus.” Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische -Deutschland; herausgegeben von G. Phillips und G. Görres. Siebenter Band. -München, 1841. - - “Galileo Galilei. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung für die - Entwickelung der Naturwissenschaft.” Die Fortschritte der - Naturwissenschaft in biographischen Bildern. Drittes Heft. - Berlin, 1856. - - “Galileo Galilei.” Die Grenzboten. XXIV. Jahrgang. I. Semester. - Nr. 24. 1865. - -*ARDUINI (Carlo): “La Primogenita di Galileo Galilei rivelata dalle sue -lettere.” Florence, 1864. - -BARBIER (Antoine Alexandre): “Examen critique et complément des -dictionnaires historiques les plus répandus.” Paris, 1820. Article -Galilée. - -*BERTI (Prof. Domenico): “La venuta di Galileo Galilei a Padova. Studii. -Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, dal Novembre -1870 all’ ottobre 1871.” Tomo decimosesto, seria terza, dispensa quinta, -ottava, nono e decima. Venezia, 1870, 1871. - - *“Copernico e le vicende del Sistema Copernicano in Italia - nella seconda metà del secolo XVI. e nella prima del secolo - XVII.” Roma, 1876. - - “Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei, pubblicato per la - prima volta.” Roma, 1876. - - “La Critica moderna e il Processo contro Galileo Galilei.” - (Nuova Antologia, Gennajo, 1877 Firenze.) - -BOUIX (L’Abbé): “La condamnation de Galilée. Lapsus des écrivains, qui -l’opposent à la doctrine de l’infaillibilité du Pape.”—Revue des Sciences -ecclésiastiques. Arras-Paris, février et mars, 1866. - -CANTOR (Professor Dr. Moritz): “Galileo Galilei.” _Zeitschrift für -Mathematik und Physik._ 9. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. Leipzig, 1864. - - “Recensionen über die 1870 erschienenen Schriften Wohlwill’s - und Gherardi’s über den Galilei’schen Process.” _Zeitschrift - für Mathematik und Physik._ 16. Jahrgang. 1. Heft. 1871. - -CASPAR (Dr. R.): “Galileo Galilei. Zusammenstellung der Forschungen und -Entdeckungen Galilei’s auf dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft, als Beitrag -zur Geschichte der neueren Physik.” Stuttgart, 1854. - -CHASLES (Prof. Philarète): “Galileo Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses -contemporains d’après les documents originaux.” Paris, 1862. - -*COMBES (Louis): “Galilée et L’Inquisition Romaine.” Paris, 1876. - -DELAMBRE (Jean Baptiste Joseph): “Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne.” -Paris, 1821. - -ECKERT (Professor Dr.): “Galileo Galilei, dessen Leben und Verdienste um -die Wissenschaften.” Als Einladung zur Promotionsfeier des Pädagogiums. -Basel, 1858. - -EPINOIS (Henri de L’): “Galilée, son procès, sa condamnation d’après des -documents inédits.” Extrait de la Revue des questions historiques. Paris, -1867. - - *“Les Pièces du Procès de Galilée, précédées d’un - avant-propos.” Rome, Paris, 1877 v. Palmé société Générale de - Librairie Catholique. - - *“La Question de Galilée, les faits et leurs conséquences.” - Paris Palmé, 1878. - -FIGUIER (Louis): “Galilée.” Vies des savants illustres du dix-septième -siècle. Paris, 1869. - -FRIEDLEIN (Rector): “Zum Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.” -_Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. 1872. - -GHERARDI (Prof. Silvestro): “Il Processo Galileo riveduto sopra documenti -di nuova fonte.” _Rivista Europea._ Anno 1. Vol. III. Firenze, 1870.[6] - - “Sulla Dissertazione del dott. Emilio Wohlwill. Il processo di - Galileo Galilei.” Estratto della _Rivista Europea_. Firenze, - 1872. - -*GILBERT (Prof. Ph.): “Le Procès de Galilée d’après les Documents -contemporains.” Extrait de la Revue Catholique tomes I., II. Louvains, -1869. - -GOVI (Gilberto): “Intorno a certi manuscritti apocrifi di Galileo.” -Torino, 1869. Estr. dagli Atti della Accadémia delle Scienze di Torino -Vol. V. Adunanza del 21 Nov. 1869. - - “Intorno a tre lettere di Galileo Galilei tratte dall’ archivio - dei Gonzaga.” Bollettino di bibliografia e di storia delle - scienze matematiche e fisiche pubblicato da B. Boncompagni. - Tomo III. Roma, 1870. - -GOVI (Gilberto): “Il S. Offizio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un -opuscolo postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento.” Torino, 1872. - -*GRISAR (Prof. H. S. J.): “Der Galilei’sche Process auf der neuesten -Actenpublicationen historisch und juristisch geprüft.” _Zeitschrift für -Kath. Theol._ II. Jahrgang, pp. 65-128. Innsbruck. - -JAGEMANN: “Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Galileo Galilei.” -Neue Auflage. Leipzig, 1787. - -LIBRI: “Galileo Galilei, sein Leben und seine Werke.” Aus dem -Französischen mit Anmerkungen von F. W. Carové. Siegen und Wiesbaden, -1842. - -MARINI (Mgr. Marino): “Galileo e l’inquisizione.” Memorie -storico-critiche. Roma, 1850. - -MARTIN (Henri Th.): “Galilée, les droits de la science et la méthode des -sciences physiques.” Paris, 1868. - -NELLI (Gio. Batista Clemente de): “Vita e commercio letterario di Galileo -Galilei.” Losanna (Firenze), 1793. - -OLIVIERI (P. Maurizio-Benedetto Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario -della S. Rom. ed Univer. Inquisizione): “Di Copernico e di Galileo -scritto postumo ora per la prima volta messo in luce sull’ autografo per -cura d’un religioso dello stesso istituto.” Bologna, 1872. - -PARCHAPPE (Dr. Max): “Galilée, sa vie, ses découvertes et ses travaux.” -Paris, 1866. - -*PIERALISI (Sante, Sacerdote e Bibliotecario della Barberiniana): “Urbano -VIII. e Galileo Galilei: Memorie Storiche.” Roma, 1875. Tipografia -poliglotta della L. P. di Propaganda Fide. - - *“Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. Galileo Galilei proposte - dall’ autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazione sopra il processo - originale di Galileo Galilei pubblicato da Domenico Berti.” - Settembre, 1876. - -REITLINGER (Prof. Edmund): “Galileo Galilei.” Freie Blicke. -Populärwissenschaftliche Aufsätze. Berlin, 1875. - -REUMONT (Alfred von): “Galilei und Rom.” Beiträge zur italienischen -Geschichte. 1 Bd. Berlin, 1853. - -REUSCH (Professor Dr. F. H.): “Der Galilei’sche Procesz.” Ein Vortrag. -Historische Zeitschrift; herausgegeben von Prof. Heinrich von Sybel. 17. -Jahrgang. 1875. 3. Heft. - -REZZI (M. Domenica): “Sulla invenzione del microscopio, giuntavi una -notizia delle Considerazioni al Tasso attribuite a Galileo Galilei.” -Roma, 1852. - -*RICCARDI (Prof. Cav. Pietro): “Di alcune recenti memorie sul processo e -sulla condanna del Galilei. Nota e Documenti aggiunti alla bibliografia -Galileiana.” Modena, 1873. - -RICCIOLI (P. Jo. Bapt.): “Almagestum novum.” Bonioniae, 1651. - -ROSINI (M. Giovanni): “Per l’inaugurazione solenne della statua di -Galileo.” Orazione. Pisa, 1839 (2 Oct). - -ROSSI (Prof. Giuseppe): “Del Metodo Galileiano.” Bologna, 1877. - -*SCARTAZZINI (Dr. T. A.): “Der Process des Galileo Galilei.” _Unsere -Zeit._ Jahrgang 13. Heft 7 and 18. - - *“Il processo di Galileo Galilei e la moderna critica tedesca.” - _Revista Europea_, Vol. IV. Part V., Vol. V. Parts I and II., 1 - and 16 Jan. 1878. - -*SCHNEEMANN (P. S. J.): “Galileo Galilei und der Römische Stuhl.” Stimmen -aus Maria Laach. Kath. Blättern. Nos. 2, 3, 4, Feb. Mar. April, 1878. - -SNELL (Dr. Carl): “Ueber Galilei als Begründer der mechanischen Physik -und über die Methode derselben.” Jena, 1864. - -TARGIONI TOZZETTI: “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche in -Toscana.” Firenze, 1780. (Contains in Vol. ii.: “Vita di Galileo scritta -da Nic. Gherardini.”) - -VENTURI (Cav. Giambattista): “Memorie e lettere inedite finora o disperse -di Galileo Galilei.” Modena, 1818-1821. - -VIVIANI: “Raconto istorico della vita di Galileo Galilei.” (Enthalten im -XV. Bande der Opere di Galileo Galilei. Prima edizione completa. Firenze, -1856.) - -VOSEN (Dr. Christian Hermann): “Galileo Galilei und die Römische -Berurtheilung des Copernicanischen Systems.” Broschürenverein Nr. 5. -Frankfurt am M. 1865. - -WOHLWILL (Dr. Emil): “Der Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei. -Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen -Inquisition.” Berlin, 1870. - - *“Ist Galilei gefoltert worden? Eine kritische Studie.” - Leipzig, 1877. - - “Zum Inquisitionsprocesz des Galileo Galilei.” _Zeitschrift für - Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 2. Heft. 1872. - -*WOLYNSKI (Dott. Arturio): “Lettere inedite a Galileo Galilei.” Firenze, -1872. - - *“Relazione di Galileo Galilei colla Polonia esposte secondo i - documenti per la maggior parte non pubblicati.” Firenze, 1873. - - “La Diplomazia Toscana e Galileo Galilei.” Firenze, 1874. - - - - -PART I. - -_GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST CONFLICT -WITH THE ROMAN CURIA._ - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -_EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES._ - - Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on - Music.—Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the - Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins to study Medicine.—Goes to - the University of Pisa.—Discovery of the Isochronism of the - Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic - Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of - Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at - Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter to - Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus Orbium - Cœlestium.” - - -The same memorable day is marked by the setting of one of the most -brilliant stars in the firmament of art and the rising of another in the -sphere of science, which was to enlighten the world with beams of equal -splendour. On the 18th February, 1564, Michael Angelo Buonarotti closed -his eyes at Rome, and Galileo Galilei first saw the light at Pisa. - -He was the son of the Florentine nobleman, Vincenzo Galilei, and of -Julia, one of the ancient family of the Ammanati of Pescia, and was -born in wedlock, as the documents of the church clearly attest.[7] -His earliest years were spent at Pisa, but his parents soon returned -to Florence, which was their settled home. Here he received his early -education. His father had distinguished himself by his writings on the -theory of music, particularly the mathematical part of it.[8] They were -not merely above mediocrity, but aimed at innovation, and if they did not -achieve reform, it was to be attributed to the conservative spirit then -reigning in Italy, which asserted itself in every department of life, and -especially in the spheres of art and science. - -Galileo’s father had no property. His income was but scanty, and the -fates had endowed him with a numerous family instead of with fortune.[9] -Under these untoward circumstances he at first destined the little -Galileo, as is related by Gherardini, his earliest biographer, to a -career by no means distinguished, though advantageous in a material point -of view, and one that conferred much of their wealth on the Florentines, -so that it was held in high esteem—he was to be a cloth dealer. But the -young noble first received the education befitting his station, that is, -a very mediocre teacher instructed him in the Humanities.[10] Fortunately -for the clever young scholar, he was handed over to the pious brethren of -the convent of Vallombrosa for further education. Here he at once made -rapid progress. He acquired great facility in the classics. His thorough -study of the masterpieces of antiquity was of the greatest advantage to -him. He doubtless thereby laid the foundation of the admirable style to -which he afterwards, in some measure, owed his brilliant successes. - -Galileo had a great variety of talent. Besides ardent pursuit of the -solid branches of learning, he had considerable skill in drawing and -music, in which he afterwards attained so much perfection that his -judgment was highly esteemed, even by great artists.[11] He played the -lute himself with the skill of a master. He also highly appreciated -poetry. His later essays on Dante, Orlando Furioso, and Gerusalemme -Liberata, as well as the fragment of a play, bear witness to his lively -interest in _belles lettres_. But from his earliest youth he showed -the greatest preference for mechanics. He made little machines with -an ingenuity and skill which evinced a really unusual talent for such -things.[12] - -With these abilities his father must soon have arrived at the conclusion -that his son was born for something better than for distributing wool -among the people, and resolved to devote him to science; only it was -necessary that the branch of it to which he turned his attention should -offer a prospect of profit. Medicine was decided on as the most likely -to be lucrative, although it may not seem the one most suited to his -abilities. - -On 5th November, 1581, Galileo, then just seventeen, entered the -University of Pisa.[13] Even here the young medical student’s -independent ideas and aims made way for themselves. At that time any -original ideas and philosophical views not derived from the dogmas of -Aristotle were unheard of. All the theories of natural science and -philosophy had hitherto been referred to theology. It had been held -to be the Alpha and Omega of all human knowledge. But now the period -was far advanced in which it was felt to be necessary to cast off the -narrow garments fashioned by religion, though at first the will to -do so exceeded the power. A stir and ferment agitated men’s minds. A -period of storm and stress had begun for the study of nature and the -philosophical speculation so closely connected with it. Men did not as -yet possess energy and ability for direct advance, so they turned with -real fanaticism to ancient learning, which, being independent, and not -based on religious notions, afforded them satisfaction. Under these -circumstances recurrence to the past was real progress. - -Unconditional surrender to the ideas of others, entire adoption -of opinions, some of which were not too well verified, might suit -mediocrity, but it could not suffice for the powerful mind of Galileo, -who was striving to find out the truth for himself. The genius of the -young student rebelled fiercely against rigid adherence to an antiquated -standpoint. To the horror of the followers of Aristotle, who were quite -taken aback at such unheard-of audacity, he resolutely attacked in -public disputations many oracular dicta of their great master hitherto -unquestioned, and this even then made him many enemies, and acquired for -him the epithet of “the Wrangler.”[14] - -Two circumstances occur during Galileo’s student years, which, in their -main features, are not without historical foundation, although in detail -they bear an anecdotal impress. One, which is characteristic of Galileo’s -observant eye, shows us the student of nineteen devoutly praying in the -Cathedral at Pisa; but he seems to have soon wearied of this occupation, -for he dreamily fixed his eye on the Maestro Possenti’s beautiful lamp, -hanging from an arch, which, in order to light it more readily, had -been moved out of its vertical position and then left to itself. The -oscillations were at first considerable, became gradually less and less, -but notwithstanding the varying distances, they were all performed in -the same time, as the young medical student discovered to a nicety by -feeling his pulse. The isochronism of the vibrations of the pendulum was -discovered![15] - -The other story refers to Galileo’s first mathematical studies. -Gherardini relates that he was scarcely acquainted with the elements of -mathematics up to his twentieth year, which, by the by, seems almost -incredible. But while he was diligently studying medicine at Pisa, the -court of Tuscany came there for some months. Among the suite was Ostilio -Ricci, governor of the pages, a distinguished mathematician and an old -friend of the Galilei family; Galileo, therefore, often visited him. One -morning when he was there, Ricci was teaching the pages. Galileo stood -shyly at the door of the schoolroom, listening attentively to the lesson; -his interest grew greater and greater; he followed the demonstration of -the mathematical propositions with bated breath. Strongly attracted by -the science almost unknown to him before, as well as by Ricci’s method -of instruction, he often returned, but always unobserved, and, Euclid in -hand, drank deeply, from his uncomfortable concealment, of the streams -of fresh knowledge. Mathematics also occupied the greater part of his -time in the solitude of his study. But all this did not satisfy his -thirst for knowledge. He longed to be himself taught by Ricci. At last he -took courage, and, hesitatingly confessing his sins of curiosity to the -astonished tutor, he besought him to unveil to him the further mysteries -of mathematics, to which Ricci at once consented. - -When Galileo’s father learnt that his son was devoting himself to Euclid -at the expense of Hippocrates and Galen, he did his utmost to divert him -from this new, and as it seemed to him, unprofitable study. The science -of mathematics was not then held in much esteem, as it led to nothing -practical. Its use, as applied to the laws of nature, had scarcely -begun to be recognised. But the world-wide mission for which Galileo’s -genius destined him had been too imperiously marked out by fate for -him to be held back by the mere will of any man. Old Vincenzo had to -learn the unconquerable power of genius in young Galileo, and to submit -to it. The son pursued the studies marked out for him by nature more -zealously than ever, and at length obtained leave from his father to bid -adieu to medicine and to devote himself exclusively to mathematics and -physics.[16] - -The unexpected successes won by the young philosopher in a very short -time in the realm of science, soon showed that his course had now been -turned into the proper channel. Galileo’s father, who, almost crushed -with the burden of his family, could with difficulty bear the expense -of his son’s residence at the University, turned in his perplexity to -the beneficence of the reigning Grand Duke, Ferdinand de’ Medici, with -the request that, in consideration of the distinguished talents and -scientific attainments of Galileo, he would grant him one of the forty -free places founded for poor students at the University. But even then -there were many who were envious of Galileo in consequence of his unusual -abilities and his rejection of the traditional authority of Aristotle. -They succeeded in inducing the Grand Duke to refuse poor Vincenzo’s -petition, in consequence of which the young student had to leave the -University, after four years’ residence, without taking the doctor’s -degree.[17] - -In spite of these disappointments, Galileo was not deterred, on his -return home, from continuing his independent researches into natural -phenomena. The most important invention of those times, to which he was -led by the works of Archimedes, too little regarded during the Middle -Ages, was his hydrostatic scales, about the construction and use of which -he wrote a treatise, called “La Bilancetta.” This, though afterwards -circulated in manuscript copies among his followers and pupils, was not -printed until after his death, in 1655. - -Galileo now began to be everywhere spoken of in Italy. The discovery of -the movement of the pendulum as a measurement of time, the importance -of which was increasingly recognised, combined with his novel and -intellectual treatment of physics, by which the phenomena of nature were -submitted, as far as possible, to direct proof instead of to the _a -priori_ reasoning of the Aristotelians, excited much attention in all -scientific circles. Distinguished men of learning, like Clavius at Rome, -with whom he had become acquainted on his first visit there in 1587,[18] -Michael Coignet at Antwerp, Riccoboni, the Marquis Guidubaldo del Monte, -etc., entered into correspondence with him.[19] Intercourse with the -latter, a distinguished mathematician, who took the warmest interest in -Galileo’s fate, became of the utmost importance to him. It was not merely -that to his encouragement he owed the origin of his excellent treatise -on the doctrine of centres of gravity, which materially contributed to -establish his fame, and even gained for him from Del Monte the name of -an “Archimedes of his time,” but he first helped him to secure a settled -and honourable position in life. By his opportune recommendation in 1589, -the professorship of mathematics at the University of Pisa, just become -vacant, was conferred on Galileo, with an income of sixty scudi.[20] -It is indicative of the standing of the sciences in those days that, -while the professor of medicine had a salary of two thousand scudi, the -professor of mathematics had not quite thirty kreuzers[21] a day. Even -for the sixteenth century it was very poor pay. Moreover, in accordance -with the usage at the Italian Universities, he was only installed for -three years; but in Galileo’s needy circumstances, even this little help -was very desirable, and his office enabled him to earn a considerable -additional income by giving private lessons. - -During the time of his professorship at Pisa he made his grand researches -into the laws of gravitation, now known under the name of “Galileo’s -Laws,” and wrote as the result of them his great treatise “De Motu -Gravium.” It then had but a limited circulation in copies, and did not -appear in print until two hundred years after his death, in Albèri’s -“Opere complete di Galileo Galilei.” Aristotle, nearly two thousand -years before, had raised the statement to the rank of a proposition, that -the rate at which a body falls depends on its weight. Up to Galileo’s -time this doctrine had been generally accepted as true, on the mere word -of the old hero of science, although individual physicists, like Varchi -in 1544, and Benedetti in 1563, had disputed it, maintaining that bodies -of similar density and different weight fall from the same height in -an equal space of time. They sought to prove the correctness of this -statement by the most acute reasoning, but the idea of experiment did not -occur to any one. Galileo, well aware that the touchstone of experiment -would discover the vulnerable spot in Aristotelian infallibility, climbed -the leaning tower of Pisa, in order thence to prove by experiment, to the -discomfiture of the Peripatetic school, the truth of the axiom that the -velocity with which a body falls does not depend on its weight but on its -density.[22] - -It might have been thought that his opponents would strike sail after -this decisive argument. Aristotle, the master, would certainly have -yielded to it—but his disciples had attained no such humility. They -followed the bold experiments of the young professor with eyes askance -and miserable sophistries, and, being unable to meet him with his own -weapons of scientific research, they eagerly sought an opportunity of -showing the impious and dangerous innovator the door of the _aula_. - -An unforeseen circumstance came all at once to their aid in these -designs. An illegitimate son of the half-brother of the reigning Grand -Duke,—the relationship was somewhat farfetched, but none the less ominous -for Galileo—John de’ Medici, took an innocent pleasure in inventing -machines, and considered himself a very skilful artificer. This ingenious -semi-prince had constructed a monster machine for cleaning the harbour of -Leghorn, and proposed that it should be brought into use. But Galileo, -who had been commissioned to examine the marvel, declared it to be -useless, and, unfortunately, experiment fully confirmed the verdict. -Ominous head-shakings were seen among the suite of the deeply mortified -inventor. They entered into alliance with the Peripatetic philosophers -against their common enemy. There were cabals at court. Galileo, -perceiving that his position at Pisa was untenable, voluntarily resigned -his professorship before the three years had expired, and migrated for -the second time home to Florence.[23] - -His situation was now worse than before, for about this time, 2nd July, -1591, his father died after a short illness, leaving his family in very -narrow circumstances. In this distress the Marquis del Monte again -appeared as a friend in need. Thanks to his warm recommendation to the -Senate of the Republic of Venice, in the autumn of 1592 the professorship -of mathematics at the University of Padua, which had become vacant, was -bestowed on Galileo for six years.[24] On 7th December, 1592, he entered -on his office with a brilliant opening address, which won the greatest -admiration, not only for its profound scientific knowledge, but for its -entrancing eloquence.[25] His lectures soon acquired further fame, and -the number of his admirers and the audience who eagerly listened to his, -in many respects, novel demonstrations, daily increased. - -During his residence at Padua, Galileo displayed an extraordinary and -versatile activity. He constructed various machines for the service -of the republic, and wrote a number of excellent treatises, intended -chiefly for his pupils.[26] Among the larger works may be mentioned his -writings on the laws of motion, on fortification, gnomonics (the making -of sun-dials), mechanics, and on the celestial globe, which attained a -wide circulation even in copies, and were some of them printed long -afterwards—the one on fortification not until the present century;[27] -others, including the one on gnomonics, are unfortunately lost. On the -wide field of inventions two may be specially mentioned, one of which -was not fully developed until much later. The first was his proportional -circle, which, though it had no special importance as illustrative of -any principle, had a wide circulation from its various practical uses. -Ten years later, in 1606, Galileo published an excellent didactic work -on this subject, dedicated to Cosmo de’ Medici, and in 1607 a polemical -one against Balthasar Capra, of Milan, who, in a treatise published in -1607, which was nothing but a plagiarism of Galileo’s work disfigured by -blunders, gave himself out as the inventor of the instrument. Galileo’s -reply, in which he first exhibited the polemical dexterity afterwards -so much dreaded, excited great attention even in lay circles from its -masterly satire.[28] The other invention was a contrivance by which heat -could be more exactly indicated. Over zealous biographers have therefore -hastened to claim for their hero the invention of the thermometer, which, -however, is not correct, as the instrument, which was not intended to -measure the temperature, could not be logically called a thermometer, but -a thermoscope, heat indicator. Undoubtedly it prepared the way by which -improvers of the thermoscope arrived at the thermometer.[29] - -Before proceeding further with Galileo’s researches and discoveries, so -far as they fall within our province, it seems important to acquaint -ourselves with his views about the Copernican system. From a letter of -his to Mazzoni, of 30th May, 1597,[30] it is clear that he considered -the opinions of Pythagoras and Copernicus on the position and motion of -the earth to be far more correct than those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. -In another letter of 4th August of the same year to Kepler, he thanks -him for his work, which he had sent him, on the Mysteries of the -Universe,[31] and writes as follows about the Copernican system:— - - “I count myself happy, in the search after truth, to have so - great an ally as yourself, and one who is so great a friend - of the truth itself. It is really pitiful that there are so - few who seek truth, and who do not pursue a perverse method - of philosophising. But this is not the place to mourn over - the miseries of our times, but to congratulate you on your - splendid discoveries in confirmation of truth. I shall read - your book to the end, sure of finding much that is excellent - in it. I shall do so with the more pleasure, because _I have - been for many years an adherent of the Copernican system_, and - it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances of - nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly accepted - hypothesis. _I have collected many arguments for the purpose - of refuting the latter_; but I do not venture to bring them to - the light of publicity, for fear of sharing the fate of our - master, Copernicus, who, although he has earned immortal fame - with some, yet with very many (so great is the number of fools) - has become an object of ridicule and scorn. I should certainly - venture to publish my speculations if there were more people - like you. But this not being the case, I refrain from such an - undertaking.”[32] - -In an answer from Grätz, of 13th October of the same year, Kepler -urgently begs him to publish his researches into the Copernican system, -advising him to bring them out in Germany if he does not receive -permission to do so in Italy.[33] In spite of this pressing request of -his eminent friend, however, Galileo was not to be induced to bring -his convictions to the light yet, a hesitation which may not appear -very commendable. But if we consider the existing state of science, -which condemned the Copernican system as an unheard of and fantastic -hypothesis, and the religious incubus which weighed down all knowledge -of nature irrespective of religious belief, and if, besides all this, -we remember the entire revolution in the sphere both of religion and -science involved in the reception of the Copernican system, we shall be -more ready to admit that Galileo had good reason to be cautious. The -Copernican cause could not be served by mere partisanship, but only -by independent fresh researches to prove its correctness, indeed its -irrefragability. Nothing but the fulfilment of these conditions formed a -justification, either in a scientific or moral point of view, for taking -part in overturning the previous views of the universe. - -Before the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question it, our earth -was held to be the centre of the universe, and about it all the rest -of the heavenly bodies revolved. There was but one “world,” and that -was our earth; the whole firmament, infinity, was the fitting frame to -the picture, upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position -which was truly sublime. It was an elevating thought that you were on -the centre, the only fixed point amidst countless revolving orbs! The -narrations in the Bible, and the character of the Christian religion -as a whole, fitted this conception exceedingly well; or, more properly -speaking, were made to fit it. The creation of man, his fall, the flood, -and our second venerable ancestor, Noah, with his ark in which the -continuation of races was provided for, the foundation of the Christian -religion, the work of redemption;—all this could only lay claim to -universal importance so long as the earth was the centre of the universe, -the only world. Then all at once a learned man makes the annihilating -assertion that our world was not the centre of the universe, but revolved -itself, was but an insignificant part of the vast, immeasurable system -of worlds. What had become of the favoured status of the earth? And this -indefinite number of bodies, equally favoured by nature, were they also -the abodes of men? The bare possibility of a number of inhabited worlds -could but imperil the first principles of Christian philosophy. - -The system of the great Copernicus, however, thanks to the anonymous -preface to his famous work, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” -had not, up to this time, assumed to be a correct theory, but only a -hypothesis, which need not be considered even probable, as it was only -intended to facilitate astronomical calculations. We know now that -this was a gigantic mistake, that the immortal astronomer had aimed -at rectifying the Ptolemaic confusion, and was fully convinced of the -correctness of his system; we know that this unprincipled Introduction -is by no means to be attributed to Copernicus, but to Andreas Osiander, -who took part in publishing this book, which formed so great an epoch -in science, and whose anxious soul thereby desired to appease the -anticipated wrath of the theologians and philosophers. And we know -further that the founder of our present system of the universe, although -he handled the first finished copy of his imperishable work when he was -dying, was unable to look into it, being already struck by paralysis, -and thus never knew of Osiander’s weak-minded Introduction, which had -prudently not been submitted to him.[34] - -A few days after receiving a copy of the great work of his genius, -Copernicus died, on 24th May, 1543; and his system, for which he had been -labouring and striving all his life, was, in consequence of Osiander’s -sacrilegious act, reduced to a simple hypothesis intended to simplify -astronomical calculations! As such it did not in the least endanger -the faith of the Church. Even Pope Paul III., to whom Copernicus had -dedicated his work, received it “with pleasure.” In 1566 a second edition -appeared at Basle, and still it did not excite any opposition from the -Church. It was not till 1616, when it had met with wide acceptance among -the learned, when its correctness had been confirmed by fresh facts, and -it had begun to be looked upon as true, that the Roman curia felt moved -to condemn the work of Copernicus until it had been corrected (_donec -corrigantur_). - -Having thus rapidly glanced at the opposition between the Copernican -system and the Ptolemaic, which forms the prelude to Galileo’s subsequent -relations with Rome, we are at liberty to fulfil the task we have set -ourselves, namely, to portray “Galileo and the Roman Curia.” - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -_THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS._ - - Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New - Star.—The Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice - to exhibit it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request - of Henry IV.—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s - attack on Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition - of the Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler. - - -The first six years of Galileo’s professorship at Padua had passed -away, but the senate were eager to retain so bright a light for their -University, and prolonged the appointment of the professor, whose renown -was now great, for another six years, with a considerable increase of -salary.[35] - -As we have seen, he had for a long time renounced the prevailing views -about the universe; but up to this time he had discussed only physical -mathematical questions with the Peripatetic school, the subject of -astronomy had not been mooted. But the sudden appearance of a new -star in the constellation of Serpentarius, in October, 1604, which, -after exhibiting various colours for a year and a half, as suddenly -disappeared, induced him openly to attack one of the Aristotelian -doctrines hitherto held most sacred, that of the unchangeableness of the -heavens. Galileo demonstrated, in three lectures to a numerous audience, -that this star was neither a mere meteor, nor yet a heavenly body which -had before existed but had only now been observed, but a body which had -recently appeared and had again vanished.[36] The subject, though not -immediately connected with the Copernican question, was an important -step taken on the dangerous and rarely trodden path of knowledge of -nature, uninfluenced by dogmatism or petrified professorial wisdom. -This inviolability of the vault of heaven was also conditioned by the -prevailing views of the universe. What wonder then that most of the -professors who had grown grey in the Aristotelian doctrine (Cremonio for -instance, Coressio, Lodovico delle Colombo, and Balthasar Capra) were -incensed at these opinions of Galileo, so opposed to all their scientific -prepossessions, and vehemently controverted them. - -The spark, however, which was to set fire to the abundant inflammable -material, and to turn the scientific and religious world, in which doubt -had before been glimmering, into a veritable volcano, the spark which -kindled Galileo’s genius and made him for a long time the centre of that -period of storm and stress, was the discovery of the telescope. - -We will not claim for Galileo, as many of his biographers have -erroneously done, priority in the construction of the telescope. We rely -far more on Galileo’s own statements than on those of his eulogists, who -aim at effect. Galileo relates with perfect simplicity at the beginning -of the “Sidereus Nuncius,” published at Venice in 1610, that he had heard -about ten months ago that an instrument had been made by a Dutchman, -by means of which distant objects were brought nearer and could be -seen very plainly. The confirmation of the report by one of his former -pupils, a French nobleman, Jean Badovere of Paris, had induced him to -reflect upon the means by which such an effect could be produced. By -the laws of refraction he soon attained his end. With two glasses fixed -at the ends of a leaden tube, both having one side flat and the other -side of the one being concave and of the other convex, his primitive -telescope, which made objects appear three times nearer and nine times -larger, was constructed. But now, having “spared neither expense nor -labour,” he had got so far as to construct an instrument which magnified -an object nearly a thousand times, and brought it more than thirty -times nearer.[37] Although, therefore, it is clear from this that the -first idea of the telescope does not belong to Galileo, it is equally -clear that he found out how to construct it from his own reflection and -experiments. Undoubtedly also the merit of having made great improvements -in it belongs to him, which is shown by the fact that at that time, -and long afterwards, his telescopes were the most sought after, and -that he received numerous orders for them from learned men, princes and -governments in distant lands, Holland, the birthplace of the telescope, -not excepted.[38] But the idea which first gave to the instrument -its scientific importance, the application of it to astronomical -observations, belongs not to the original inventor but to the genius of -Galileo. This alone would have made his name immortal.[39] - -A few days after he had constructed his instrument, imperfect as it -doubtless was, he hastened with it to Venice, having received an -invitation, to exhibit it to the doge and senate, for he at once -recognised its importance, if not to the full extent. We will now let -Galileo speak for himself in a letter which he wrote from Venice to his -brother-in-law, Benedetto Landucci:— - - “You must know then that about two months ago a report was - spread here that in Flanders a spy-glass had been presented to - Prince Maurice, so ingeniously constructed that it made the - most distant objects appear quite near, so that a man could - be seen quite plainly at a distance of two _miglia_. This - result seemed to me so extraordinary that it set me thinking; - and as it appeared to me that it depended upon the theory of - perspective, I reflected on the manner of constructing it, - in which I was at length so entirely successful that I made - a spy-glass which far surpasses the report of the Flanders - one. As the news had reached Venice that I had made such an - instrument, six days ago I was summoned before their highnesses - the signoria, and exhibited it to them, to the astonishment of - the whole senate. Many noblemen and senators, although of a - great age, mounted the steps of the highest church towers at - Venice, in order to see sails and shipping that were so far off - that it was two hours before they were seen steering full sail - into the harbour without my spy-glass, for the effect of my - instrument is such that it makes an object fifty _miglia_ off - appear as large and near as if it were only five.”[40] - -Galileo further relates in the same letter that he had presented one of -his instruments to the senate, in return for which his professorship at -Padua had been conferred on him for life, with an increase of salary to -one thousand florins.[41] - -On his return to Padua he became eagerly engrossed in telescopic -observation of the heavens. The astonishing and sublime discoveries -which were disclosed to him must in any case have possessed the deepest -interest for the philosopher who was continually seeking to solve -nature’s problems, and were all the more so, since they contributed -materially to confirm the Copernican theory. - -His observations were first directed to the moon, and he discovered that -its surface was mountainous, which showed at all events that the earth’s -satellite was something like the earth itself, and therefore by no means -restored it to the aristocratic position in the universe from which it -had been displaced by Copernicus. The milky way, as seen through the -telescope, revealed an immense number of small stars. In Orion, instead -of the seven heavenly bodies already known, five hundred new stars were -seen; the number of the Pleiades, which had been fixed at seven, rose to -thirty-six; the planets showed themselves as disks, while the fixed stars -appeared as before, as mere bright specks in the firmament. - -But the indefatigable observer’s far most important discovery, in its -bearing on the Copernican theory, was that of the moons of Jupiter, -in January 1610. As they exhibited motions precisely similar to those -which Copernicus had assumed for the whole solar system, they strongly -fortified his theory. It was placed beyond all doubt that our planet -was not the centre of all the heavenly bodies, since Jupiter’s moons -revolved round him. The latter was brought, so to speak, by the discovery -of his attendants, into relations with the earth which, considering -the prevailing views, were humiliating enough, and the more so since -Jupiter had four satellites while the earth had only one. There remained, -however, the consoling assurance that he and they revolved round our -abode! - -In honour of the reigning house of his native country, and as an -acknowledgment of favours received from it (for since the accession of -Cosmo II.[42] Galileo had been in high favour), he called Jupiter’s moons -“Medicean stars.” The urgent solicitude of the French court to gain, by -Galileo’s aid, a permanent place on the chart of the heavens, is very -amusing. Thus, on 20th April, 1610, he received a pressing request, “in -case he discovered any other fine star, to call it after the great star -of France, Henry IV., then reigning, the most brilliant in the whole -universe, and to give it his proper name of Henry rather than that of the -family name of Bourbon.” Galileo communicated this flattering request, as -he seems to have considered it, with much satisfaction to the secretary -of the Tuscan court, Vincenzo Giugni, in a letter from Padua, on 25th -June, 1610,[43] as an evidence of the great importance attached to his -telescopic discoveries. He added that he did not expect to find any more -planets, as he had already made many very close observations. - -Galileo published by degrees all the discoveries he had made at Padua, -of which we have only noticed the most important, in the work before -mentioned, the “Sidereus Nuncius”; it was dedicated to the Grand Duke, -Cosmo II., and the first edition appeared at Venice, in March, 1610. - -Although the unexpected discoveries which Galileo had made with his -telescope had confirmed his opinion that the system of Copernicus was -the only one consistent with the facts of nature, had indeed made it his -absolute conviction, he had not yet ventured to defend it in his works. -He contented himself with stating bare facts, without showing their -relation to the ideas of Copernicus, leaving this to the learning and -insight of the reader. Moreover, the logical inferences from Jupiter’s -moons must surely stare every thoughtful man in the face, and so indeed -they did in a way very unwelcome to the scientific conservatives. - -The storm raised by Galileo’s latest announcements was tremendous. People -heard with amazement the extraordinary things which the new invention had -brought to light, and paid a just tribute of admiration to the man to -whose labours it was due. But these discoveries were so directly opposed -to the traditional natural philosophy, still regarded as the highest -wisdom, that the “Sidereus Nuncius” had met with many opponents. It must -however be borne in mind that at the time of its first publication very -few of the learned were in a position to convince themselves with their -own eyes of the correctness of the appearances seen with the telescope, -simply because they had not the instrument at hand. From this cause, even -Kepler did not see the satellites of Jupiter till 30th August, 1610. But -men so free from jealousy and prejudice as Kepler (who, on reading the -“Sidereus Nuncius,” at once recognised the truth of the discoveries, and -said with enthusiasm that “Galileo had in this book given evidence of the -divinity of his genius”[44]), have at all times been rare. - -At first, therefore, the majority of the learned world shook their heads -incredulously about the phenomena announced by the “Nuncius,” especially -in Italy, where envy lent its aid to bring an armed opposition into the -field. Little did it at first avail that Kepler, renowned as the first -astronomer in Germany, was on the side of the “Sidereus Nuncius”; for -in May of the same year he had a reprint of the work issued at Prague, -with an introduction in which he expressed his entire conviction of the -truth of the telescopic discoveries made known by it, and answered all -objections.[45] In vain. These new discoveries were too revolutionary -to be believed. Even upright and estimable scientific men, like Welser -in Augsburg, and Clavius at Rome, did not give credit to Galileo’s -statements until they learnt better by their own observations. The -latter, who was the first mathematician in Rome in his day, even said -“he laughed at the pretended satellites of Jupiter; you must construct a -telescope which would first make them and then show them.” Let Galileo -hold his own opinions, and he (Clavius) would hold his.[46] - -But the leader of an unworthy agitation in Italy against Galileo was -a man who assumed this attitude from very different motives from the -sacred service of science. This was the well-known Professor Magini, -astronomer at the university of Bologna, who, next to Galileo, enjoyed -the highest reputation for learning in Italy. He could not brook that -his famous countryman should all at once obtain the highest fame with -seven-league boots, leaving a pigmy like himself far behind, by means of -the discoveries made known in his “Sidereus Nuncius.” He must not only be -refuted, the refutation must be circulated as widely as possible. But -the most repulsive feature in Magini’s conduct towards Galileo is his -double-facedness. He never openly ventured with any work into the arena -himself, but incited others all the more from behind concealment.[47] -Even if we do not, with Martin Hasdal and Alexander Sertini, accuse him -of being exactly the instigator of the famous libel “Peregrinatio contra -Nuncium Sidereum,” published by his assistant, Martin Horky, against -Galileo in 1610, which excited the indignation of all the right-minded -learned world, we cannot acquit him of complicity with him, and of -having had a hand, more or less, in that pamphlet. The suspicion is -strongly confirmed by the ostentation with which Magini, when told of -the publication of the “Peregrinatio,” drove the author, with disgust -and ridicule, out of his house, and took occasion to assert on all hands -that he had nothing whatever to do with the shameful act of his famulus, -an assertion in strange contradiction with the excuse afterwards made -by Horky to Kepler.[48] By Kepler’s advice Galileo did not do him the -honour of answering. The task was undertaken by Wedderburn, a Scotchman, -formerly a pupil of Galileo’s, and Antonio Roffeni, professor of -philosophy at the university of Bologna; the former at Padua during the -same year, the latter at Bologna in 1611.[49] - -Meanwhile, in July, 1610, Galileo had observed a new appearance in the -heavens by means of his telescope, the ring of Saturn. In consequence, -however, of the imperfection of the instrument, it did not appear like a -ring, but Saturn looked like a triple star. Galileo, who on the one hand -did not wish to make the new discovery public until he had sufficiently -observed it, yet feared on the other that some one might claim priority, -at once communicated it in a letter from Padua, 30th July, 1610,[50] to -his influential friend Belisario Vinta, chief secretary of state to Cosmo -II., but urgently begged him to keep it a secret. But even this did not -seem sufficient to secure his right to the first observation of Saturn, -so he announced it to his friends in the following absurd anagram:— - - SMAJSMRMJLMEPOETALEVNJPVNENVGTTAVJRAS. - -Kepler puzzled for a long time over this enigma, and at last only made -out the barbaric line, “Salve umbistineum geminatum Martia proles,” which -he incorrectly applied to the planet Mars. At length, after repeated -requests, and after Julian de’ Medici, Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial -court, had been charged by the Emperor to ask for a solution, he complied -with the illustrious wish, and in a letter to Julian of 13th November, -1610,[51] gave the following startling explanation:— - - Altissimum Planetam tergeminum observavi. - -The learned and semi-learned world of Italy had not yet had time to -become reconciled to the surprising discoveries announced in the -“Sidereus Nuncius” of March in the same year, when the asserted triple -nature of Saturn contravened the prevailing idea that there was nothing -new to be discovered in the heavens. The recognition of Galileo’s -telescopic discoveries made way very slowly. From the first he spared -no pains in popularising them. He did this repeatedly in public -lectures, and with so much success that he could write to Vinta: “even -the most exalted personages, who have been most vehement in attacking -my doctrines, at length gave up the game for lost, and acknowledged, -_coram populo_, that they were not only convinced but ready to defend -them against those philosophers and mathematicians who ventured to attack -them.”[52] - -But it was only at the University of Padua that Galileo could report -such rapid progress; and until the Maginis, Clavios, and others were -convinced by their own eyes, and confirmed to their own party the -truth of Galileo’s disclosures, he had to sustain a hard struggle with -incredulity, malice, and peripatetic fanaticism. Some rabid Aristotelians -went so far as to say that Galileo’s telescope was so constructed as to -show things that did not exist! Nor did it mend the matter much when -he offered 10,000 scudi to any one who should construct so cunning an -instrument.[53] Others resolutely refused even to look through the -telescope, giving it as their firm conviction that they would not be -able to see appearances which Aristotle had not said a word about in -all his books! The answer that Aristotle was not acquainted with the -telescope, and could not have known anything of telescopic appearances, -rebounded without effect from the petrified infallibility of Aristotelian -wisdom. Nor must it be supposed that these short-sighted conservatives -only numbered a few would-be _savans_ of the Peripatetic school; on the -contrary, celebrities like Cesare Cremonino da Cento, and Julius Libri, -denied Galileo’s discoveries _a priori_.[54] When Libri died in December, -1610, without having been willing to look through a telescope, and -protesting against Galileo’s “absurdities,” Galileo wrote in a letter of -17th December that this rigid opponent of his “absurdities,” as he was -never willing to look at them from earth, might perhaps see them on his -way to heaven![55] - -Some passages from a letter of Galileo’s to Kepler, of 19th August, -1610, will best show how some of these men of science turned away with a -righteous awe from the inconvenient recognition of the truth. Galileo -writes among other things:— - - “You are the first and almost the only person who, even after - but a cursory investigation, has, such is your openness of mind - and lofty genius, given entire credit to my statements.... We - will not trouble ourselves about the abuse of the multitude, - for against Jupiter even giants, to say nothing of pigmies, - fight in vain. Let Jupiter stand in the heavens, and let the - sycophants bark at him as they will.... In Pisa, Florence, - Bologna, Venice, and Padua many have seen the planets; but - all are silent on the subject and undecided, for the greater - number recognise neither Jupiter nor Mars and scarcely the - moon as planets. At Venice one man spoke against me, boasting - that he knew for certain that my satellites of Jupiter, which - he had several times observed, were not planets because they - were always to be seen with Jupiter, and either all or some - of them, now followed and now preceded him. What is to be - done? Shall we side with Democritus or Heraclitus? I think, my - Kepler, we will laugh at the extraordinary stupidity of the - multitude. What do you say to the leading philosophers of the - faculty here, to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own - accord to show my studies, but who with the lazy obstinacy of - a serpent who has eaten his fill have never consented to look - at planets, nor moon, nor telescope? Verily, just as serpents - close their ears, so do these men close their eyes to the light - of truth. These are great matters; yet they do not occasion me - any surprise. People of this sort think that philosophy is a - kind of book like the Æneid or the Odyssey, and that the truth - is to be sought, not in the universe, not in nature, but (I - use their own words) _by comparing texts_! How you would laugh - if you heard what things the first philosopher of the faculty - at Pisa brought against me in the presence of the Grand Duke, - for he tried, now with logical arguments, now with magical - adjurations, to tear down and argue the new planets out of - heaven.”[56] - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -_REMOVAL TO FLORENCE._ - - Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic - Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change - the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of - Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant - Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The - Inquisition.—Introduction of Theology into the Scientific - Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence. - - -Galileo’s fame, especially through his telescopic discoveries, and partly -also through the exertions of his noisy opponents, had long extended -beyond the narrow bounds of Italy, and the eyes of all central Europe -were directed to the great astronomer. Numbers of pupils flocked to him -from all countries, so that no lecture room in Padua was large enough to -hold them. There were some distinguished personages among them, such as -the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the -princes of Alsace, Mantua, etc., who mostly came to attend the lectures -of the versatile master on fortification. It is, however, another fable -of over zealous biographers to state that even Gustavus Adolphus, -the hero of the thirty years’ war, went to school for some months to -Galileo.[57] - -This close occupation, with lectures and private lessons of all kinds, -took him too much away from his own studies, and after twenty years’ -professorship Galileo longed for a post in which he could prosecute -his own researches, and devote himself to the completion of his works, -free from academic duties. A letter from Padua, even in the spring of -1609,[58] shows his longing for this salaried leisure. But he is aware -that the republic can never offer him such a post, “for it would not be -suitable to receive a salary from a free state, however generous and -magnanimous, without serving the public for it; because if you derive -benefit from the public, you have the public to please, and not a mere -private person.” He also mentions that he can only hope for such a favour -from some absolute sovereign; but it must not be supposed that he wishes -for an income without doing anything for it; he was in possession of -various inventions, was almost daily making new ones, and should make -more if he had the necessary leisure. Galileo adds that it has always -been his intention “to offer them to his own sovereign and natural lord -before any other, that he may dispose of them and the inventor according -to his pleasure; and if it seemed good to his serene highness to accept -it, to present him not only with the jewel but with the casket also.” - -This first attempt of Galileo’s, however, to gain a footing at the court -of Tuscany seems to have been unsuccessful. At any rate in the extant -correspondence of this period there is not a word more on the subject; -and a few months later, after the construction of the telescope, he -thankfully accepted the chair of mathematics at Padua offered to him for -life by the republic. But this invention and the consequent discoveries -had meanwhile acquired such vast importance, and had, as we have seen, -raised such a storm in the whole educated world, that it now appeared -very desirable to the court of Tuscany to attach to itself for ever the -man on whom the eyes of scientific Europe were fixed. - -The first steps towards this end were taken when Galileo went to Florence -in the Easter recess of 1610 to show his telescopic discoveries to Cosmo -II., especially the stars which bore the name of the reigning house. -We afterwards find Galileo entering eagerly into the negotiations which -followed. In the letter to Vinta before mentioned, of May 7th, 1610, -he presses for a decision, for, he says, observing that day after day -goes by, he was determined to set a definite purpose before him in the -ordering of the life that may be left to him, and to devote all his -powers to perfect the fruits of his previous efforts and studies, from -which he might look for some fame. He then mentions the conditions on -which he at present serves the republic, perhaps in order that they might -be guided by it at Florence; but what he lays most stress on is that it -is of the utmost moment to him that leisure should be assured him for -the completion of his labours, by his being freed from the obligation to -give public lectures; but it will always confer on him the highest honour -to give lectures to his sovereign, to whom also he will dedicate all his -writings. - -The same letter is also of the highest interest as giving us an insight -into the scientific projects he was then cherishing. He communicates to -the Tuscan secretary of state the works the completion of which lies so -near his heart. He says:— - - “The works which I have to finish are chiefly two books _de - systemate, seu constitutione universi_, a vast project full - of philosophy, astronomy, and geometry; three books _de motu - locali_, an entirely new science, for no other inquirer, - ancient or modern, has discovered any of the wonderful - phenomena which I show to be present in natural and induced - motion; I may therefore with perfect justice call it a new - science discovered by me from its first principles; three - books on mechanics, two relating to the demonstration of the - principles and fundamental propositions, one containing the - problems; although others have treated of the same subject, - what has been hitherto written upon it is neither as to extent - nor in other respects a fourth part of what I am writing. I - have also various smaller works in view on matters connected - with nature, such as _de sono et voce_, _de visu et coloribus_, - _de maris æstu_, _de compositione continui_, _de animalium - motibus_, and others. I am also thinking of writing some books - for the soldier, not only to cultivate his mind, but to teach - him by select instruction all those things connected with - mathematics which it would be an advantage to him to know, as, - for instance, castrametation, military tactics, fortification, - sieges, surveying, estimate of distances, artillery, the use of - various instruments, etc.”[59] - -We regard with astonishment the wonderful versatility which we find -displayed in Galileo’s works. And amongst them are not only all the -larger ones announced in the above letter; his important telescopic -discoveries and his ceaselessly active mind led him far to surpass the -bounds he had set himself, for he was the first to infuse conscious life -into the slumbering idea of the Copernican system. - -This memorable letter of Galileo’s soon brought the court of Tuscany -to a decision. Fourteen days later, 22nd May, Vinta wrote to him, as a -preliminary, that the Grand Duke seemed well disposed to recall him to -his native country and to grant all his wishes.[60] He promised to inform -Galileo as soon as it was all settled. On 5th June he wrote that Cosmo -II. was willing to nominate him as first philosopher and mathematician -of the University of Pisa, with an annual stipend of 1000 Florentine -scudi, without any obligation to live at Pisa or to give lectures. Vinta -requested Galileo to let him know whether he agreed to these conditions, -in order that he might have the necessary application drawn up in -Galileo’s name, as well as the decree and rescript; the time of their -publication shall be left to Galileo, and meanwhile all shall be kept -secret.[61] Galileo wished particularly that nothing should be known at -Venice of these negotiations, which did not place his gratitude to the -republic which had shown him so much favour in the best light, until all -was decided and therefore irrevocable. - -Having declared himself entirely satisfied with the proposed conditions, -in a letter to the secretary of state, the only alteration being that he -should like not only to be first mathematician at Pisa, but also first -mathematician and philosopher to the Grand Duke himself,[62] the decree -summoning him to the court of Tuscany in this twofold capacity was issued -on 12th July, 1610. - -Notwithstanding all the great advantages which this new post secured to -him, it was a very bad exchange for Galileo from the free republican -soil to the doubtful protection of a princely house which, although very -well disposed towards him, could never offer so decided an opposition -to the Roman curia as the republic of Venice. It was indeed the first -step which precipitated Galileo’s fate.[63] In the Venetian republic -full liberty of doctrine was really enjoyed, in religious Tuscany it was -only nominal. In Venice politics and science were secure from Jesuitical -intrigues; for when Pope Paul V. thought proper to place the contumacious -republic under an interdict in April, 1606, the Jesuit fathers had been -compelled to quit the soil of Venice “for ever.”[64] In Tuscany, on the -contrary, where they felt quite at home, their influence weighed heavily -on everything affecting their own interests, and especially therefore -on politics and science. Had Galileo never left the pure, wholesome -air of the free city for the stifling Romish atmosphere of a court, he -would have escaped the subsequent persecutions of Rome; for the republic -which, not long before, had been undaunted by the papal excommunication -of their doge and senate, would assuredly never have given up one of its -university professors to the vengeance of the Inquisition. - -At the beginning of September, 1610, Galileo, to the no small displeasure -of the Paduans, left their university, at which eighteen years before -he had found willing reception and support when his longer tarriance -at Pisa had become impossible; deserted his noble friends, Fra Paolo -Sarpi, Francesco Sagredo, and others; and proceeded to the capital of -the court of Tuscany on the lovely banks of the Arno, where at first, -it is true, much honour was done him, but where afterwards envy, -jealousy, narrowness, ill will, and fanaticism combined together to his -destruction. One of his most devoted friends, Francesco Sagredo, foresaw -it. When Galileo left Venice he was in the East, in the service of the -republic, and did not return till the spring of 1611, when he wrote -a remarkable letter to his friend at Florence. After having heartily -expressed his regret at not finding Galileo on his return home, he -states his doubts about the step his friend had taken. He asks, among -other things, “where will he find the same liberty as in the Venetian -territory? And notwithstanding all the generous qualities of the young -ruler, which permitted the hope that Galileo’s merits will be justly -valued, who can promise with any confidence that, if not ruined, he may -not be persecuted and disquieted on the surging billows of court life, -by the raging storms of envy?” It is evident from another passage in the -letter that Galileo’s behaviour had made a bad impression at Venice, -where they had not long before raised his salary to a thousand florins, -and conferred his professorship on him for life; towards the end of the -letter Sagredo lets fall the ominous words that he “was convinced _that -as Galileo could not regain what he had lost_, he would take good care to -hold fast what he had gained.”[65] - -Only a month after Galileo’s arrival at Florence he made a fresh -discovery in astronomy which eventually contributed to confirm the -Copernican theory, namely, the varying crescent form of the planet Venus. -With this the important objection to the new system seemed to be removed, -that Venus and Mercury did not exhibit the same phases of light as the -moon, which must be the case if the earth moved, for they would vary -with her position in the universe. Galileo communicated this appearance, -which entailed conclusions so important, and which he therefore wished -to investigate more thoroughly before making it known, to his friend and -correspondent Julian de’ Medici at Prague, in an alphabetical enigma, as -in the case of the singular appearance of Saturn. It was as follows: - - “Hæc immatura a me jam frustra leguntur o y.”[66] - -Having fully convinced himself by nearly three months’ observations -that Venus and Mars exhibited phases similar to those of the moon, he -made it known in two letters of 30th December[67] to Father Clavius, at -Rome, and to his former distinguished pupil Benedetto Castelli, abbot of -the congregation of Monte Cassino, in Brescia; and in a letter of 1st -January, 1611, he sent the following solution of the anagram to Julian -de’ Medici:— - - “Cynthiæ figuras æmulatur mater amorum.” - -In this letter he draws the important conclusions, first that none of the -planets shine by their own light, and secondly “that necessarily Venus -and Mercury revolve round the sun; a circumstance which was surmised of -the other planets by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, and their followers, -but which could not be proved by ocular demonstration, as it could now -in the case of Venus and Mercury. Kepler and the other Copernicans may -now be proud to have judged and philosophised correctly, and it may well -excite disgust that they were regarded by the generality of men of book -learning as having little understanding and as not much better than -fools.”[68] - -At this time Galileo was also eagerly occupied with a phenomenon which -was to be a further confirmation of the Copernican view of the universe, -the spots on the sun. By attentively observing their motions on the -sun’s disk he afterwards discovered the sun’s motion on its own axis, -a fatal blow to the Ptolemaic system. Although to science it may be -quite indifferent whether Galileo, or Fabricius, or the Jesuit father -Scheiner first espied the spots on the sun (for they all lay claim to the -discovery), for us it has its importance, because the bitter contention -between Galileo and Scheiner on the subject materially contributed to set -the stone rolling which, in its fall, was no less disastrous to the moral -greatness of Galileo than to the erudition of Rome. - -In consideration of the intense interest excited by Galileo’s -“epoch-making” discoveries, the Roman curia, which still held it to be -one of its most important duties to guard mankind as much as possible -from precocious knowledge, was of course eager to learn more about them, -and above all, of the conclusions which the discoverer drew from them. -It must also have appeared of great importance to Galileo to acquaint -the Roman _savans_ and dignitaries of the Church with his scientific -achievements, for the authority and influence then exercised by them over -the free progress of science made their opinions of the utmost moment -to him. They must, if possible, be first made to see the premises with -their own eyes, that they might afterwards be able to comprehend and -assent to the conclusions. Galileo clearly saw this, as appears from a -letter of 15th January, 1611, to Vinta[69] (who was then with the court -at Pisa), in which he urgently begs permission for a visit to the papal -residence. The request was not only immediately granted, but the court -placed a litter at his disposal, undertook to defray all his expenses, -and directed the Tuscan ambassador at Rome to prepare quarters for him -at the embassy and to entertain him during the whole of his stay.[70] -Meanwhile, however, Galileo was attacked by an illness which delayed his -journey for nearly two months. On 22nd March he received a cordial letter -of introduction[71] from Michel Angelo the younger to Cardinal Barberini, -afterwards Urban VIII., and on the next day he set out provided with his -most convincing arguments, namely several excellent telescopes. - -He was received with the greatest honour. His triumphs were really -extraordinary, so great that they were sure to secure for him numerous -personal enemies in addition to the opponents of his doctrines. He -exhibited the oft discussed appearances to cardinals and learned men -through the telescope, and, whenever he could, dispelled their doubts by -the incontrovertible evidence of their own eyes. People could not refuse -to believe this, and Galileo’s success in the papal city was complete. Of -still greater importance, however, was the opinion given on 24th April -by four scientific authorities of the Roman College, on the character -“of the new astronomical discoveries of an excellent astronomer,” at the -request of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This commission, consisting of -the learned fathers Clavius, Griemberger, Malcotio, and Lembo, confirmed -what they had long denied and ridiculed, convinced by the evidence of -their own senses of the truth of the facts maintained by Galileo.[72] By -this opinion of the papal experts his discoveries received, to a certain -extent, the sanction of the Church, and became acknowledged truths. The -care with which the mention of Galileo’s name is avoided both in the -request and the opinion is remarkable. - -Attentions of all sorts were heaped upon the astronomer. Pope Paul V. -granted him a long audience and graciously assured him of his unalterable -good will, which however did not remain quite unaltered in the sequel. -The highest dignitaries of the Church testified their admiration; the -Accadémia dei Lincei (of the Lynxes), founded six years before by Prince -Cesi, made the renowned guest a member; when he took his departure at the -beginning of June he left behind him in the metropolis of catholicism as -many sincere friends and admirers as envious foes, the fate of all really -great men. - -A letter from Cardinal del Monte of 31st May, 1611, to Cosmo II., best -shows how successful Galileo’s visit to Rome was. He writes with real -enthusiasm:— - - “Galileo has during his stay at Rome given great satisfaction, - and I think he must have felt it no less himself, for he had - the opportunity of showing his discoveries so well that to all - clever and learned men in this city they seemed no less true - and well founded than astonishing. Were we still living under - the ancient republic of Rome, I verily believe there would have - been a column on the Capitol erected in his honour. It appeared - to me to be my duty to accompany his return with this letter, - and to bear witness to your Highness of the above, as I feel - assured that it will be agreeable to you, since your Highness - entertains such gracious good will towards your subjects, and - to distinguished men like Galileo.”[73] - -But the watchful Inquisition had already directed its attention to -the man who had made such portentous discoveries in the heavens. How -far this had gone we unfortunately do not exactly know. The only well -authenticated indication we possess is the following notice in the -protocols of the sittings of the Holy Congregation: “Feria iii. die, -17 Maii, 1611. Videatur an in Processu Doctoris Cæsaris Cremonini sit -nominatus Galilaeus Philosophiæ ac Mathematicæ Professor.”[74] This is -the first time that the name of Galileo occurs in the papers of the -Congregation of the Holy Office, and it was in the midst of the applause -which greeted him in the eternal city. Whether, and in what way, this -official query was answered is not to be found in the documents of the -Inquisition. But it looks ominous that there should be an inquiry about a -connection between Galileo and Cremonini who was undergoing a trial. The -causes and course of the trial of Cremonini by the Inquisition are not -yet known. All that is known is that he was Professor of the philosophy -of Aristotle at the University of Padua; and it appears from the letters -of Sagredo to Galileo, that his lectures and writings had given rise to -suspicions of atheism. For the rest, Cremonini was all his life one of -Galileo’s most decided enemies. - -The very triumphs of Galileo and his telescopic discoveries were -the causes, to a great extent, of those ceaseless and relentless -persecutions which were to restrict his labours and embitter his life. -The Aristotelians perceived with rage and terror the revolutionary -discoveries of this dangerous innovator were surely, if slowly, gaining -ground. Every one of them, with its inevitable logical consequences, -pulled down some important stone in the artistic structure of their views -of nature; and unless some measures were taken to arrest the demolition, -it was clear that the venerable edifice must fall and bury the inmates -beneath the ruins. This must be averted at any price, even at the price -of knowledge of the acts of nature. If Galileo’s reformed physics offered -no point of attack, his astronomy did; not indeed in the honourable -contest of scientific discussion, but by bringing theology into the field -against science. - -Galileo had never openly proclaimed his adoption of the earth’s double -motion, but the demonstration of his telescopic observations alone -sufficed to make it one of the burning questions of the day. What were -the phases of Venus and Mercury, the motions of the solar spots, and -above all Jupiter and his moons, this little world within our large -one, as Galileo afterwards called it himself,[75] but telling proofs of -the truth of the Copernican theory? The question of the two systems had -been hitherto an exclusively scientific one. How else could the famous -philosopher and astronomer Nicholas of Casa, who taught the double motion -of the earth in the fifteenth century, have gained a cardinal’s hat? -How could the German, Widmanstadt, have explained his theory, which was -based upon the same principles, to Pope Clement VII. in 1533? How could -learned men like Celio Calganini, Wurteis, and others, have given public -lectures on the subject in Italy in the second half of the sixteenth -century? Neither Casa, however, nor Widmanstadt, Calganini, Wurteis, nor -even Copernicus, had ventured openly to declare war with the school of -Aristotle, nor to overthrow by the crushing evidence of experiment the -dogmas of natural science based upon philosophy and _a priori_ arguments -alone. These learned men had been tolerated because they fought with the -same weapons as the followers of Ptolemy, logic and philosophy. They did -not possess the powerful lever of direct evidence, because they were -not acquainted with the telescope. But Galileo, with his fatal system -of demonstration by observation of nature, was far too dangerous a foe. -Peripateticism was no match for the home thrusts of arguments obvious -to the senses, and its defenders were well aware that if they would not -yield their position they must call in some other ally than mere science. -And they adopted the means best adapted for putting a temporary drag on -the wheels of truth, and for ruining Galileo; in order to prop up the -failing authority of Aristotle they called in the inviolable authority of -Holy Scripture! - -This dragging of the Bible into what had previously been a purely -scientific controversy, a proceeding which proved so fatal to Galileo, -must not however, as has been done by several authors, be attributed -solely to party considerations or even personal motives. This is -absolutely false. Greatly as these factors were concerned in it, it must -be admitted that at first they were only incidentally mixed up with it. -The multitude of the learned, who still adhered entirely to the old -system of the universe, and regarded the theories of Copernicus (not yet -based on ocular demonstration) as mere fantasies, were really aghast at -the telescopic discoveries of Galileo which threatened to overturn all -their previous beliefs. The learned, and still more the semi-learned, -world of Italy felt the ground tremble beneath their feet; and it seemed -to them as if the foundations of all physics, mathematics, philosophy, -and religion, were, with the authority of Aristotle, which had reigned -for two thousand years, being borne to the grave. This did not present -itself to them as progress but as sacrilege. - -A young fanatic, the monk Sizy (the same who seven years later was broken -on the wheel for political crimes at Paris), was the first to transfer -what had been a purely scientific discussion to the slippery arena of -theology. At the beginning of 1611 he published at Venice a work called -“Dianoja Astronomica”[76] in answer to the “Sidereus Nuncius,” in which -he asserted that the existence of the moons of Jupiter was incompatible -with the doctrines of Holy Scripture. He appropriately dedicated his -book to that semi-prince of the blood, John de’ Medici, who was known -to be the mortal enemy of Galileo. The author, as we learn from his own -work, was one of those contemptible men who carefully abstained from even -looking through a telescope, although firmly convinced that the wonders -announced by Galileo were not to be seen. Galileo did not vouchsafe -to defend himself from this monkish attack any more than from Horky’s -libel the year before. He contented himself with writing on the back of -the title page of the copy still preserved in the National Library at -Florence the following lines from Ariosto:— - - “Soggiunse il duca: Non sarebbe onesto - Che io volessi la battaglia torre, - Di quel che m’ offerisco manifesto, - Quando ti piaccia, innanci agli occhi torre.”[77] - -But Galileo’s envious foes at once consorted with the, at all events, -honourable fanatics of the old school, and eagerly seized the opportunity -of pursuing their miserable designs “to the glory of God and imperilled -religion.” It was in Florence itself, in the palace of the Tuscan -Archbishop Marzimedici, who had once studied under Galileo at Pisa, -that secret consultations were held, presided over by this prelate, how -the inconvenient philosopher and his revolutionary system might best be -ruined. They even then went so far as to request a preacher to hurl at -Galileo from the pulpit the accusation, more dangerous than any other -in the sixteenth century, that he was attacking the Bible with his -doctrines. But for this time these pious gentlemen had gone to the wrong -man, for the priest, seeing through the foul purpose of the commission, -declined it. - -Galileo had not the slightest knowledge of the secret conspiracy which -was plotting against him, and was first roused from the security into -which he had been lulled by the brilliant success of his visit to Rome -by a letter from his friend there, Cigoli the painter, of 16th December, -1611.[78] But he did not at first attach to these communications the -importance they deserved, and it was not until several months afterwards -that he addressed himself to Cardinal Conti, who was very friendly -to him, to ask how far the Holy Scriptures did really favour the -Aristotelian views of the universe, and whether the Copernican system -contradicted them. - -Conti answered him in a letter of 7th July, 1612,[79] that the statements -of Holy Scripture were rather against the Aristotelian principle of -the unchangeableness of the heavens than in favour of it, for all the -fathers had held the contrary opinion. But the case was different with -the doctrine of the earth’s revolution round the sun, as held by the -Pythagoreans, Copernicus and others. This certainly did not seem to agree -with Holy Scripture, unless it was assumed that it merely adopted the -customary mode of expression. But, added the cardinal, that was a method -of interpretation to be employed only in case of the greatest necessity. -Diego di Zuñiga had indeed explained in this way, conformably with the -Copernican opinions, the passage in which Joshua commanded the sun to -stand still; but the explanation was not generally admitted. - -Father Lorini also, professor of ecclesiastical history at Florence, -afterwards a ringleader of the base intrigues against Galileo and an -informant against him, wrote to him 5th November, 1612,[80] to deny a -report that he had publicly preached against Galileo. He only confessed -to having given it as his opinion, in a conversation about the two -systems, that the View of this _Ipernic_, or whatever his name might -be, appeared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Galileo wrote in a -letter of 5th January, 1613,[81] to Prince Cesi: “The good man is so -well acquainted with the author of these doctrines that he calls him -_Ipernic_. You can see how and by whom poor philosophy suffers.” It -appears also from the same letter that Galileo was now well aware of the -intrigues being carried on against him in Florence, for he says among -other things: “I thank you and all my dear friends very much for your -anxiety for my protection against the malice which is constantly seeking -to pick quarrels even here, and the more so since the enemy is so near at -hand; but as they are but few in number, and their ‘league,’ as they call -it among themselves, is but of limited extent, I laugh at it.” - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -_ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY._ - - Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about - the Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s work - on the subject at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess - Christine.—The Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated - Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini - denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop Bonciani’s - attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the - Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd - accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s - favour. - - -While the storm which was to burst over Galileo’s head was thus slowly -gathering, he was making important progress in the departments of physics -and mechanics. - -His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important -results.[82] In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic -philosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating -or partial immersion of bodies in water depended chiefly on their -form, for by his approved method of studying the open book of nature -he clearly showed the error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid -the foundations of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old -school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of course; but their -polemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of antiquated wisdom had -in their impotence mostly to content themselves with wretched sophisms as -opposed to Galileo’s hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the -authority of Aristotle. - -The combatants who took the field with various writings to defend -the Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were -the professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle -Colombo, in 1612, and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered -by Benedetto Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the -National Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity for his -opponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune. -Although professing to be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to -belong to the Greek Non-Uniat church, which entailed the loss of his -professorship at the University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to -answer Palmerini, but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not -wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The lame objections -of the other two received a brilliant refutation in a work published in -1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in the National Library -at Florence, which is mostly in Galileo’s handwriting, it is evident that -he was the real author.[83] - -During the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the -treatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy -with the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of -mathematics at Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of -their discovery. In three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there -in 1612) he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym of “Apelles,” -the earliest observation of these appearances, and explained them -conformably to the traditional opinions. He propounded the ingenious idea -that these spots were a multitude of little planets, passing over the -sun’s disk as they revolved round the earth. By this clever explanation -he secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed -himself the decided foe of Galileo. Challenged to do so by Welser, -Galileo replied in three letters addressed to him, in which “Apelles” -came off but poorly.[84] Galileo convincingly refuted his opponent’s -explanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his own right to the -priority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made -it known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner’s, were published -in March, 1613, under the title “History and Explanation of the Solar -Spots,”[85] with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a dedication to his -illustrious friend Salviati, of the “Accadémia dei Lincei.” - -The publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was -the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican -system. This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these -essays. The controversy on the two systems came more and more to the -front. And yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem -at first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical -circles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals Maffeo Barberini[86] -(afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and Federigo Borromeo,[87] thanking -Galileo in the most friendly terms for sending them his work, and -expressing their sincere admiration for the researches described in it. -And Battista Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of -Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a similar letter -of thanks,[88] not only fully endorsed these opinions, but expressed his -firm belief that they would in time be universally acknowledged, although -now they had many opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable -character, and partly from the envy and obstinacy of those who had from -the first maintained the contrary view. - -The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less -friendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics at the -papal residence. Father Castelli, who in October of the same year was -called to the chair of mathematics at this university, reports in a -letter of 6th November,[89] in which he tells Galileo what reception -he had met with from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of -the university, Mgr. d’Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his first -interview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of the earth, or -even to take occasion in any digression to mention it as probable! - -An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate cause of turning -the controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo. One -day in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were guests -at the Grand Duke’s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. The -conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena of the Medicean -stars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia, professor -of physics at the university, was constrained with a heavy heart to -confirm, in answer to a question of the Grand Duke’s mother, Christine. -Castelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo’s splendid -discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master -his displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that -all Galileo’s telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth, -only the double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay impossible, -as the Holy Scriptures were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then -over, and Castelli took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace when -he saw Christine’s porter hastening after him and calling him back. He -obeyed, and found the whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke’s -apartments. Christine now began, after a few introductory remarks, to -attack the Copernican doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli -at first made some humble attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into -the controversy; but as this was of no avail he resolutely took the -theological standpoint, and defended the modern views of the universe -so impressively and convincingly that nearly all present, even the -Grand Duke and his consort, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone -made any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause of the -unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion. - -Castelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but remarked -expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand -Duchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear -his replies.[90] - -This then was the provocation to that famous letter of Galileo’s to -his friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological -digressions occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended -for publication, was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents, -and to form the groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been -related it will be seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo -that it was he who first introduced the theological question into the -scientific controversy about the two systems is entirely unwarranted. -On the contrary, these explanations to Castelli, of 21st December, bear -telling testimony to the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the -Scriptures involved in a purely scientific discussion, and that the right -of deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He sharply -defines the relation in which the Bible stands to natural science, -marking the limits which it can only pass at the expense of the healthy -understanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully admits that the -Scriptures cannot lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold good of -all their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions, -nay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always interpret the Bible -in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must attribute -to God hands, feet, and ears, human feelings such as anger, repentance, -hatred, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future. - -“As therefore,” continues Galileo, “the Holy Scriptures in many places -not only admit but actually require a different explanation from what -seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be -reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like -nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by -the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands; -it was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate -itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which -apparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is -inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and -modes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and -never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to -me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before -our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should -be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands -of words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of -Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature.” - -Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself -intelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even -its main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God -which are unlike His character and even opposed to it, who will maintain -that in speaking incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes to -clothe its real meaning in words literally true? Proceeding on the -principle that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo -goes on to draw the following conclusions. - -“Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is -the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to -find out the real meaning of its statements, in accordance with the -conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the -clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the -Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons -given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the -literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that -_all_ interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of -wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a -way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature -the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of -our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to man’s -understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be known in -the world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best not to -add, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation -and the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are -in no danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against them, -especially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who, -although quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are -obviously destitute of those faculties which are needed, I will not say -for the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations -by which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions. - -I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended -to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, -and which being far above man’s understanding cannot be made credible -by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit. -But that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and -understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us -in any other way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire -for ourselves by means of those faculties, _that_ it seems to me I am not -bound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the -Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and -this is precisely the case with astronomy, of which there is so little -that the planets are not even all enumerated.” - -Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a -scientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his opponents, who, -feeling that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had -entrenched themselves behind an unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds -to discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were -fond of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern -views and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries with -their own weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally, -and God really arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua’s -prayer, and thus prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the -impossibility, of the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican -agrees with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes -on, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west to east, and the -daily one from east to west. Being diametrically opposed to each other, -they cannot both be the sun’s own motions. The annual motion is the one -which belongs to it; the other originates in the _primum mobile_, which -carries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions day -and night. If therefore God desired to prolong the day (supposing the -Ptolemaic system to be the right one) He must have commanded, not the -sun but the _primum mobile_, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the -Bible that God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the -heavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained them to -be, or the literal meaning must be departed from, and we must conclude -that the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God commanded the sun to stand -still, meant the _primum mobile_, but, accommodating themselves to the -comprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand the rising and -setting of the sun, said just the opposite of what they would have said -to scientifically educated people. Galileo also says that it was highly -improbable that God should have commanded the sun alone to stand still, -and have allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature -would have been deranged by it without any occasion, and his belief -was that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the whole system of the -universe, at the expiration of which all the heavenly bodies, undisturbed -in their mutual relations, could have begun to revolve again in perfect -order: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like -irony. - -At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the -passage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar -spots the revolution of the sun on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it -is also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature, -the heart of the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with -certainty, is the source of light to the planets revolving round it, but -also lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a -revolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal motion on its own axis, it -would certainly suffice merely to stop the sun in his course, in order -to bring the whole system to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day -without disordering nature.[91] - -Castelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to the Grand -Duchess Christine’s objections, and took care to give it a wide -circulation by means of numerous copies. Galileo’s enemies, however, -eagerly grasped the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their -hands by his friend. They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which -exactly adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo’s emphatic -opinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific controversy -into the reproach that he assailed the universal authority of the Bible; -by making Joshua’s miracle the subject of his disquisitions he laid -himself open to the cutting remark that the statements of Holy Scripture -must be protected from the arbitrary interpretations of profane laymen. - -Gherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely -unaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged about the system -that Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened -to bring the matter before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified -by being informed that the founder of that system was not any man then -living in Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before, -and that his work had been dedicated to Pope Paul III., and had been -graciously accepted by him. - -Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in -Father Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right tool for setting on foot -the long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse of the -pulpit, for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And -as the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared -as Galileo’s first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon -against the astronomer and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent, -1614, in the church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his -wit by selecting as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter -of Joshua and the first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: _Viri -Galilæi quid statis aspicientes in cœlum_: “Ye men of Galilee, why -stand ye gazing up into heaven?” Astronomy was thus happily introduced -into the pulpit. The furious preacher asserted that the doctrine taught -by Galileo in Florence, of the earth’s revolution round the sun, was -quite irreconcilable with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly -contradicted several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning -of which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, as he -further asserted that no one was permitted to interpret the Bible in any -other sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as good as denounced -the doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a coarse attack on -mathematicians in general, whose science he called an invention of the -devil; and with a wish that they should be banished from all Christian -states, since all heresies proceeded from them. - -As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi -Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for his learning, who was all -his life an admirer of Galileo, told him in a letter of 10th January, -1615,[92] how heartily he regretted this miserable exhibition. He said, -among other things: “I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which -has taken place, and the more so because the author of it is a brother of -my order; for, unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities -(_tutte le bestialità_) which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and -do actually commit.” This sentence has caused all Galileo’s biographers -who mention this letter, with the exception of Nelli,[93] to conclude -that Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a glance at -the _Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum_, etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif -and Echard, would have shown them that from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin -Secco, of Pavia, was general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.[94] -Perhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the -Dominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.[95] - -Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the -insult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But -Prince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any -steps were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the -affair and to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal -Bellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told him -(Cesi) that _he held the opinion to be heretical, and that the principle -of the earth’s double motion was undoubtedly contrary to Holy Scripture_. -In this complicated state of affairs the prince recommended that several -mathematicians should complain of the public insults to the science of -mathematics and its disciples. But he gave another express warning to -leave the Copernican system entirely alone, or they might take occasion -at Rome to consult whether the further spread of this opinion was to -be permitted or condemned. Cesi added that in that case it would very -likely be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there, -and its opponents were generally hated; besides, it was very easy to -prohibit and suspend.[96] - -Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently -allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus to all the -later persecutions of Galileo. - -The questionable merit of having brought Galileo’s affairs before -the tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend -of Caccini, and brother of the same order. Galileo’s fatal letter to -Castelli had fallen into his hands; and when, later on, thanks to -Caccini’s zeal, a great ferment began about it in monkish circles at -Florence, Lorini was moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a -copy of it secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement, -which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the Congregation -of the Index, is couched in a most artful and miserable style. The -denunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention Galileo by name -(for he still had powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of -the Church), only speaks of the “Galileists” in general, “who maintain, -agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and the -heavens stand still.” He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus, -in order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question. -Lorini goes on to say: “all the fathers of this (his own) devout convent -of St. Mark find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or -presumptuous, as when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture -are indefinite; that in discussions about natural phenomena the lowest -place must be assigned to them; that the commentators have often been -mistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should -not be mixed up with anything but matters of religion; that in nature -philosophical and astronomical evidence is of more value than holy and -Divine (which passages your reverence[97] will find underlined by me in -the said letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when -Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only understand that the -command was addressed to the _primum mobile_, as this itself is the sun.” -In these statements Lorini perceives great peril for the Church; he is -indignant “that they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures -after their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation -of the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy Scriptures -appear to be entirely opposed to.... They tread the entire philosophy of -Aristotle, of which scholastic philosophy has made so much use, under -foot,” he exclaims: “in short, to show how clever they are, they (the -Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter them abroad in -our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its own -good spirit and the watchfulness of our august rulers.” He feels moved -to inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and -that if any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures. -After this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: “I, who hold that all -those who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians, -but a little over wise and self conceited in their opinions, declare -that I am actuated by nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred -cause.” After this assurance he begs that this letter of his, (“I do not -say the enclosed letter,”) he hastens to add in a parenthesis, “may be -kept secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion between -servant and master,” and not as a legal deposition.[98] In conclusion, he -expressly mentions the celebrated sermon of Caccini, probably in order -that he might be called as a witness against Galileo, an object which, -as we shall see, was attained. - -In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called -upon at once to institute a secret inquiry about the astronomer. As -Lorini had only been able to show a copy of Galileo’s letter to Castelli -in confirmation of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be -of great importance to obtain possession of the original, written and -signed by Galileo. To attain this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the -principle that “the end sanctifies the means.” Cardinal Mellini, under -date of 26th February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to -write to the Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were -to procure that document “in a skilful manner.” On the very next day the -order was despatched.[99] - -It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short -stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco -Bonciani. He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With -this end in view he began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken -aback by such an exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions, -particularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it would -be to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his ruin, for those -opinions (to say nothing of their folly) were dangerous, repulsive, -and mischievous, for they were directly opposed to Holy Scripture. The -philosophical arguments with which the archbishop tried to convert -Castelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax in the profound remark -that as all things (_creatura_) had been created for the use and benefit -of man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a star.[100] -After giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the same -for Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the -world the folly of that opinion. But, in order to do it successfully, -he must first acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo’s arguments; -and, therefore (and now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently begs -Castelli to let him see Galileo’s apologetic letter. - -Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli’s possession, for he had -returned it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive -the trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo -of the request and warmly to second it.[101] But Galileo had suspicions, -and delayed to reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two -letters to Rome, of 8th and 28th of March,[102] that Castelli was -convinced that he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and -as the common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo had -not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks “whether he shall be more open with -Castelli?” But this time cunning did not attain its end; at the repeated -urgency of Castelli,[103] Galileo at last sent him a mere copy without -signature, and with the express reservation that he was not to let it go -out of his hands. From a letter of Castelli’s[104] to Galileo we learn -that in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop -in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically concealed his -annoyance at the failure of his intrigue, and put a good face on it, for -Castelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly -praised Galileo’s demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics present -the modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed. - -So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo’s -criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for -his opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in -the document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they -looked ill, they were capable of being taken in a good sense, and were -not of that nature that they could be said to deviate from Catholic -doctrine.[105] - -Meanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of 19th March, -to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially well informed about -Galileo’s errors.[106] He appeared before the holy tribunal the very -next day, and eloquently poured forth his accusations; but, although -upon oath, he did not adhere very strictly to truth. For not only did he -denounce the opinion of Copernicus as _quasi_ heretical, being opposed -to all scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of many -passages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines were to be found -both in the letter to Castelli and in the purely scientific treatise -on the solar spots, but added the far more serious charge that he had -heard that Galileo maintained the three following propositions: “God is -not a self existent being, but an accident; God is sentient because the -Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be performed by the -saints are not real miracles.” He further says that Galileo is at any -rate “suspicious in religious matters,” because he belongs to “a certain -Accadémia dei Lincei,” and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi -at Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions from -real facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of heresy out of -an academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety, and to place -Galileo’s religion in doubt on account of his scientific correspondence -with magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost -like madness.[107] - -In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the -testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman, -Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the -same year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper -but a bad listener. Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple -of the Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with -Ximenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition -concerning the nature of the Godhead, but it originated entirely in -scholasticism and had nothing to do with Galileo. Caccini, listening -behind a partition, caught something of the conversation; and, thinking -that Attavanti was a well instructed follower of Galileo, and was -merely repeating what he had taught him, explained the fragments of -the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these stupid -accusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and Attavanti -that neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo, except -that he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.[108] - -After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of -Caccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry -into the “History and Explanation of the Solar Spots.”[109] This, and the -oft discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which -Galileo’s enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological -error. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -_HOPES AND FEARS._ - - Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s - work.—Blindness of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the - Grand Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to - Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.—Caccini - begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican system at Rome.—His - mistake in so doing. - - -Galileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the secret proceedings -of the Inquisition against him and his system. He had only discovered -that some Dominican monks wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli -to effect the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, and that they -were spreading all sorts of calumnies against him based upon it. Fearing -that the copy of it on which they relied might have been tampered -with, he sent a correct copy on 16th February, 1615, to his sincere -friend Mgr. Dini at Rome, with a request that he would forward it to -the mathematician, Father Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal -Bellarmine. Galileo observed in the accompanying letter that he had -written the one to Castelli “_currente calamo_,” that since then he had -made many researches into the subject therein discussed, and announced -the speedy completion of a larger work, in which he should carry out -his reasoning far more in detail; as soon as it was finished he would -send it to Mgr. Dini. (This was his great Apology to the Grand Duchess -Christine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his enemies were -daily increasing in number, and, in order to injure him the more, were -spreading the strange report among the people that he was the founder -of the system of the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to -incidents like that with Bishop Gherardini.[110] - -The philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited, received -in reply consolatory assurances from Mgr. Dini and others of his -ecclesiastical friends. But they earnestly advised him to treat the -subject of the Copernican system purely from the mathematical, physical -point of view, and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint -came rather late in the day, and could not now be of much use to Galileo, -when his doctrines were already attacked as heretical, although secretly -at that time, and the accusation was based on the purely scientific work -on the solar spots. War had been declared with the Copernican system in -the name of the Bible. - -Galileo’s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th March,[111] -plainly show how unwillingly he had been driven into the theological -field by his opponents. After he had in the second letter decidedly -rejected Dini’s suggestion that he should treat the Copernican system -merely as a hypothesis, he added that it had been his earnest desire to -keep strictly to his part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to -defend his astronomical system against religious scruples. He entirely -agrees with those who say that the task of bringing natural science into -agreement with Holy Scripture should be left to theologians, and shows -that he has been compelled to defend himself on this dangerous ground. -He says besides that his letter to Castelli was not originally intended -to go any farther, and regrets that Castelli had had copies made of it -without his knowledge. - -It is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when the secret -denunciation had been laid before the tribunal of the Inquisition at -Rome, all the letters and reports which Galileo received from Rome, even -from trustworthy friends, Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were -calculated to allay his anxious fears. None of those persons, although -in influential positions, and likely it would seem to have been better -informed, knew, as appears from their correspondence with Galileo, -anything of the proceedings which were being instituted at Rome against -him and the Copernican system. The Inquisition knew well enough how to -keep its secrets. On 28th February[112] Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently -to Galileo that, notwithstanding all the inquiries he had made, he could -learn nothing of any measures against him or the new doctrines; he sets -down the whole rumour to the incautious talk of some hot-headed fellow. - -On 7th March[113] Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine had said -“he did not think that the work of Copernicus would be prohibited, and -the worst that would happen would be that some addition would be made to -it, stating that this theory was only accepted to explain phenomena,[114] -or some such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able to -discuss the subject whenever he had occasion.” Under the same date Prince -Cesi tells Galileo that a work had just been published by a Dominican -monk, which brilliantly defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it -agree with Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have appeared -more opportunely.[115] - -But what seems the most strange are the express and repeated assurances -of the cardinals Barberini, Del Monte, and Bellarmine, to Galileo, -through Dini and Ciampoli, that so long as he did not go beyond the -province of physics and mathematics, nor enter into any theological -interpretations of Scripture, he had nothing to fear.[116] How could -Cardinal Bellarmine, who had not long before expressly stated to Prince -Cesi that the new system was not compatible with the doctrines of Holy -Scripture, and who, as a member of the Inquisition, must have been -aware of the transactions which had been going on about Galileo since -5th February, give these assurances so directly opposed to the truth? -And yet these three prelates afterwards gave many proofs of good will -towards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct to be explained? It -was simply that they were friendly to Galileo, but not to his doctrines. -They certainly desired to shield his person, and afterwards honestly -endeavoured to do so even under most difficult circumstances; but the -system he defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be -suppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared advisable -to keep it a secret from Galileo that the statement of Copernicus that -the earth moved was assailed from the theological standpoint, until the -Holy Office had issued the interdict against its circulation and defence. -It was thus that they prudently rounded the rocks which the dreaded -dialectics of the clever Tuscan had exposed to view. - -And the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict of the Church -was to be pronounced on the Copernican theory, and the more eagerly the -secret inquiries about Galileo were being prosecuted, the more confident -became the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where -this ominous web was being woven. It seems as if all Galileo’s trusty -adherents had been struck with blindness, for we should not be justified -in doubting the sincerity of a Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who -afterwards proved by their actions their true friendship for the great -astronomer. On 20th March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on the -21st Ciampoli communicates to Galileo the consoling observations of the -cardinals Del Monte and Bellarmine mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds -to these comforting assurances by telling him that Foscarini’s work was -no doubt in great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of -the Holy Office to take place next month, _but only because it meddled -with matters concerning Holy Scripture_. He goes on to say with real -satisfaction that he can only confirm his previous information, and that -all this noise originated with four or five persons who are hostile -to Galileo; he and Dini had taken all possible pains to find out this -assumed agitation, but had discovered absolutely nothing. He repeats this -most decidedly in a letter of a week later;[117] and in another of 16th -May[118] he cannot at all understand what has so disconcerted Galileo, -and adds that it was no longer doubtful that the Copernican doctrine -would not be prohibited, and expresses his conviction that it would be -a great satisfaction to every one if Galileo would come to Rome for a -time, and the more so because he had heard that many of the Jesuits -were secretly of Galileo’s opinion, and were only keeping quiet for the -present. - -A private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo, of June -20th, is equally sanguine. He tells him that Foscarini’s work, of which a -new and enlarged edition is to appear immediately, has had great success -at Rome, and that the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much -cast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that treatise nor -the doctrines in question are in any danger, if only a little prudence -is exercised. Cesi even thinks that the new edition, in which the author -refutes all the objections to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical -authorities, convince opponents, and put an end to the whole business. -“Then,” continues the prince confidently, “when every difficulty is -removed and attack rendered impossible, the doctrine will be so fully -permitted and recognised, that everybody who wishes to maintain it will -be at liberty to do so, as in all other purely physical and mathematical -questions.”[119] - -This is the last letter we have from Galileo’s friends of this period. -From this date to the time of his stay in Rome, in 1616, there are no -letters to him extant. This is the more to be regretted, as the gap -occurs at a very interesting juncture. Perhaps after the Copernican -doctrines were condemned Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence -out of regard for his friends, for it may have contained allusions to -very delicate matters. - -Meanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by Mgr. Dini,[120] -he had completed his great apologetic treatise, in the form of a letter -to the Grand Duchess Dowager, Christine. As it accurately defines the -standpoint which Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and -sincere Catholic, with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems necessary -to give a sketch of its contents. - -Galileo begins with the motive of his Apology. Several years ago he -had made many discoveries in the heavens, the novelty of which, and -the vast consequences they involve, which are opposed to many of the -principles of the modern Aristotelian school, have incensed no small -number of professors against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in -the heavens with his own hands in order to overturn nature and science. -Placing a greater value on their own opinions than on truth, these men -had taken upon themselves to deny the existence of these discoveries, -whereas if they had only consented to observe them, they would have -been convinced. Instead of this, they assailed the new discoveries with -empty arguments, and worst mistake of all, interwove them with passages -of Scripture which they did not understand. But when the majority of -the scientific world was convinced with its own eyes, so that it was -impossible any longer to doubt the truth of these phenomena, their -opponents tried to consign them to oblivion by obstinate silence; and -when that did not avail they took another course. Galileo says that he -should pay no more heed to these attacks than to former ones, at which, -confident of the final result, he had always laughed, but they seek to -cast an aspersion on him which he dreads more than death. His opponents, -knowing that he favoured the opinion of the double motion of the earth, -and thereby attacked the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian principles, and -perceiving since the universal recognition of his observations that they -could never combat him successfully on the field of natural philosophy, -are trying now to make a shield for their false statements out of a -fictitious piety and the authority of Holy Scripture. They have therefore -first tried to spread the opinion that the views he defends are opposed -to the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy of condemnation. They -then easily found some one to denounce them from the pulpit, and he -hurled his anathemas not only at the Copernican doctrines, but against -mathematicians in general. They also gave out that the modern views of -the system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical by the -highest authorities. - -Galileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of these -doctrines, was not only a good Catholic, but a priest highly esteemed -by the Roman curia, both for his learning and piety. He had dedicated -his famous work: “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” to Pope Paul -III., and no one had felt any scruples about his doctrines, although -some ill-disposed persons want to have the book pronounced heretical, -without ever having read, to say nothing of studied it. As an adherent of -the Copernican theory, Galileo now feels compelled, in order to justify -himself, to discuss in detail these arguments from Scripture brought -forward by his opponents, and he hopes to prove that he is animated by -a greater zeal for true religion than his adversaries; for he by no -means demands that the book should not be condemned, but that it should -not be condemned without being understood or even looked at. Before -proceeding to discuss these arguments, he protests that he will not only -always be ready publicly to rectify the errors he may from ignorance -have fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that it -was not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with any one -on such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these remarks, to incite -others to deliberations useful to the Church. As to the decision about -the Copernican system, we must bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical -authorities, and should it be adverse to him, let his work be torn up and -burnt, for he had neither wish nor intention to promote results that were -not catholic and pious. - -After this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes to the matter -itself,—the discussion of the principles of exegesis of Scripture with -respect to natural science. He employs the same arguments as in his -letter to Castelli, only more in detail, and cites several passages -from St. Augustine in support of his views, as to how far questions of -natural philosophy should be left to the understanding and to science. -He also quotes a saying of Cardinal Baronius: “The Holy Spirit intended -_to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go_.” Galileo -then illustrates by examples how derogatory it will be to the dignity of -Holy Scripture if every unauthorised scribbler is permitted to adduce -passages from it in support of his views, which he often does not -interpret rightly; and experience shows the futility of this method of -proof. He then turns to the claim of theologians to enforce upon others -in scientific discussions opinions which they hold to agree with passages -of Scripture, while maintaining that they are not bound to explain the -scientific phenomena which are opposed to their decisions. In support of -this they affirm that theology is the queen of all the sciences, and need -not condescend to accommodate herself to the teachings of other sciences -far beneath her: they must submit to her as their sovereign, and modify -their conclusions accordingly. This leads Galileo to some considerations -which he will here set forth, that he may learn the opinions of others -more expert on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions he is -always ready to bow. - -He is in doubt whether some ambiguity has not crept in for want of more -precision in defining why theology is entitled to be called a queen. It -must either be because all that is taught by other sciences is comprised -in and explained by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology -treats of a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects -of which profane science treats. But even the theologians themselves -will hardly maintain that the title belongs to theology in the first -sense; for no one can say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine, -are better treated of in Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes, -Ptolemy, Boccius, and Galen. It appears then that the royal prerogative -of theology must be derived from some other source. Galileo here remarks:— - - “If then theology occupies herself solely with the highest - problems, maintains her throne by reason of the supreme - authority conferred on her, and does not condescend to the - lower sciences as not affecting salvation, the professors of - theology should not assume authority on subjects which they - have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler - should demand, without being a physician or an architect, that - people should treat themselves, or erect buildings, according - to his directions, to the great peril of poor sick people and - obvious ruin of the edifices.” - -Galileo then demonstrates the vast difference between doctrinal and -exact sciences, and says that in the latter opinions cannot be changed -to order. Supported by the authority of St. Augustine, he maintains -that opinions on natural science which have been proved to coincide -with actual facts cannot be set aside by passages of Scripture, but -these must be explained so as not to contradict the indisputable results -of observation. Those, therefore, who desire to condemn an opinion in -physics must first show that it is incorrect. But it must be made the -subject of close investigation, and then a different result will often be -obtained from the one desired. Many learned men who intended to refute -the Copernican theory have been changed, by examination, from opponents -to enthusiastic defenders of it. In order to banish it from the world, -as many desired, it would not be enough to shut the mouth of any one -individual, it would be necessary to prohibit not only the writings of -Copernicus and his followers, but astronomy altogether. But to suppress -his work now, when new discoveries are daily confirming his theory, after -it has been quietly submitted to for so many years, appears to Galileo -like opposition to truth itself; and to permit the book and condemn the -doctrine would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it would -allow them the opportunity of convincing themselves of the truth of an -opinion which it was a sin to believe. To forbid astronomy altogether -would be like rejecting hundreds of passages of Scripture which teach us -how the glory of God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be -studied in the open book of nature. - -Galileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican theory. -According to many, it ought to be pronounced erroneous because it is -opposed to the apparent meaning of many passages in the Bible, while -the opposite opinion is to be believed _de fide_. He sharply defines -two kinds of scientific questions: those on which all man’s researches -can only lead to probability and conjecture, as for instance, whether -the stars are inhabited or not; and those on which, by experience, -observation, and inevitable deduction, we either have attained certainty -or may safely reckon on doing so,—as whether the earth or the heavens -move. In the first case, Galileo is decidedly of opinion that it behoves -us to be guided by the literal sense of Scripture; in the second, he -repeats what he has said before, that two truths can never contradict -each other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and of the earth -as standing still to accommodate itself to the understanding of the -people, and not to confuse them, otherwise they might refuse to believe -the dogmas which are absolutely _de fide_. For the same reason the -fathers have spoken about things not appertaining to salvation, more -in accordance with usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by -quotations from St. Jerome and St. Thomas. - -Even the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation of any -passage of Scripture of scientific import should, in Galileo’s opinion, -only confer authority on it when the question has been discussed by many -fathers with knowledge of both sides. But this is not the case with the -question of the double motion of the earth, for it had not come up at -all at that time, and it could not occur to the holy fathers to dispute -it, for the current opinion was in entire agreement with the literal -meaning of the Bible. It was not enough to say that the fathers had all -believed that the earth stood still, and that therefore it was to be -held _de fide_, for it was very possible that they never investigated -it, and only held it as generally current. If they had done so and found -it deserving of condemnation, they would have said so, but it had never -been discovered that they had. The writings of Diego di Zuñiga show, on -the contrary, that when some theologians began to consider the Copernican -theory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture. -Moreover, no argument could be drawn from an unanimous opinion of the -fathers, for some of them spoke of the sun as stationary, others of the -_primum mobile_. - -Galileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise and well -informed theologians on the Copernican theory. Since no investigation -of it was instituted by the ancient fathers, it might be done now by -theologians fitted for it, who, after they had carefully examined all -the scientific arguments for and against, would establish on a firm -footing what was dictated to them by Divine inspiration. He once more -lays great stress on the need of first convincing one’s self of the -actual facts of nature under the guidance of science, and then proceeding -to interpret texts of Scripture. He is indignant with those who, from -malice or blinded by party interest, say that the Church should draw -the sword without delay, since she possesses the power. As if it was -always desirable to do whatever was in our power! He shows that the -fathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and exclaims -to these wranglers: “Try first to refute the arguments of Copernicus -and his followers, and leave the task of condemning them to those to -whom it belongs; but do not hope to find among the fathers, who were as -discreet as they were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who cannot -err, those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal interests -and passions. It is doubtless true that concerning these and similar -statements which are not strictly _de fide_, his Holiness the Pope has -absolute authority to approve or condemn; _but it is not in the power of -any human being to make them true or false, or other than they de facto -are_.” - -This lengthy treatise concludes with a disquisition on the passage in -the book of Joshua, which he treats in the same way as in the letter to -Castelli. - -Notwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this apology[121] not -to give any handle to his enemies, it contained far too many liberal and -merely human principles not to do the author more harm than good in the -eyes of the orthodox party, both on religious and scientific questions. -His opponents saw this plainly enough, and agitated against him all the -more vehemently at Rome. - -Ominous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious enough before; -but he could not any how learn anything definite about these attacks, -only so much eked out, that something was brewing against him, and that -it was intended to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought he -could best meet these intrigues by his personal appearance at Rome; he -wanted to learn what the accusations against him were, and to show that -there was nothing in them; he desired energetically to defend the new -system, to aid truth in asserting her rights. So, early in December, -1615, provided with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke, -he set out for Rome.[122] - -Some older authors, and recently Henri Martin,[123] have repeated as a -fact the report circulated at the time by Galileo’s enemies,[124] that -this visit to Rome was by no means so voluntary as he thought fit to give -out. Martin appeals in support of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi -to Cardinal Alexander d’Este, of 1st January, 1616,[125] in which he -says that the philosopher had been _cited_ to appear at Rome, that he -might explain how he made his doctrines, which entirely contradict Holy -Scripture, agree with it. Martin also states that the Tuscan ambassador -at Rome, in a despatch of 11th September, 1632, announced that a document -had been discovered in the books of the Holy Office, which showed that -Galileo had been summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise -excellent biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of probability which, -however, are not conclusive. Besides, these arguments, in the face of -other facts, are not valid. Even if Galileo’s contemporary letters from -Rome, in which he repeatedly expresses his satisfaction that he had come -there,[126] are not relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent -carrying out of the fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th April, -1633, bears clear witness that Martin is in error. Being asked if he -came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a -summons, he answered: “In the year 1616 I came to Rome of my own accord, -without being summoned.”[127] It was impossible that he should then have -persisted in the assumed fiction, for he could not have denied before -the Inquisition a summons issued by itself seventeen years before, since -it would certainly have been entered in their registers.[128] According -to the statement of the Tuscan ambassador mentioned above, such a -document had been discovered _one_ year previously in the protocols of -the Holy Office. But in the face of the question put at the examination -this does not seem very credible. Moreover, in none of the documents now -open to historical research relating to the transactions of 1616, is -there any such record to be found, nor anything to indicate that this -visit of Galileo’s to Rome did not originate with himself. - -Neither does the flattering reception he met with at all agree with -the assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his correspondence with -Picchena, successor in office to Vinta, though very cautious, shows -that notwithstanding the comforting assurances he had received from his -friends at Rome, he found that a zealous agitation was going on, not -only against the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.[129] In -another letter of 8th January, 1616, he says he sees every day what a -good idea it was to come here, for he had found so many snares laid for -him that it would have been quite impossible not to be caught by one or -other of them, and he would not have been able to extricate himself for -a long time, perhaps never, or only with the greatest difficulty. He is -confident that he shall now very soon destroy the traps of his enemies, -and be able to justify himself in a way that will bring all their -unworthy calumnies to light. They have spread the false report that he -was in disgrace at the grand ducal court in consequence of the enormity -of his offence, and that the proceedings against him had the Grand Duke’s -entire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him by Cosmo II. -proved precisely the contrary, the assertions of his enemies would lose -all credit, and he would be believed all the more, so that he should be -able to justify himself completely.[130] - -Judging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later to the Tuscan -Secretary of State, Galileo had not found it so easy to defend himself as -he anticipated. Indeed it seems to have been a very complicated business. -A passage from the letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:— - - “My business is far more difficult, and takes much longer owing - to outward circumstances, than the nature of it would require; - because I cannot communicate directly with those persons - with whom I have to negotiate, partly to avoid doing injury - to any of my friends, partly because they cannot communicate - anything to me without running the risk of grave censure. - And so I am compelled, with much pains and caution, to seek - out third persons, who, without even knowing my object, may - serve as mediators with the principals, so that I may have - the opportunity of setting forth, incidentally as it were, - and at their request, the particulars of my interests. I have - also to set down some points in writing, and to cause that - they should come privately into the hands of those whom I wish - should see them; for I find in many quarters that people are - more ready to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for - the former permits them to agree or dissent without blushing, - and then finally to yield to the arguments used—for in such - discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, whereas people - do not so readily change their opinions if it has to be done - publicly.”[131] - -Galileo at length succeeded by his strenuous efforts in freeing himself -from all false accusations and in refuting the slanders of Caccini. -His affairs took so favourable a turn that the monk found it advisable -to pay an obsequious visit of several hours to Galileo, humbly begged -pardon for his previous conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power, -and assured Galileo that the agitation going on was not in any way to -be laid at his door.[132] But he could not refrain from trying to prove -that the Copernican doctrines were erroneous, in which however he had no -more success than in convincing Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to -Picchena that he had found in Caccini “great ignorance and a mind full -of venom.”[133] - -But Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy adjustment of -the difficulties affecting himself; the more important and grander part -of it, the preservation of the Copernican system from the interdict of -the Church, had yet to be accomplished. His letter of 6th February to -Picchena tells him of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well as -of the noble purposes by which he was animated. He writes:— - - “My business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed; all - the exalted personages who have been conducting it have told me - so plainly, and in a most obliging manner, and have assured me - that people are fully convinced of my uprightness and honour, - and of the devilish malice and injustice of my persecutors. As - far as this point is concerned, therefore, I might return home - without delay, but there is a question concerning my own cause - which does not concern myself alone, but all those who, during - the last eighty years, have advocated in printed works or - private letters, in public lectures or private conversations, - a certain opinion, not unknown to your Grace, on which they - are now proposing to pronounce judgment. In the conviction - that my assistance may be of use in the investigation of the - matter, as far as a knowledge of those truths is concerned - which are proved by the science to which I have devoted myself, - I neither can nor ought to neglect to render this assistance, - while I shall thereby follow the dictates of my conscience and - Christian zeal.”[134] - -This was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few others were, -to appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately his warm and -perhaps too solicitous efforts for the Copernican cause had a result -precisely opposite to the one he intended. He was still under the great -delusion that the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of -the correctness of the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought out -scepticism on the subject everywhere in the eternal city, combated it -eagerly and apparently with signal success. In many of the first houses -in Rome, such as the Cesarini’s, Ghislieri’s, and others, he unfolded -before numerous audiences his views about the construction of the -universe. He always began these discourses by carefully enumerating all -the arguments for the Ptolemaic system, and then proved that they were -untenable by the telling arguments with which his own observations had so -abundantly supplied him; and as he not seldom added the biting sarcasm of -his wit to serious demonstration, thus bringing the laugh on his side, he -prepared signal defeats for the orthodox views of nature.[135] - -But by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. He would not see -that the Romanists cared far more for the authority of Scripture than for -the recognition of the laws of nature; that his system, running counter -to orthodox interpretation of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of -the Church. And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way of -looking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the true system of -the universe would be of greater importance, even to the servants of the -Church, than her own mysteries, it was but a natural consequence of these -false premises that, instead of attaining his end, he only widened his -distance from it. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -_THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED PROHIBITION -TO GALILEO._ - - Adverse Opinion of the Inquisition on Galileo’s - Propositions.—Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute - Prohibition to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.—Discrepancy - between Notes of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s - documents.—Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts - the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s - Documents.—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican - system.—Attitude of the Church.—Was the Absolute Prohibition - ever issued to Galileo?—Testimony of Bellarmine in his - favour.—Conclusions. - - -The Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo’s active propagandism, -even among the learned world of Rome, and by his brilliant defence of the -new system, now hastened to bring to a conclusion the transactions which -had been going on for a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th -February, 1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were not -judges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) and required -them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo’s -work on the solar spots:— - -I. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place. - -II. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not immovable, but -moves, and also with a diurnal motion.[136] - -In accordance with the papal decree, these theologians met four days -afterwards, at 9 a.m. on 23rd February, and published the result of their -deliberations the next day, as follows:— - -The first proposition was unanimously declared to be false and absurd -philosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly -contradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many passages, both -if taken in their literal meaning and according to the general -interpretation and conceptions of the holy Fathers and learned -theologians. - -The second proposition was declared unanimously “to deserve the like -censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least -erroneous in the faith.”[137] - -The Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against Galileo as the -chief advocate of the Copernican system, as follows:— - - “Thursday, 25th February, 1616. The Lord Cardinal Mellini - notified to the Reverend Fathers the Assessors and the - Commissary of the Holy Office, that the censure passed by the - theologians upon the propositions of Galileo—to the effect - particularly that the sun is the centre of the world, and - immovable from its place, and that the earth moves, and also - with a diurnal motion—had been reported; and His Holiness has - directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the - said Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the said opinion; - and in case of his refusal to obey, that the Commissary is to - intimate to him, before a notary and witnesses, a command to - abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion - and doctrine, and even from discussing it; and if he do not - acquiesce therein, that he is to be imprisoned.”[138] - -This is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended to look like an -official report on the course of the proceedings ordained above. Every -unbiassed reader will expect to find in it either that Galileo refused to -obey the admonitions of the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of -the Inquisition then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo -immediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition -would not have had to interfere. Instead of this we find the following -document, couched half in a narrative tone, half like the report of a -notary:— - - “Friday, the 26th.—At the Palace, the usual residence of the - Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been summoned - and brought before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in presence - of the Most Revd. Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of the order of - preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said - Cardinal warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion, and - admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before - me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine being - still present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary - commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope, - and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish - altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the - world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth - to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or - in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in - the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced - in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, - in presence of Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of - Cyprus, and Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy - of Rottz, in the diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said - Cardinal’s house, witnesses.”[139] - -The discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February is obvious: -that says that the Pope had ordered that Cardinal Bellarmine should -admonish Galileo to renounce the opinions of Copernicus, and only _in -case he should refuse_, was the Commissary to issue the order to him to -abstain from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here in -the report of the 26th we read, that “immediately after” the admonition -of the cardinal, the Commissary issued this stringent order, and with the -significant modification, “nor to hold, teach, or defend it in any way -whatsoever.” In this report of the proceedings it is not expressly stated -whether Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording of -the report, it is almost impossible that he could have done so, since it -represents that the Cardinal’s admonition was followed immediately by the -_absolute_ prohibition from the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure -was by no means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would rather -have been an arbitrary deviation from it. - -Until within the last ten years, in all the works, great or small, which -treat of Galileo’s trial, we find this absolute prohibition which he was -said to have received related as an established historical fact. It was -the sole legal ground on which the indictment was based against Galileo -sixteen years later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by -an ostentatious appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document had been -seen by any of the authors who wrote so confidently of the stringent -prohibition of 1616, which confirmed its historical truth. And yet it -could but exist among the inaccessible archives relating to the trial -of Galileo, since the Inquisitors relied upon it in 1633, and it was -the pole and axis of the famous trial. And what the world had accepted -in good faith on the somewhat doubtful veracity of the Inquisition was -at length, apparently confirmed by the testimony of Mgr. Marino Marini, -prefect of the Vatican Archives. In that year he published at Rome a -book entitled, “Galileo e l’Inquisizione, Memorie storico-critiche,” -which, as the author stated, was founded upon the original documents -of the trial. It actually contained many “extracts” from the original -protocols; and founded upon documentary materials accessible only to -the author, it was encircled with the convenient halo of inviolability. -And for nearly twenty years no serious objection was raised to it. Many -historians did shake their heads and say that the work of the right -reverend gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition -as one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by the author’s -high-flown assertion that “the entire publication of the documents would -only redound to the glory of the Inquisition,”[140] but drily remarked -that it was really a great pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid -an opportunity to slip of performing a great service alike to history -and the Church, while the fragments produced were of little value to -either one or the other. None of this served to refute a single sentence -of the apology in question. It became, on the contrary, notwithstanding -its obvious partizanship, the chief source for subsequent narratives -of the trial. And it could not fail to be so; for even taking this -partizanship into account, how could the dates given be doubted? Could -any one suspect a misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did suspicions -of an arbitrary use and distortion of the documents at the author’s -command seem justified? Assuredly not. Besides, the papal archivist -appealed with apparent scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although, -therefore, the light thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed -to be one-sided, the correctness of his facts in general admitted of no -doubt. Among these the special prohibition of 1616 played a conspicuous -part. It is laid before the reader as beyond all question, and fully -confirmed by documents. The author, however, prudently refrained from -publishing these “documents” verbatim,—the reports of the Vatican MS. of -25th and 26th February. The discrepancy between them would then have come -to light. That was to be avoided, and so Marini, by the approved method -of rejecting all that did not suit his purpose, concocted from the two -reports a story of the assumed prohibition to Galileo so precise as to -leave nothing to be desired.[141] - -In 1867 Henri de L’Epinois surprised the learned world with his work, -“Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation d’après des Documents inédits.” He -reproduced for the first time in full the most important documents which -had been at Marini’s command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he -had used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th and 26th -February verbatim. But the story of the prohibition of 1616 had so firmly -rooted itself in history, that neither Epinois himself nor the next -French historian, Henri Martin, who published a comprehensive work on -Galileo based on the published documents, thought of disturbing it. - -It was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, in Germany -and Galileo’s own country, simultaneously and independently, of the -authenticity of the prohibition of 1616. In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill -who first shook this belief after careful and unbiassed investigation -of the Roman MS. published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: “Der -Inquisitions Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen -Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen Inquisition.” (The Trial of -Galileo Galilei. An Examination into its Legal Foundation by the Acts -of the Roman Inquisition.) And just when German learning was seeking -to prove by keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual -narrative, the document was published in Italy which raised Wohlwill’s -conjectures to certainty. - -Up to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment resist the -cardinal’s admonition, but submitted at once, could only be drawn, as -it was drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the wording of the report of -the proceedings of 26th February, 1616, partly from Galileo’s sincere -Catholic sentiments, for he was to the end, from conviction, a true son -of the Church. However much there might be to justify the conclusion, -therefore, it was founded only on probability, was confirmed by no -documents, and was therefore open to assault. It was attacked by -Friedlein in a review of Wohlwill’s brochure.[142] But when Friedlein -was trying to prove that Galileo must have resisted the cardinal’s -admonitions, and only submitted to the peremptory threats of the official -of the Inquisition, the document had been already published in Italy -which placed the question beyond doubt. This is an extract of the -protocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 3rd -March, 1616, and forms part of the collection of documents published by -Professor Silvestro Gherardi in the _Rivista Europea_, 1870. It is as -follows:— - - “_3rd March, 1616._ - - “The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo - Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of the - Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon (deserendam) - [disserendam (discuss) was the word originally written] the - opinion he has hitherto held, that the sun is the centre of - the spheres and immovable, and that the earth moves, and had - acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of - the Index having been presented, prohibiting and suspending - respectively the writings of Nicholas Copernicus (De - Revolutionibus orbium cœlestium....) of Diego di Zuñiga on Job, - and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite Friar—His Holiness - ordered this edict of prohibition and suspension respectively, - to be published by the Master of the Palace.”[143] - -This document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater importance -than merely for the evidence it affords that Galileo at once submitted -to the Cardinal’s admonition; it permits the conclusion, almost to a -certainty, that a proceeding like that described in the note of 26th -February never took place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal -Bellarmine was giving a report of the proceedings of 26th February at a -private sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office under the personal -presidency of the Pope. His report agrees precisely with the papal -ordinance of 25th February: he had admonished Galileo to give up the -Copernican doctrines, and he had consented. This was to all appearance -the end of the business. The cardinal does not say a word about the -stringent proceedings said to have taken place in his presence before -notary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would have been of far -greater importance than the first. It may perhaps be said that it was -not the cardinal’s business to report the doings of the Commissary of -the Inquisition. But the objection is not valid; for in the first place -the conditions did not exist which would have justified the interference -of the Commissary, and in the second, his report would certainly also -have been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th February -were reported. But in the note of 3rd March there is not a trace of the -report of Brother Michael Angelo Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however, -so incredible that no communication should be made to the Congregation -about the most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, and -that Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the slightest reference -to it in his report, that this document of 3rd March, 1616, discovered -by Professor Gherardi, would be sufficient of itself to justify the -suspicion that the course of the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was -not at all that reported in the note relating to it in the Vatican MS., -but was in accordance with the papal ordinance of 25th February, and -ended with the cardinal’s admonition. - -Let us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree better with -this suspicious note. Two days after the sitting of 3rd March, in -accordance with the order of Paul V., the decree of the Congregation of -the Index on writings and books treating of the Copernican system was -published. It ran as follows:— - - “And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said - Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false - and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture—of the motion of the - earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is also taught by - Nicholas Copernicus in _De Revolutionibus orbium Cœlestium_, - and by Diego di Zuñiga in (his book on) Job, is now being - spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a - certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled, _Letter of - the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the - opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the - motion of the earth, and the stability of the sun, and the new - Pythagorean system of the world, at Naples, printed by Lazzaro - Scorriggio, 1615_: wherein the said father attempts to show - that the aforesaid doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the - centre of the world, and of the earth’s motion, is consonant - with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in - order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further - to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has - decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus - orbium_, and Diego di Zuñiga, on Job, be suspended until they - be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo - Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and - that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be - prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns, - and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the - present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and - with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal - of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, - 1616.”[144] - -In this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, a -distinction is drawn between two classes of writings: those which -advocate the positive truth of the Copernican system—which are absolutely -interdicted and condemned; and those to which, by some modifications, a -hypothetical character can be given—these are to be suspended until the -needful corrections have been made. This indicated the precise attitude -which the Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican system. -As a mere working hypothesis it was not dangerous to the Roman Catholic -religion; but as irrefragable truth it shook its very foundations. They -were, therefore, determined at Rome that it should not make way as -truth—it was to be tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a -mathematical hypothesis, the use of which was obvious even to the Romish -_savans_, it might be allowed to stand. The cardinal’s admonition and -the decree are in logical agreement with this intention. Galileo was to -“renounce” the opinions of Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain -them as established fact; as a hypothesis, like the rest of the world he -might retain them. But according to the document of 26th February, entire -silence was enjoined upon Galileo upon the subject of the double motion -of the earth, for in the injunction neither to hold, teach, or defend -it in any way (_quovis modo_), the hypothetical treatment was obviously -included. - -Perhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the most -distinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of the Copernican -system, who by his telescopic discoveries had made the controversy a -burning question of the day. But this conjecture does not stand the test -of close investigation, for Galileo’s work on the solar spots, which was -based upon the sun’s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of -forbidden or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings of the curia -against him at that period, the friendly feeling for him personally, of -powerful patrons in the Church, is obvious, and it makes any specially -rigorous action against him very improbable. We have also other -indications that this categoric prohibition to Galileo had not then been, -_de facto_, issued. - -His letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. We cannot -expect to find in them precise information about the proceedings of -26th February, as it was contrary to the rules of the Inquisition to -make public its secret orders, under the severest penalties; but they -contain no trace of the deep depression which would have been caused by -the stringent orders of the Holy Office against him personally. On the -contrary, he writes on the 6th March (the day following the issue of the -decree) to Picchena: “I did not write to you, most revered sir, by the -last post, because there was nothing new to report; as they were about to -come to a decision about that affair which I have mentioned to you _as a -purely public one, not affecting my personal interests_, or only so far -as my enemies very inopportunely want to implicate me in it.” He goes on -to say that he alludes to the deliberations of the Holy Office about the -book and opinions of Copernicus; and mentions with evident satisfaction, -that the purpose of Caccini and his party to have that doctrine denounced -as heretical and contrary to the faith had not been attained, for the -Holy Office had simply stated that it did not agree with Holy Scripture, -and therefore only prohibited the books which maintained, _ex professo_, -that the Copernican doctrine was not contrary to the Bible. Galileo -then tells him more particularly what the decree contained, and that -the correction of the works of Copernicus and Zuñiga was entrusted to -Cardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations will be -confined to such passages as aim to prove the agreement of the modern -system with Scripture, and “here and there a word, as when Copernicus -calls the earth a star.” He adds: “I have, as will be seen from the -nature of the case, no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said -before, have troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn me into -it.” He means by this that the prohibition to try and make the doctrine -of the double motion square with Scripture was indifferent to him; he -would never have concerned himself with theology if he had not been -driven to it. He then goes on: “It may be seen from my writings in what -spirit I have always acted, and I shall continue to act, so as to shut -the mouth of malice, and to show that my conduct in this business has -been such that a saint could not have shown more reverence for the Church -nor greater zeal.”[145] - -In the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo repeats what -he has said about the correction of the work of Copernicus, and says -emphatically that it is clear that no further restrictions will be -imposed. From a reply from Galileo’s faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters -unfortunately not extant, it is evident that he had by no means expressed -himself as cast down by the issue of the affair. Sagredo writes in the -best of spirits: “Now that I have learnt from your valued letters the -particulars of the spiteful, devilish attacks on and accusations against -you, and the issue of them, which entirely frustrates the purposes of -your ignorant and malicious foes, I, and all the friends to whom I have -communicated your letters and messages, are quite set at rest.”[146] - -It is clear, then, from Galileo’s correspondence, that he took the decree -of the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks with satisfaction of the -trifling alterations to be made in Copernicus’s work. How could the man, -who was forbidden to “hold, teach, or defend” the repudiated doctrine “in -any way,” write in this style? - -A document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating to these -transactions, is of the utmost importance to the assertion that no such -prohibition had ever been issued to Galileo. After the publication of -the decree of 5th March he remained three months at Rome. His enemies -took advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been obliged -formally to recant, and absolutely to abjure his opinion. Galileo -seems to have been indignant at this; he pacified his adherents who -sent anxious inquiries to their master, and complained bitterly of the -unscrupulousness of his enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were -too bad. But in order to confute these calumnies and guard himself -against them in future, before leaving Rome he begged a certificate from -Cardinal Bellarmine to prove the falsity of this perfidious fiction. This -dignitary consented, and wrote the following declaration:— - - “We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is - calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our - hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, - and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare, - that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, either in our - hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or anywhere - else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him, - neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him; but - only the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by - the sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to - him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to - Copernicus, that the earth moves round the sun, and that the - sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move - from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and - therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we - have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this - 26th day of May, 1616.”[147] - -Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and -that of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks, -“the secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the -expense of truth,”[148] it would not have put forth so downright a lie -in _optima forma_ as the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed -prohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of -the Inquisition. This prohibition might easily have been passed over in -silence, while the calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the -cardinal was not content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had -“only” been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the -Index about the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine’s -glaringly contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it -not only entirely accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also -with Bellarmine’s report of the proceedings of 26th February in the -private sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the -cardinal certified nothing more nor less than what had actually taken -place. It leads therefore to the following conclusions:— - -1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal’s -admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine. - -2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him. - -3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616, -is therefore untrue. - -These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of -historical events will confirm them step by step, while it can by -no means be made to tally with the assumed strict injunction of the -Commissary-General. Next however, the question immediately arises, -Through whose means did the falsehood get into the acts of the trial, -and was it _bona_ or _mala fide_? Historical research can only partially -answer this question. All these notifications were entered by a notary -of the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, 1616, also. Did -he, perhaps merely from officious zeal, enter a note of an official -proceeding as having actually taken place, which undoubtedly was to have -taken place under certain circumstances, but in their absence did not -occur, or even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal -instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power which had long -been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the failure for the time -of its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters for future -use by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge -of the motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; as -however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or independent -falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in probability -that we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo’s -enemies,[149] which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its -purpose. - -Wohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long been of opinion -that this note originated, not in 1616, but in 1632, in order to legalise -the trial of Galileo. But after having repeatedly and very carefully -examined the original acts of the trial, preserved among the papal -secret archives, we were compelled to acknowledge that the material -nature of the document entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent -falsification.[150] The note was not falsified in 1632; no, in 1616 -probably, with subtle and perfidious calculation, a lie was entered which -was to have the most momentous consequences to the great astronomer. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -_EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT._ - - Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect - his recall.—Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the - Decree repealed.—Intrigues against him.—Audience of Pope Paul - V.—His friendly assurances.—His Character.—Galileo’s return to - Florence. - - -Galileo had humbly submitted, had witnessed the issue of the decree of -5th March by the august council; he knew that the only correct doctrine -of the system of the universe had been reduced to the shadow of a -hypothesis, and yet he could not make up his mind to leave the capital of -the hierarchy where such a slap in the face had been given to science. -The story told in most works on Galileo, that though he had submitted -to the Holy Office he afterwards used his utmost endeavours to effect a -reversal of the decree, is another of the firmly rooted and ineffaceable -mistakes of history. It originated in the reports of the Tuscan -ambassador, Guiccardini, to the Grand Duke.[151] - -This diplomatist, who was no great friend of Galileo’s, found himself -in an awkward position; he had been, on the one hand, enjoined by his -sovereign to support Galileo as far as it lay in his power, while on the -other he knew that the influential female members of the house of Medici -were very anxious to maintain the good relations of Tuscany with the Holy -See; and he tried to extricate himself from this dilemma by urgently -seeking to effect the recall of the inconvenient guest to Florence. -This object runs through all the ambassador’s despatches to Cosmo II. -He could not depict in colours too glaring the passion, fanaticism, and -pertinacity with which, in spite of all advice to the contrary, Galileo -defended the Copernican cause at Rome, though he was thereby doing it -more harm than good. The long report of Guiccardini to the Grand Duke, -of 4th March, 1616,[152] held to be authentic by most of Galileo’s -biographers, is couched in this tone. Among other things a dramatic scene -is narrated which was the immediate cause of the condemnation of the -Copernican system. Cardinal Orsini, one of Galileo’s warmest friends, to -whom the Grand Duke had sent an autograph letter of introduction, had -spoken to the Pope in favour of Galileo in the consistory of 2nd March. -The Pope replied that it would be well if he would persuade Galileo to -give up this opinion. Orsini then tried to urge the Pope further, but he -cut him short, saying that he had handed over the whole affair to the -Holy Office. No sooner had Orsini retired than Bellarmine, the celebrated -Jesuit theologian, was summoned to the Pope, and in the conversation that -ensued it was determined that this opinion of Galileo’s was erroneous and -heretical. - -Guiccardini must have been greatly misinformed to send reports so -incorrect to his court. As we have seen, on 19th February the Qualifiers -of the Holy Office were summoned to pronounce an opinion on the -Copernican doctrines, and as the result Galileo was summoned seven days -later to appear before Bellarmine, who informed him of the decree, and -admonished him to renounce the prohibited doctrine. But all this seems -to have escaped the acuteness of the Tuscan ambassador. He supposes that -the catastrophe had been brought about by a fit of papal anger! On 4th -March he only knows what was known the next day to all the world—by the -decree of the Congregation of the Index—that the writings of Copernicus -and other authors on the subject of the double motion were to be partly -condemned, partly corrected, and partly prohibited. - -Guiccardini in this despatch represented, on the one hand, the -difficulties into which the imprudent astronomer “might” bring himself -by his vehemence, and on the other the embarrassment in which those -who took his part would be placed; he reminded the Grand Duke of the -attitude which his house had at all times assumed in the past towards -such attacks on the Church of God, and of the services it had rendered to -the Inquisition, adding that he “could not approve that we should expose -ourselves to such annoyances and dangers without very good reason, and a -different prospect from that of great damage.” The most potent argument, -however, which he saved for the close of his long epistle of 4th March, -as the climax, was the endeavour to inspire Cosmo II. with the fear that -his brother, Cardinal Carlo de’ Medici, who was just coming to Rome, -would compromise himself by his relations with Galileo. - -From Galileo’s correspondence with Picchena, we learn in contradiction to -this despatch what it was that induced him to linger at Rome after the -issue of the decree of 5th March. He did not wish to return to Florence -under the impressions produced by the alarming reports of Guiccardini -and the rumours spread by many of his opponents. It is evident that he -was aware of what was said of him from a passage in a letter to Picchena -of 6th March. After expressing a fear that somebody not friendly to him -might represent his affairs to the Tuscan Secretary of State and others -in a false light, he entreats Picchena to maintain, until his return, -the good opinion of him which his sincerity deserves. He is convinced -that the arrival of Cardinal de’ Medici will relieve him from the need of -uttering one word of self-justification, as he will hear at once what an -excellent reputation he enjoyed at the Court of Rome. He then goes on, as -if directly refuting Guiccardini’s accusations:— - - “Then your Grace will learn, above all, with what composure - and moderation I have conducted myself, and what regard I - have had for the honour and good repute of those who have - eagerly tried to injure mine and certainly your Grace will be - surprised. I say this to you, most honoured sir, in case any - false accusations of the kind should reach your ears from any - quarter; and I hope that credit will be given to a party not - adverse to me, so that a more just understanding may be arrived - at.” - -Meanwhile Galileo’s position became more favourable, because the Pope -received the submissive philosopher very graciously on 11th March, -and gave him an audience which lasted three-quarters of an hour. He -seized the opportunity of speaking to Paul V. of the intrigues of his -enemies, and of some of the false accusations against him; to which the -Pope replied that he was well aware of the rectitude and sincerity of -his sentiments. And when Galileo, in conclusion, expressed his fears -of the perpetual persecutions of relentless malice, the Pope consoled -him by saying that he need not fear, for he was held in so much esteem -by himself and the whole Congregation, that they would not listen to -these calumnies, and as long as he occupied the chair of St. Peter, -Galileo might feel himself safe from all danger. Paul V. also repeatedly -expressed his readiness to show his favour by his actions. - -Galileo hastened on the very next day to make known the favourable -result of this audience to Picchena, the Secretary of State, in a -long letter.[153] The effect of it, however, was quite different from -what he probably expected. The Court of Tuscany, which had been not a -little disquieted by Guiccardini’s alarming despatch, thought it a good -opportunity to press upon Galileo, now that his fame was so brilliantly -re-established, to leave Rome and return to Florence. This was the tenor -of Picchena’s reply of 20th March.[154] Their highnesses, evidently still -under the impression of Guiccardini’s letter, implored Galileo to be -quiet, and no longer to discuss this dangerous subject, but to return. - -Encouraged by the Pope’s friendly words, however, Galileo showed no -disposition to take these plain hints, and we learn from his further -correspondence that his tarriance at Rome was fully approved by the -Tuscan Court. Thus we read in a letter of 26th March: “As to my return, -unless his Highness wishes it otherwise, I shall, in accordance with your -commands, await the arrival of his Reverence the Cardinal.” And further -on: “After the arrival of the Cardinal I shall stay here as long as his -Highness or the Cardinal pleases.”[155] - -To the great annoyance of Guiccardini, Galileo remained three months -longer at Rome—beneath those skies which, according to the ambassador, -must prove dangerous to him in consequence of his vehement temperament, -“especially at a time when the ruler of the eternal city hates -science and polite scholars, and cannot endure these innovations and -subtleties.” This portrait of Paul V. was undoubtedly a correct one. -He cared very little for learning, and displayed a harsh and sometimes -savage character; while the inviolability of the dogmas of the Church, -ecclesiastical privileges, and blind obedience to the faith, were -supreme in his eyes. We will just remind our readers that it was Paul V. -who, just after his elevation to the papacy, had a poor wretch, named -Piccinardi, beheaded, because, for his private amusement, he had written -a biography of Clement VIII., in which he was not very aptly compared -with the Emperor Tiberius, although the work was not intended for -publication,—a sentence which occasioned great consternation. - -At a time, therefore, when the tiara was worn by a man of this character, -the atmosphere of Rome might certainly have been dangerous to an ardent -explorer in the fields of natural science. But as Galileo did not suffer -any sort of papal persecution during his stay there, it is obvious that -the character drawn of him by Guiccardini was very much exaggerated. This -also refutes the constantly reiterated fable that Galileo was eagerly -trying to get the decree of 5th March repealed. The vehement agitation -imputed to him by the ambassador, and this bold attempt, would have been -speedily followed by penalties. But history knows nothing at this period -of misunderstandings between Galileo and the Church; indeed we possess -a document which entirely contradicts the reports of Guiccardini. This -is a letter from Cardinal del Monte to the Grand Duke at the time of -Galileo’s departure from Rome, written expressly “to bear witness that -he was leaving with the best reputation and the approval of all who have -had transactions with him; for it has been made manifest how unjust the -calumnies of his enemies have been.” The cardinal adds, “that having -conversed much with Galileo, and being intimate with those who were -cognisant of all that had taken place, he could assure his Highness that -there was not the least imputation attaching to the philosopher.”[156] - -But to return to the course of events. The Tuscan ambassador continued to -send disquieting letters to the Grand Duke about Galileo in order that -he might be recalled. He wrote in a despatch of 13th May: “ ... Galileo -seems disposed to emulate the monks in obstinacy, and to contend with -personages who cannot be attacked without ruining yourself; we shall soon -hear at Florence that he has madly tumbled into some abyss or other.”[157] - -Cosmo II., not a little alarmed by these gloomy prognostications of his -ambassador, and really in care for the revered philosopher, at length -issued the order for his long-desired return. Picchena then wrote the -following drastic letter to Galileo, on 23rd May:— - - “You have had enough of monkish persecutions, and know now what - the flavour of them is. His Highness fears that your longer - tarriance at Rome might involve you in difficulties, and would - therefore be glad if, as you have so far come honourably out - of the affair, you would not tease the sleeping dog any more, - and would return here as soon as possible. For there are - rumours flying about which we do not like, and the monks are - all powerful. I, your servant, would not fail to warn you, and - to inform you, as in duty bound, of the wishes of our ruler, - wherewith I kiss your hand.”[158] - -Galileo complied without delay with Cosmo’s wishes, and set out on his -homeward journey on the 4th of the following month. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -_THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS._ - - Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work of - Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke Leopold - of Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The three Comets - of 1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s Lecture on - them.—Guiducci’s Treatise on them inspired by Galileo.—Grassi’s - “Astronomical and Philosophical Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul - V.—His Death.—Death of Cosmo II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” - finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” on it.—Death of Gregory - XV.—Urban VIII. - - -Seven years passed by, during which Galileo lived a secluded and studious -life in the Villa Segni, at Bellosguardo, near Florence, without -publishing any new work. How could he do so? The acceptance and further -application of the Copernican system was the mainspring of all his -scientific pursuits, of which, multifarious as they were, the principle -of the double motion of the earth was both foundation and keystone. The -general permission to employ the theory as a working hypothesis was of -little service to him. The lofty structure of correct knowledge of our -universe could not be raised on a pedestal of sand; it required the -imperishable marble of truth. Galileo was compelled to withhold the -results of his researches until, perchance, some altered state of things -should change the mind of the papal court, at present so inimical to the -Copernican cause. The publication of any researches in accordance with -the Copernican system appeared especially dangerous, until the promised -corrections had been made in the famous work of the Canon of Frauenburg, -which had been temporarily placed on the Index. These corrections would -give more precise information as to how they wished the new doctrine -handled at Rome, what limits had been set by ecclesiastical despotism to -researches into nature. Galileo watched with great anxiety the labours -of the papal censors, and tried to hasten them through his friend Prince -Cesi.[159] This eager interest in the earliest possible publication of -the corrections is another thing which does not accord with the assumed -stringent prohibition of February 26th. What difference would it have -made to Galileo whether any facilities were offered for the discussion of -the Copernican theory or not, if absolute silence on the subject had been -enjoined on him? - -During this period, when he could not venture to have the results of his -various researches published, he was careful to make them known to some -friends of science by means of long letters, numerous copies of which -were then circulated in Europe. Very few of them, unfortunately, have -come down to us, but there is one of them that deserves special notice. -It indicates precisely Galileo’s position: on the one hand he feels -constrained to make way for the recognition of the truth; but on the -other, as a good Catholic, and from regard to his personal safety, he -does not wish to clash with ecclesiastical authority. This letter, too, -adds weight to the conclusion _that there was no prohibition enjoining -absolute silence on the Copernican theory on Galileo_. - -During his last stay at Rome, at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini, he -had written a treatise on the tides in the form of a letter to that -dignitary, dated January 8th,[160] in which he expressed his firm -conviction, erroneously as we now know, that this phenomenon could -only be explained on the theory of the double motion of the earth. He -represented it as an important confirmation of the truth of it. In May, -1618, he sent a copy of this treatise to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, -who was friendly to him, and was a brother of the Grand Duchess. But as -since it was written the decree of March 5th had been issued, which only -permitted discussion of the subject as a hypothesis, Galileo thought it -advisable to add a sort of accompaniment to his treatise, in which he -took the utmost pains to comply with the conditions imposed by the Church -on her dutiful and orthodox son. He wrote:— - - “With this I send a treatise on the causes of the tides, which - I wrote rather more than two years ago at the suggestion of - his Eminence Cardinal Orsini, at Rome, at the time when the - theologians were thinking of prohibiting Copernicus’s book and - the doctrine enounced therein of the motion of the earth, which - I then held to be true, until it pleased those gentlemen to - prohibit the work, and to declare that opinion to be false and - contrary to Scripture. Now, knowing as I do, that it behoves - us to obey the decisions of the authorities, and to believe - them, since they are guided by a higher insight than any to - which my humble mind can of itself attain, I consider this - treatise which I send you merely to be a poetical conceit, or - a dream, and desire that your Highness may take it as such, - inasmuch as it is based on the double motion of the earth, and - indeed contains one of the arguments which I have adduced in - confirmation of it. But even poets sometimes attach a value to - one or other of their fantasies, and I likewise attach some - value to this fancy of mine. Now, having written the treatise, - and having shown it to the Cardinal above-mentioned, and a few - others, I have also let a few exalted personages have copies, - in order that in case any one not belonging to our Church - should try to appropriate my curious fancy, as has happened - to me with many of my discoveries, these personages, being - above all suspicion, may be able to bear witness that it was - I who first dreamed of this chimera. What I now send is but - a fugitive performance; it was written in haste, and in the - expectation that the work of Copernicus would not be condemned - as erroneous eighty years after its publication. I had intended - at my convenience, and in the quiet, to have gone more - particularly into this subject, to have added more proofs, to - have arranged the whole anew, and to have put it into a better - form. But a voice from heaven has aroused me, and dissolved all - my confused and tangled fantasies in mist. May therefore your - Highness graciously accept it, ill arranged as it is. And if - Divine love ever grants that I may be in a position to exert - myself a little, your Highness may expect something more solid - and real from me.”[161] - -On reading such passages one really does not know which to be the most -indignant at,—the iron rule by which a privileged caste repressed the -progress of science in the name of religion, or the servility of one -of the greatest philosophers of all times in not scorning an unworthy -subterfuge in order to disseminate a grain of supposed truth in the world -without incurring personal danger. - -But in spite of all precautions, in spite of “chimeras,” “fictions,” -“fantasies,” and even “the voice from heaven,” the circulation of this -treatise, based upon the theory of the double motion, would have been -an infringement of the assumed absolute prohibition to Galileo, while, -thanks to the ingenious accompaniment, it in no way clashed with the -decree of 5th March. Galileo’s conduct shows plainly enough that he -humbly submitted to the ecclesiastical ordinance, but there is not a -trace of the prohibition to discuss the doctrine “in any way.” - -Little, however, as Galileo desired to engage, thus hampered, in any -perilous controversies, the next time it was nature herself who enticed -him into the field in which his genius and his polemical ingenuity -acquired for him both splendid triumphs and bitter foes. - -In August, 1618, three comets appeared in the heavens, and the brilliant -one in the constellation of the Scorpion strongly attracted the attention -of astronomers. Although it was visible until January, 1619, Galileo -had very little opportunity of observing it, as he was confined to his -bed by a severe and tedious illness.[162] But he communicated his views -on comets to several of his friends, and among others to the Archduke -Leopold of Austria, who had come to see the sick philosopher.[163] He -did not consider them to be real heavenly bodies, but merely atmospheric -appearances, columns of vapour which rise from earth to the skies, to a -very considerable height, far beyond the moon, and become temporarily -visible to the inhabitants of the earth, in the well-known form of a -comet, by the refraction of the sun’s rays. As he judged comets to be -without substance, and placed them on a par with mock suns and the aurora -borealis, he concluded that they could have no parallax determinations. - -In the same year, 1619, a Jesuit, Father Grassi, delivered a lecture on -the three comets in the Roman College, in which he gave out that such -phenomena were not mere appearances, but real heavenly bodies; copies of -this lecture were widely circulated, and Galileo was strongly urged by -his adherents to publish his opinion. He was prudent enough to evade for -the time a fresh controversy, which, in the existing critical state of -affairs, might bring him into danger, and apparently took no part in the -scientific feud which was brewing. But he induced his learned friend and -pupil, Mario Guiducci, consul of the Academy at Florence, to publish a -treatise on comets. Numerous alterations and additions, however, which -are found in the original MS. in the Palatina Library at Florence, attest -that he had a direct share in the editorship.[164] The opinions hitherto -held by philosophers and astronomers on this subject were discussed, -and the author’s own—that is Galileo’s—expounded. Grassi’s views were -sharply criticised, and he was reproachfully asked why he had passed over -Galileo’s recent astronomical discoveries in silence. - -Grassi, who recognised the real originator of the work, in the reply -which he issued a few months later entirely ignored the pupil, that he -might the more vigorously attack the master. Under the pseudonym of -_Lothario Sarsi Sigensano_, he published a pamphlet against Galileo, -entitled, “The Astronomical and Philosophical Scales.”[165] It is -written with caustic bitterness, and is a model of Jesuitical malice -and cunning. The comet question was for the time a secondary matter with -Grassi, and he begins with a personal attack on Galileo, by disputing the -priority of several of his most important discoveries and inventions, and -reproaching him, with pious indignation, with obstinate adherence to a -doctrine condemned by theologians. Up to this point he is only angry and -spiteful, but as he goes on he becomes cunning. He sets up for a warm -defender of the Peripatetic physics, and attacks the Copernican system, -and its advocate Galileo, to compel him either to ignominious silence or -dangerous demonstrations. Under pretext of meeting Guiducci’s reproach -that he (Grassi) had taken Tycho as his authority, he asks whether it -would have been better to follow the system of Ptolemy, which had been -convicted of error, or that of Copernicus, which every God-fearing -man must abhor, and his hypothesis, which had just been condemned? In -discussing the causes of the movements of comets, it seemed to him that -the arguments were insinuated on which the forbidden doctrines were -based. “Away!” he exclaims in righteous indignation, “with all such -words so offensive to truth and to every pious ear! They were prudent -enough certainly scarcely to speak of them with bated breath, and not to -blazon it abroad that Galileo’s opinion was founded upon this pernicious -principle.” - -Thus attacked, Galileo prepared to defend himself. The greatest caution -was necessary, for Grassi was backed by the powerful party of the -Jesuits, who made a great boast of this work.[166] The letters of this -period from Prince Cesi and Galileo’s ecclesiastical friends at Rome -show that they were very anxious that he should not make the influential -order of Jesuits his enemies by a direct collision with them. But as they -saw the absolute necessity of a reply, they gave him all sorts of good -advice, how to parry the attack without incurring their hatred. They -were of opinion that he should not honour an adversary concealed behind -a pseudonym with a reply written by himself, but should depute the task -to a pupil, or, if he intended to conduct his defence in person, clothe -his reply in the form of a letter instead of a treatise, not addressed -to Sarsi himself, but to one of his own party.[167] He decided for the -latter; and adopting a hint from Mgr. Ciampoli,[168] he addressed the -reply to Mgr. Cesarini, one of his most devoted friends and dauntless -defenders. - -But the completion of this afterwards famous rejoinder was delayed for -two years, and its publication, which, according to custom with all works -by members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, was undertaken by the Society, -was delayed fully another year owing to the scruples of Prince Cesi and -other “lynxes.” Galileo’s procrastination is to be explained partly by -his continued ill health, but more so by the position of affairs at Rome -as well as in Tuscany, which was by no means encouraging for a contest -with a Jesuit. - -The imperious Paul V. was still the reigning Pope, and his good will -towards Galileo would certainly only have lasted so long as he was -entirely submissive. His dialectic reply, which was pervaded by cutting -irony aimed at a father of the order of Jesuits, even sometimes making -him appear ridiculous, could not have been much to the taste of a Pope to -whom the inviolability of the Church and her ministers was all in all. It -is characteristic of this pontiff that, as appears from the negotiations -with James I., he seriously claimed the right of deposing kings, and -called every attempt to make him relinquish this claim “a heretical -proceeding,” and pronounced the writings of some Venetian ecclesiastics -who disputed it, to be worse than Calvinistic. Just as this stern -pontiff was gathered to his fathers (16th January, 1621), in consequence -of an attack of apoplexy on the occasion of the celebration of the -victory on the Weissenberg, and the good-natured and infirm old man, -Gregory XV., ascended the papal chair, Galileo sustained a blow which was -most disastrous to him. This was the death, on 28th February, 1621, of -his kind protector and patron, Cosmo II. The protection of an energetic -prince who sincerely respected him, which he had hitherto enjoyed, was -replaced by the uncertain favour of a feminine government, as the widowed -Grand Duchess, whose tendencies were thoroughly Romish, assumed the -regency for Ferdinand II., who was still in his minority. - -Under these circumstances Galileo was but little inclined to bring out -his reply; and perhaps the time when they were founding the Propaganda -at Rome, and enrolling Loyola and Xavier among the saints, did not seem -very opportune. From the new Pope personally there was nothing to fear. -The phlegmatic little man, who was so bowed down by age and sickness -that those about him often feared to lay complicated business matters -before him, lest he should entirely break down, was certainly not likely -to inspire awe; besides, Gregory had expressed himself to Ciampoli very -favourably of Galileo.[169] But the Pope’s infirmities made it all the -more necessary to proceed with caution; for they allowed the Romish -administration to exercise full sway. And the man who guided it with -almost sovereign authority was the Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Lodovico -Lodovisi, a former pupil and therefore zealous friend of the Jesuits. - -Nevertheless Galileo’s adherents, and especially his clerical friends at -Rome, considered it absolutely necessary to publish his reply as soon as -possible, with the precautions before mentioned, because his opponents -construed his silence into a triumph for Grassi and the Aristotelian -school.[170] Prince Cesi, Mgrs. Cesarini and Ciampoli—the latter of whom -meanwhile had become Secretary of the Papal Briefs to Gregory XV., a post -which he also held under his successor, Urban VIII., until he fell into -disgrace about Galileo—urged him repeatedly to finish his reply.[171] - -Francesco Stelluti, a member of the Accadémia dei Lincei, a learned -friend of Galileo’s, did indeed at this time (June, 1622) bring out -a work against “Lothario Sarsi,” but he only defended Guiducci, and -studiously avoided touching on the reproaches cast on Galileo, in order -not to anticipate him.[172] - -At length, in October of the same year, Galileo sent the MS. of his -celebrated work, “Il Saggiatore” (The Assayer), to Mgr. Cesarini, at -Rome.[173] For five months it passed from hand to hand among the members -of the Accadémia dei Lincei, who carefully criticised it, and with -Galileo’s consent, altered the passages which might possibly have been -taken advantage of by his enemies to renew their intrigues against him. -The Jesuits meanwhile had got wind of the completion of the reply, and -did their utmost to get hold of one of the numerous copies of the MS.; -but Cesarini, Cesi, Ciampoli, and the other “Lynxes,” took good care of -them, well knowing that if the Jesuits once made acquaintance with this -crushing reply, they would use every endeavour to prevent its receiving -the _imprimatur_.[174] This was granted on 2nd February, 1623, by the -supreme authorities of the censorship, not only without hesitation, but -they spoke of the work in very favourable and flattering terms. The -opinion—which was drawn up by Father Nicolo Riccardi, a former pupil of -Galileo’s, who will often be mentioned in the sequel, then examiner, and -afterwards even Magister Sacrii Palatii—was as follows:— - - “By command of the Master of the Palace I have read the work, - ‘Il Saggiatore,’ and not only have I detected nothing in it - which is contrary to good morals, or deviates from the divine - truth of our religion, but I have found in it such beautiful - and manifold observations on natural philosophy, that I think - our age will not have to boast merely of having been the - inheritor of the labours of earlier philosophers, but also of - having been the discoverer of many secrets of nature which they - were not able to penetrate, thanks to the subtle and solid - researches of the author, whose contemporary I think myself - happy to be, for now the gold of truth is no longer weighed - wholesale and with the steelyard, but with the delicate scales - used for gold.”[175] - -The commencement of the printing was again delayed till the beginning -of May,[176] and then proceeded but slowly, for it was not until 27th -May that Ciampoli sent the first two sheets of the “Saggiatore” to -the author, in order to prove to him the falseness of a report which -had meanwhile gained currency, that the printing of the work had been -prohibited.[177] - -An event then took place which seemed likely to produce a great change -in Galileo’s relations with Rome; indeed in the whole attitude of -ecclesiastical authority towards the free progress of science. At all -events, as we shall see, Galileo flattered himself with this hope, and -not without some justification. On 8th July, 1623, Gregory XV. succumbed -to age and infirmity in the second year of his pontificate. The man who -at the age of fifty-five was now elevated to the papacy, not only did -not in the least resemble his immediate predecessors, but his tendencies -were in striking contrast to theirs. He was previously Cardinal Maffeo -Barberini, and now ascended the papal throne as Urban VIII. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -_MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII._ - - His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when - Cardinal.—Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication of - “Il Saggiatore,” with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the - Work.—The Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed - Prohibition. - - -Scarcely any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation of his -character and aims in his own trenchant utterances as Urban VIII. When -shown the marble monuments of his predecessors, he proudly observed that -he “would erect iron ones to himself.” And the fortress of Castelfranco -on the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort -Urbino), the new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the Vatican -Library turned into an arsenal, the new manufactory of arms at Tivoli, -and finally the costly harbour of Civita Vecchia, are so many silent -testimonies to the cherished desire of this _pontiff_ to transform the -eternal city into an inviolable symbol in stone of the temporal power -of the Pope, and to accredit himself as a true mediæval vicegerent of -Christ with the two-edged sword of the world. His athletic physique -and iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of his ideas. In his -self-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel with the Sacred College, -saying that he “knew better than all the cardinals put together,” and -boldly set himself above all ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard -of reason that “the sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the -decrees of a hundred dead ones.” And finally, to leave his flock, the -Christian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral humility, he -revoked the resolve of the Romans never again to erect a monument to a -Pope in his lifetime, saying, “such a resolution could not apply to a -Pope like himself.” - -The desire for unlimited temporal power rises like a column out of the -life of Urban VIII. Still it is not destitute of the embellishments of -art, poetry, and love of learning. It is no fiction that this imperious -pontiff found pleasure in turning passages of the Old and New Testaments -into Horatian metre, and the song of Simeon into two sapphic strophes! -His numerous and often cordial letters to Galileo bear witness also of -his interest in science and its advocates; but if these scientific or -poetic tastes clashed for a moment with the papal supremacy, the patron -of art and science had to give place at once to the ecclesiastical ruler, -who shunned no means, secret or avowed, of making every other interest -subservient to his assumption of temporal and spiritual dominion. - -It is simply a psychological consequence of these traits of character, -that arbitrary caprice, the twin brother of despotic power, often played -an intolerable part in his treatment of those who came in contact with -him.[178] - -This then was the character of the new head of the Catholic Church, on -whom Galileo placed great hopes for the progress of science in general, -and the toleration of the Copernican system in particular, though they -were to result in bitter disappointment. Yet to all appearance he was -justified in hailing this election, for not only was Urban VIII. a -refreshing contrast to his immediate predecessors, who cared little for -art or science, but as Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, he had for years shown -the warmest friendship for and interest in Galileo. - -Many letters from this dignitary to Galileo which have come down to us -bear witness to this.[179] Thus he wrote to him from Bologna on 5th June, -1612: “I have received your treatise on various scientific questions, -which have been raised during my stay here, and shall read them with -great pleasure, both to confirm myself in my opinion, _which agrees with -yours_, and, with the rest of the world, to enjoy the fruits of your rare -intellect.”[180] The words, “in order to confirm,” etc., have led some -not very careful writers to conclude that, at all events when cardinal, -Urban VIII. was a follower of Copernicus. But this is quite beside the -mark. For the work in question was the one on floating bodies, with -which, though the Peripatetics got the worst of it, neither Ptolemy or -Copernicus had anything to do. A little more attention would have saved -Philarete Chasles and others from such erroneous statements. - -Another letter to Galileo from the cardinal, 20th April, 1613, after the -publication of his work on the solar spots, shows the interest he took in -the astronomer and his achievements. He writes:— - - “Your printed letters to Welser have reached me, and are very - welcome. I shall not fail to read them with pleasure, again and - again, which they deserve. This is not a book which will be - allowed to stand idly among the rest; it is the only one which - can induce me to withdraw for a few hours from my official - duties to devote myself to its perusal, and to the observation - of the planets of which it treats, if the telescopes we have - here are fit for it. Meanwhile I thank you very much for your - remembrance of me, and beg you not to forget the high opinion - which I entertain for a mind so extraordinarily gifted as - yours.”[181] - -But the cardinal had not confined himself to these assurances of esteem -and friendship in his letters, but had proved them by his actions in 1615 -and 1616, by honestly assisting to adjust Galileo’s personal affairs -when brought before the Inquisition. And Maffeo Barberini attributed the -success then achieved in no small degree to his own influence, and used -even to relate with satisfaction when Pope, that he had at that time -assisted Galileo out of his difficulties. But here we must remind those -authors who represent Barberini, when cardinal, as a Copernican, in order -to paint his subsequent attitude as Pope in darker hues than history -warrants, that although in 1615 and 1616 he exerted himself for Galileo -personally, he in no way sought to avert the condemnation of the system. - -In 1620, however, Barberini gave Galileo a really enthusiastic proof of -his esteem. He celebrated his discoveries in some elegant and spirited -verses, in which astronomy was allied with morality, and he sent them to -Galileo, under date of 28th August, with the following letter:— - - “The esteem which I always entertain for yourself and your - great merits has given occasion to the enclosed verses. If - not worthy of you, they will serve at any rate as a proof of - my affection, while I purpose to add lustre to my poetry by - your renowned name. Without wasting words, then, in further - apologies, which I leave to the confidence which I place in - you, I beg you to receive with favour this insignificant proof - of my great affection.”[182] - -When this dignitary, who was generally regarded as a friend and protector -of science, had ascended the papal chair, the “Accadémia dei Lincei” -hastened to dedicate “Il Saggiatore” to his Holiness, in order to spoil -the sport of the author’s enemies beforehand. - -To the annoyance of Galileo’s opponents and delight of his friends, -by the end of October, 1623, “Il Saggiatore” appeared. This work -is a masterpiece of ingenuity; for the author not only dexterously -avoids falling into the snares laid for him by Father Grassi, but -prepares signal defeats for him. Galileo takes his attack on him, -“The Astronomical and Philosophical Scales,” paragraph by paragraph, -throws light on each, and disputes or confutes it. And it is done in so -sparkling and spirited a style, and the reasoning, pervaded by cutting -sarcasm, is so conclusive, that “Il Saggiatore” certainly deserves to be -called a model of dialectic skill. Our limits preclude going further -into its scientific contents. For our purpose it will suffice to say -that Galileo took occasion in it to lash many errors in Grassi’s work -unmercifully, and thereby incurred the eternal hatred of the all powerful -Jesuit party. Thus it was to a great extent the purely scientific -“Saggiatore” which subsequently conjured up the tragic element in -Galileo’s fate. - -Another interesting point in the work is the way in which Galileo replies -to Grassi’s interpellations about the system of the universe. Admirable -as is the ingenuity with which he performs this ticklish task, one -cannot sympathise with the denial of his inmost convictions. He parries -the provocations of his adversary by demonstrating that the Ptolemaic -and Copernican doctrines had nothing to do with the controversy about -comets, and that this question was only raised by “Sarsi” in order to -attack him (Galileo). He adds the ambiguous remark: “As to the Copernican -hypothesis, I am fully convinced that if we Catholics had not to thank -the highest wisdom for having corrected our mistake and enlightened our -blindness, we should never have been indebted for such a benefit to -the arguments and experiences of Tycho.”[183] He then shows that the -Copernican system, “which, as a pious Catholic, he considers entirely -erroneous and completely denies,” perfectly agrees with the telescopic -discoveries, which cannot be made to agree at all with the other systems. -But since, in spite of all this caution, a defence of the new system -might have been detected in these statements, Galileo hastens to the -conciliatory conclusion, that since the Copernican theory is condemned -by the Church, the Ptolemaic no longer tenable in the face of scientific -research, while that of Tycho is inadequate, some other must be sought -for. - -Notwithstanding all this fencing, however, no one can fail to see in -“Il Saggiatore” an underhand defence of the Copernican system, as is -evident from the passages quoted. Such a vague discussion of it as this, -however, did not compromise Galileo according to the decree of 5th March, -1616; but “Il Saggiatore” would have directly contravened the assumed -absolute injunction to silence on that system of 26th February, and -Galileo would certainly not have ventured to write in this style if the -Commissary-General of the Holy Office had, in 1616, solemnly forbidden -him to discuss the said doctrine in any way whatever (_quovis modo_). -This is another proof that this famous prohibition was not issued to -Galileo in the form in which it occurs in the archives of 26th February. - -“Il Saggiatore” was, indeed, denounced to the Inquisition in 1625, -by Galileo’s opponents, as containing a concealed endorsement of the -Copernican system, and a motion was made in the Congregation of the Holy -Office to prohibit it, or at any rate to have it corrected; but it was -not carried, and the party only prepared a defeat for themselves. In -consequence of the denunciation, a cardinal was charged to investigate -the matter, and to report upon it. He selected Father Guevara, General -of the Theatines, to assist him, who, after careful examination of -the work in question, spoke in high praise of it, recommended it most -warmly to the cardinal, and even gave him a written statement, in which -he explained that the opinion of the earth’s motion, even if it had -been maintained, would not have appeared to him a reason for condemning -it.[184] Even Urban VIII., who, we must suppose, was perfectly acquainted -with the proceedings of 1616, does not appear to have had any scruples -about “Il Saggiatore,” for he had it read aloud to him at table, -immediately after its publication,[185] and, as Galileo was assured, -enjoyed it highly.[186] - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -_PAPAL FAVOUR._ - - Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his - Accession.—Favourable Reception.—Scientific discussions - with the Pope.—Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th - March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The Microscope.—Galileo not the - Inventor.—Urban’s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.—Galileo’s - reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s hypocrisy.—Spinola’s - harangue against the Copernican System.—Lothario Sarsi’s reply - to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his “Dialogues.” - - -On the accession of Urban VIII. Galileo formed a project of offering his -congratulations to the new Pope at Rome, and of using all his personal -influence on the occasion to obtain toleration for the Copernican system, -now no longer opposed by the weighty influence of Cardinal Bellarmine, -for he had died two years before. But he first consulted his friends at -Rome, whether he would be well received, and especially by his Holiness. -He wrote among other things to Prince Cesi, on 9th October, 1623: “I -have in my head plans of no small importance for the learned world, and -perhaps can never hope for so wonderful a combination of circumstances -to ensure their success, at least so far as I am able to conduce to -it.”[187] Cesi, who well understood Galileo’s mode of speaking, confirmed -him in his intentions in his answer of 21st October, and urged him to -carry out his project speedily. “It is necessary for you to come, and -you will be very welcome to his Holiness,” wrote the Prince.[188] Thomas -Rinuccini, brother of the Archbishop of Fermo, of whom Galileo made -the same inquiries, replied as commissioned by the new Pope’s nephew, -Cardinal Francesco Barberini, that Urban VIII. would always be pleased -to receive him, and told him that he had had a long audience of the Pope -himself three days ago, of which he reported to Galileo:— - - “I swear to you that nothing pleased his Holiness so much - as the mention of your name. After I had been speaking of - you for some time, I told him that you, esteemed sir, had an - ardent desire to come and kiss his toe, if his Holiness would - permit it, to which the Pope replied that it would give him - great pleasure, if it were not inconvenient to you, and if the - journey would not be injurious to your health; for great men - like you must spare themselves, that they may live as long as - possible.”[189] - -Galileo now resolved to go to Rome as soon as he could, but his uncertain -health and the unprecedentedly bad weather, which had laid whole tracts -of land under water, delayed his departure. His friends at Rome wrote -meanwhile again and again, encouraging him to set out, for the Pope, -Cardinal Barberini, and all his exalted patrons and numerous adherents -were longing for his presence;[190] and Mgr. Ciampoli assured him that -he “would find that his Holiness had a special personal affection for -him.”[191] - -At length, on the 1st April, Galileo was able to set out, although the -state of his health was still such that he could only perform the journey -in a litter. He reached Aquasparta on 8th April, spent a fortnight with -Prince Cesi in his fine place there, and discussed the affairs which -lay so near his heart with his learned and influential friend. He did -not arrive in Rome till towards the end of April. The long-expected -guest would have been sure of a distinguished reception, even without -the Grand Duchess Christine’s letter[192] of recommendation to her son, -Cardinal de’ Medici. Every one was aware of the favour which the new Pope -entertained for the great astronomer. His old adherents, therefore, -received him with greater delight than ever; and his enemies, for the -time, only ventured to clench their fists behind his back. His letters -of this period express the great satisfaction which this flattering -reception afforded him.[193] The prospect did not indeed look quite -so favourable for his cause. Within six weeks he had had six long -audiences of Urban VIII., had been most affably received by him, and -had found opportunity to lay before him all his arguments in defence -of the Copernican system;[194] but he would not be convinced, and in -one of these discussions tried to turn the tables, and to convince the -advocate of the modern system of its incorrectness, in which he met with -no success. And not only did Urban, in spite of his esteem for Galileo, -turn a deaf ear to his arguments, but he would not grant his petition for -toleration of the new doctrine; on this point he was quite inexorable. - -In vain did Galileo obtain the support of several of the cardinals who -were friendly to him, to gain permission from the supreme ruler of -Christendom to teach the Copernican system _as true_. The Pope said to -Cardinal Hohenzollern, who, at Galileo’s request, warmly took up the -question, and had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great -caution was required in dealing with it, “that the Church neither had -condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine as heretical, but only as -rash.”[195] This language was, as Henri Martin justly observes,[196] more -than wanting in precision; for in the first place the Church had never -condemned it at all, either as “heretical” or “rash,” for the Qualifiers -of the Holy Office never mean the “Church”; and in the second place, -this commission had, in 1616, not condemned this opinion as “rash,” but -“foolish and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical,” and this -without the papal confirmation, so that no condemnation by the Church -could be said to exist. - -Galileo, finding that Urban, with all his friendly feeling towards -him personally, would never be persuaded to revoke the decree of 5th -March, 1616, resolved to return home after a stay of six weeks at -Rome. There was little to be gained by remaining longer. As soon as -the attitude which Urban intended to assume towards the prohibited -doctrine became evident, Galileo’s clerical adherents as far as possible -avoided expressing themselves on the subject, and the moderate party -among the Romanists merely advised him to take care that his scientific -speculations did not contradict Holy Scripture. - -Father Nicolo Riccardi, who was much attached to Galileo and took a great -interest in his subsequent trial, was very ingenious in maintaining a -safe neutrality between the two systems. This good man, to whom from his -eloquence, or as others said because he was so fat, the King of Spain -had given the nickname of “Il Padre Mostro,” prudently agreed neither -with the Ptolemaic nor the Copernican system, but contented himself with -a view as peculiar as it was convenient. He saw no difficulty in the -stars being moved, as we see them to be moved in the vault of heaven, by -angels, a proceeding which demanded nothing on our part but wonder and -admiration.[197] - -Meanwhile Galileo’s stay at Rome had been of essential service to -science, although in quite a different way from that which he intended -on his arrival. In 1622 a certain Jacob Kuppler, from Cologne, came -to Rome with a microscope made by a relative of his, a Dutchman of -the name of Drebbel, in order to lay the new discovery, of which -Drebbel claimed to be the inventor,[198] before the papal government. -Kuppler, however, died before he had an opportunity of exhibiting his -instrument to the court. Soon afterwards many other microscopes were -sent to Rome, where, however, no one knew how to use the complicated -instrument. Galileo not only at once perceived its use, but greatly -improved it.[199] He afterwards sent many of these improved instruments -to his friends, and before long his microscopes were in as great request -as his telescopes.[200] In order to rectify a mistake that has been -often repeated, that Galileo was the inventor of this instrument of -such vast importance to science, we mention here that he never claimed -this merit himself; it was his eulogist, Viviani, who first claimed it -for him, and his thoughtless followers have repeated it. Galileo had -indeed, as he mentions in his “Il Saggiatore,” discovered a method of -using the telescope to magnify objects as early as 1610, but it required -an over-zealous biographer to claim Galileo as the inventor of the -microscope from this. It was, however, he who, in 1624, brought the -microscope to a degree of perfection on which for a long time no advance -was made. - -Urban VIII. heaped favours of all sorts on Galileo before his departure. -He promised him a pension for his son,[201] three days afterwards he sent -him a splendid picture, then again two medals—one of silver, the other -of gold, and quite a number of Agnus Dei[202]; poor consolation, it is -true, for the disappointment of the great expectations with which he came -to Rome. However, he did not return to Florence entirely without hope. -Although there could be no longer any expectation of a public revocation -of the famous decree, he was fain to believe that it would not be rigidly -kept to, and thought that, supported by his papal patron, he should be -able ingeniously to circumvent it. He was far from thinking that the -fetters placed by the ecclesiastical power on the free course of the -Copernican doctrine were removed, but he was of opinion that they were -considerably loosened. And ensuing events, as well as all the news which -Galileo received from his friends at Rome, were calculated to confirm the -idea. The Pope, wishing to give a strong official proof of his favour, -had himself addressed a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which, -to the no small chagrin of Galileo’s enemies, he had not only done full -justice to his services to science, but had laid special stress on his -religious sentiments. In this letter of 7th June, 1624, Urban first -mentioned Galileo’s great discoveries, “the fame of which will shine on -earth so long as Jupiter and his satellites shine in heaven.” And after -declaring that he felt a true fatherly affection for so great a man, his -Holiness continued:— - - “We have observed in him not only the literary distinction, - but also the love of religion and all the good qualities - worthy of the papal favour. When he came to congratulate us on - our accession, we embraced him affectionately, and listened - with pleasure to his learned demonstrations which add fresh - renown to Florentine eloquence. We desire that he should not - return to his native country without having received by our - generosity manifold proofs of our papal favour.... And that you - may fully understand to what extent he is dear to us, we wish - to give this brilliant testimony to his virtues and piety. We - are anxious to assure you that we shall thank you for all the - kindness that you can show him, by imitating or even surpassing - our fatherly generosity.”[203] - -With his hopes raised still higher by these unusually gracious words of -his papal patron, Galileo ventured, soon after his return from Rome, to -reply to a refutation of the Copernican system, which in 1616 had been -addressed to him as its most distinguished advocate in the then favourite -form of a public letter, by a certain Ingoli, then a lawyer at Ravenna, -and afterwards secretary of the Propaganda at Rome. Ingoli, though an -adherent of the old system, was at the same time a sincere admirer of -Galileo, so that his arguments against the theory of the double motion -of the earth were characterised by great objectivity. After the events -of 1616, Galileo had wisely refrained from answering it; in 1618, -however, it had been done by another corypheus of science, Kepler, in his -“Extracts from the Astronomy of Copernicus,”[204] in which he valiantly -combated Ingoli’s objections. But the latter did not consider himself -beaten, and replied in a letter addressed to a chamberlain of Paul V. - -Now, after the lapse of eight years, Galileo thought that, protected by -the favour of Urban VIII., he might venture on a reply to Ingoli. But he -again took care in writing it not to come into collision with the decree -of 5th March. With the assumed imperious prohibition of February, 1616, -this step of Galileo’s can be no more made to agree than his sending -his treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, 1618, or -the publication of “Il Saggiatore.” Galileo undertakes, in the reply to -Ingoli, to defend the Copernican doctrine under a double pretext. On the -one hand, he says he wishes to show that, as he had given currency to -the new system of the universe before it was condemned by ecclesiastical -authority, he had not been the defender of an improbable or unreasonable -idea; on the other hand, he wishes to prove to the Protestant Copernicans -in Germany, that in Catholic Italy the views of their great countryman -had not been rejected from ignorance of their great probability, “but -from reverence for Holy Scripture, as well as zeal for religion and -our holy faith.” After this ingenious introduction, and an assurance -that he had no intention whatever of representing the forbidden doctrine -_as true_, he proceeds with equal politeness and vigour to refute all -Ingoli’s objections.[205] - -In spite of this diplomatic introduction, however, his friends at Rome, -well aware of the malice of his enemies, and having had but a few months -before to defend “Il Saggiatore,” urgently dissuaded him from having this -rather warm defence of a forbidden doctrine printed.[206] He gave heed to -their warnings, and so this reply was only circulated in numerous copies -among the learned world in Italy. - -Meanwhile the reports which Galileo was constantly receiving from his -friends at Rome tended to increase his confidence in the favourable -influence which Urban’s personal liking for him, and his taste for art -and science, were likely to exercise on tolerance of the Copernican -system. Thus his devoted adherent Guiducci, in several letters of 6th, -13th and 24th September, 1624,[207] told him, that through the mediation -of the Jesuit father, Tarquinio Galuzzi, he had had several interviews -with Galileo’s former bitter adversary, Father Grassi, who had said that -Galileo’s theory that the phenomena of the tides were to be attributed to -the double motion of the earth “was very ingenious,” and that when the -truth of these opinions was unanswerably established, the theologians -would bestir themselves to alter the interpretation of those passages of -Scripture which refer to the earth as being stationary! The guileless -Guiducci added confidentially, quite taken with this Jesuit’s amiability, -that he had not noticed any great aversion to the new system in Grassi, -indeed he did not despair of estranging “Lothario Sarsi” from Ptolemy. - -Two months later, however, the same correspondent told Galileo that -a violent harangue had been delivered in the Jesuit College at -Rome against the adherents of the new doctrine, by Father Spinola, -and some time afterwards he sent him a copy of it;[208] but as it -attacked all those who did not profess to be followers of an antiquated -Peripateticism, it made but little impression on Galileo, and that little -was entirely effaced when Mgr. Ciampoli wrote to him, on 28th December, -1625, that he had acquainted the Pope with several passages of his reply -to Ingoli, and that he had highly approved them.[209] - -Before long Guiducci found out how bitterly he had been deceived in -Grassi, and what a miserable game he had been playing with him as -Galileo’s friend. The memory of the favours by which the Pope had -distinguished the great Tuscan when at Rome had scarcely died away when -Grassi threw aside the mask, and “Lothario Sarsi” exhibited himself in -a new and revised edition, fulminating rage and venom against Galileo -and his system. Notwithstanding the hypocritical moderation exhibited -to Guiducci, he had not forgotten the mortifying defeat which “Il -Saggiatore” had subjected him to, and, though circumstances had prevented -him from defending himself at once, he had by no means given up the -intention of doing so. Two years having elapsed since Galileo’s visit to -Rome, Grassi thought he might venture, under pretext of a reply to “Il -Saggiatore,” to publish a new attack on its author. It was entitled, in -bad Latin: “Ratio ponderum Libræ et Simbellæ, etc. Autore Lothario Sarsi -Sigensano.” It contained many personal accusations against Galileo, and -the work altogether was characterized by a blind hatred, which repeatedly -led the author into very foolish statements. For instance, Grassi tried -incidentally to prove by very ingenious arguments that Galileo’s physics -would lead to the denial of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper![210] -But the enraged Jesuit went still further, and gave his readers pretty -plainly to understand that since Galileo agreed on many questions of -physics with Epicurus, Telesius, and Cardanus, he must also approve their -godlessness, which strange assertion, however, he did not venture to -sustain by any evidence. - -To Galileo it seemed an encouraging sign of the times that it was -considered desirable to seek a publisher for these accusations from a -member of the Roman College away from the papal residence. Grassi’s -effusions came out at Paris in 1626, and at Naples in 1627. The -very unfavourable reception of the work at Rome, except among a few -pettifogging enemies of Galileo, also tended to confirm him in his -unfortunately mistaken opinion that Rome, under the pontificate of -Urban VIII., would have little or nothing to object to in the rich -harvest promised by the researches of Copernicus and Kepler, as well -as by his own discoveries in the field of science. He thought he could -reckon on papal tolerance, if only the defence of the new system were so -circumspectly handled as not to clash with the oft-mentioned decree of -the Congregation. - -On this assumption he had resolved, immediately after his return from -Rome, to carry out the great work which he had long projected, and -which, from the vast scientific knowledge it displayed, combined with a -brilliant style, was to meet with greater success and favour than had -ever been attained by any scientific work. This was his “Dialogues on the -Two Principal Systems of the World.” - - - - -PART II. - -_PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE -WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO._ - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -_THE “DIALOGUES” ON THE TWO SYSTEMS._ - - Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their Popular Style.—Significance - of the name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the - Copernican System.—Attitude of Rome towards Science.—Thomas - Campanella.—Urban VIII.’s Duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. - to Rome.—Riccardi’s Corrections—He gives the _Imprimatur_ on - certain Conditions.—Galileo returns to Florence to complete the - Work. - - -It is a curious fact that the very work which was destined to be one of -the most powerful levers in obtaining general recognition for the true -order of the universe originated in what we now know to be an erroneous -idea. The famous book, “Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the -World, the Ptolemaic and Copernican,”[211] arose out of the treatise on -the tides which Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, at the suggestion of -Cardinal Orsini.[212] The important influence of these “Dialogues,” both -on science and the subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss -them more particularly. - -The book contains a great deal more than is promised by the title; for -the author included in it, in connection with the discussion of the two -systems, nearly all the results of his researches and discoveries in -science, extending over nearly fifty years. He also endeavoured to write -in a style which should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but -which would be both intelligible and attractive to every educated person; -and in this he attained complete success, for he wished by means of -this book to extend as widely as possible a knowledge of the true order -of nature. The form of the work was most happily chosen. The results -of the researches of a lifetime were not given to the reader in a work -redolent of the pedantry of the professor’s chair, in which scientific -demonstrations drag on with wearisome monotony, but in the lively form -of dialogue, which admitted of digressions and gave the author scope for -displaying his seductive eloquence, his rare skill in dialectics and -biting sarcasm—in short, for his peculiarly brilliant style. - -The dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of whom adduce the -scientific reasons for the double motion of the earth, while the third -honestly tries to defend the opinions of the Aristotelian school with -all the scientific means at his disposal, and as these did not suffice, -with the arts of sophistry also. If he has but little success, the fault -lies with the cause he advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders of the -Copernican system the names of his two famous pupils and friends, neither -of them then living, Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and Giovan Francesco -Sagredo, senator of Venice, thereby erecting a better monument to them -than he could have done in marble. Salviati is the special advocate of -the Copernican theory. Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman, -intelligent, impartial, and desirous to learn. The advocate of the -Ptolemaic system was called briefly Simplicius, a pseudonym over which -the learned have often puzzled their heads. Did he give this name of -simpleton satirically to the champion of the ancient system, or was -it merely an allusion to Simplicius, the commentator of Aristotle, as -Galileo stated in his “Avviso al lettore?” - -The selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous attitude -which the author maintains in his “Dialogues.” The sarcastic vein is -obvious throughout, but is ingeniously concealed behind a mask intended -to inspire confidence. Salviati conducts the arguments for the Copernican -theory with such convincing force and clearness, and annihilates so -completely all the objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no -unbiassed reader can fail to perceive the scientific superiority of the -modern theory to the old. And as Galileo conscientiously puts in the -mouth of the Peripatetic philosopher every possible argument in favour of -the Aristotelian cause, as well as the objections to the other side, the -total defeat of its advocate is a victory all the more brilliant for the -immortal Canon of Frauenburg. - -The condition that the Copernican doctrine is only to be employed as a -hypothesis is ostensibly fully complied with. If Salviati or Sagredo -demonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness of some Ptolemaic axiom, or -add an important stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to -interpolate some remark to weaken the impression. It must be confessed, -however, that the agreement of this “hypothesis” with all the phenomena -of nature is as clear as daylight; and when, for instance, it is said -that the final decision in the present controversy rests neither with -mathematics and physics, nor with philosophy and logic, but solely with -a “higher insight,” or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that he does -not in the least wish to maintain the truth of the Copernican doctrine, -but applies the word “possibly” to it, or speaks of it as a “fantasia” -or “vanissima chimera,” the reader cannot fail to perceive that these -prudent reservations, which always occur at critical passages, are made -with the sole purpose of rendering the publication of the work possible. - -The preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with the contents of -the “Dialogues,” and owe their origin to the same motive. In the preface -the ecclesiastical prohibition of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is -actually called a “salutary edict” (_un salutifero editto_)! The reader -learns further, to his no small astonishment, that the purpose of this -comprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion which has -gained much credit abroad, that this adverse judgment of Rome was not the -result of mature deliberation, but merely of the hasty impulse of judges -who were not qualified to decide on these questions of natural science. -Galileo asserts that his zeal did not permit him to keep silence in face -of those audacious accusations, and that being in possession of all the -circumstances connected with that prudent decision, he felt constrained -to bear witness to the truth before all the world. In bringing forward -here all his speculations on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show -that at Rome, where he had taken part in the consultations, they had been -fully aware of all the arguments which could be adduced in favour of the -new doctrine.[213] - -On the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which divergent -and often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall enter in detail in its -right place. - -The conclusion of the work, which is divided into four “days,” agrees -no better with the rest of the contents than the preface. Although -the Copernicans everywhere gain the day, Galileo takes care, for very -good reasons, not to draw any conclusions from it on the fourth day. -The discussion ends apparently without coming to any result. Salviati -disclaims any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed to him -a “chimera” or a “paradox.” Addressing himself to Sagredo, he remarks -that Sagredo had often agreed with the opinions he had expressed, but -he thinks that this was often more from their originality than their -conclusiveness. Having therefore thanked him for his “polite indulgence,” -he apologises to Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, and -assures him that he had no intention of offending him, but rather of -inducing him to communicate his sublime ideas (!), which would certainly -be instructive to himself. In conclusion, they agree to meet again for a -final discussion.[214] - -Did Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin thinks it probable, -“for,” he says, “Galileo might at that period still have hoped that the -ecclesiastical authorities would tolerate the new system during his -lifetime, especially should some new discovery, as, for instance that -of a small annual parallax of the fixed stars, afford certain proof -in favour of his system. In that case Galileo would have been at last -allowed to express his opinions without reserve.”[215] We think it very -possible, indeed probable, that Galileo did intend to add a fifth day -at a favourable opportunity, in which he would have given the result of -the previous discussions; but he certainly was not waiting for “some new -discovery.” It was his firm conviction that none was wanted, since his -telescopic observations amply proved the truth of his theory; neither -would the most convincing discovery have enabled him to express his -views without reserve, for they had by no means been condemned by the -clergy from want of proof, but as “foolish and absurd philosophically and -formally heretical.” - -We are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed the task of -defending the action of the curia against Galileo, maintain that the -ecclesiastical party objected to the new system because its accordance -with the phenomena of nature had not been sufficiently proved.[216] But -even were this granted, in view of the opposition raised on scientific -grounds and the rooted attachment to old opinions, every unbiassed person -must demur to the assumption that in the attitude of Rome towards the -Copernican question the interests of science had any influence whatever. -It could not be an advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The -subsequent harsh proceedings against Galileo, when seventy years of age, -the hostile and peremptory attitude which Rome maintained towards him -until his death, as well as towards the new system and all discussion -of it, bear ample testimony, in our opinion, that the clergy had the -interests of science very little at heart, and that their sole desire -was to maintain the foundation-stone in its place on which the ingenious -structure of the Christian Catholic philosophy was raised; namely, the -doctrine that mother earth is the centre of the universe. - -In December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated work on the -two systems, except the introduction and a few finishing strokes. -He announced this to his friends in sundry letters,[217] and told -Prince Cesi in two letters of 24th December, 1629, and 13th January, -1630, that he intended coming to Rome to see to the printing of the -“Dialogues.”[218] The prince in his reply expressed entire approval of -the project, and encouraged Galileo to set out for Rome very soon, “where -he would have no further trouble about the proofs than to give such -orders as he pleased.”[219] - -Altogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably favourable for the -publication of the “Dialogues.” Galileo’s devoted adherent, Castelli, -had been summoned to Rome in 1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great -consideration with the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest -scion, Taddeo, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried friend -informed Galileo in a letter of 6th February,[220] that Father Riccardi, -who meanwhile had been raised to the office of chief censor of the press -(Magister Sacri Palatii) had promised his ready assistance in Galileo’s -affairs. Castelli also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi -was concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of information -in the same letter, however, was not quite so satisfactory; the personage -second in importance at the papal court, Urban’s brother, Cardinal -Antonio Barberini, had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the -“Dialogues,” said nothing particular against the theory itself, so far -as it was treated as a hypothesis, but had made the just remark that the -earth, if it revolved round the sun, must be a star, an idea “which was -too far opposed to theological truth.” Castelli appeased the cardinal -by assuring him that Galileo had weighty arguments against this, and it -is characteristic of the prevailing confusion of ideas on astronomical -subjects, that Barberini thought this possible, and that Castelli wrote -to Galileo that he would not find it hard to steer clear of this rock. -Another instance of the trammels placed by religion on the advancement of -science. - -A second letter of Castelli’s to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, contains -far more important and encouraging intelligence. According to this, -Thomas Campanella[221] had told the Pope at an audience, that a short -time before he had tried to convert some German nobles to the Catholic -faith, that he had found them favourably disposed, but when they heard of -the prohibition of the Copernican system, they were so indignant that he -could do nothing more with them. To this Urban replied: “It never was -our intention; and if it had depended upon us, that decree would not have -been passed.”[222] These pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when -repeated to Galileo were well calculated to mislead him into infringing -the decree, in the spirit if not in the letter. They seem, however, to -have been at least as incorrect as the reply reported on the same subject -to Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. Urban entirely forgot that he had not -interceded in any way in 1616 for the astronomical system threatened with -condemnation. And his conduct showed that he must have been a party to -it. We need only call to mind how inexorable he had been on the question -in 1624 to Galileo himself, and how sternly he afterwards allowed -proceedings to be taken against him. Urban could only have acted in this -way because he was convinced of the danger of the Copernican system to -the Christian philosophy. And he was far too shrewd not to perceive how -the modern views threatened a religion based upon ancient astronomy. -His remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing but smooth words, and -this is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But they could not fail -to inspire Galileo with confidence that under Urban VIII. an ingenious -circumvention of the decree would give no offence at the Vatican. Besides -this, Castelli reported in the same letter that Mgr. Ciampoli, who -was also well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo’s personal -appearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty that might -occur about publishing the “Dialogues.”[223] Another letter from Castelli -of 6th April urged him to set out for the papal residence, where, to -quote the words of Ciampoli, “they were longing for him more than for a -lady love.”[224] - -Full of hope from these promising reports, on 3rd May Galileo arrived -at Rome with the MS. of his “Dialogues.” And events during his two -months’ stay seemed to realise his expectations. Soon after his arrival -he had a long audience of Urban VIII., and wrote on 18th May in high -spirits to Florence:—“His Holiness has begun to treat my affairs in a -way that permits me to hope for a favourable result.”[225] Riccardi -also met Galileo, as was to be expected from Castelli’s letters, in -the most obliging way. Galileo showed him his work with the express -request that he would examine it closely. The papal censor, however, -could not but perceive, with all his personal regard for Galileo, that -in his “Dialogues” he had by no means always kept, _de facto_, within -the limits of hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system, and in -some parts had far exceeded them. He decided, therefore, both as his -official duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have the book -altered to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections were to be -made, and both preface and conclusion were to be altered so as to agree -with them. Riccardi intrusted the first task to his official assistant, -Father Rafael Visconti, who seemed well qualified for it in his capacity -of professor of mathematics. He executed it with equal prudence and -ingenuity, improved many passages, and finally approved the work thus -revised. - -The middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo was anxious to -leave Rome on account of the heat. But Riccardi wished to look through -the “Dialogues” once more after they had been revised by Visconti, before -giving them his _imprimatur_. Galileo represented that this second -revision was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi _to grant -permission for the printing for Rome_.[226] - -On the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning and end -of the work in accordance with a plan of the supreme authorities of -the censorship. There were also still a few passages to be personally -discussed with the author; and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome -without danger to his health, which was already beginning to suffer, -it was agreed that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile[227] -he would prepare the index and the dedication to the Grand Duke, and -revise the preface and conclusion. The main condition, however, under -which Riccardi gave the book his _imprimatur_, was that after its final -completion it should be submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of -time, he engaged to look it through sheet by sheet, and to send each at -once to press after inspection. As was usual in the case of members of -the Accadémia dei Lincei, the work was to be published in the name of -this society, and the president, Prince Cesi, was to see it through the -press. - -So at the end of June[228] Galileo returned to Florence with his MS. and -the ecclesiastical _imprimatur_, which was granted _bona fide_ for Rome -without reserve. There were indeed sundry conditions attached to it, to -be arranged privately; but they seemed to present so little difficulty, -that a few days after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli -that Signor Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly satisfied, and with -his affairs quite settled.[229] - -But events were now at hand which long deferred Galileo’s ardent desire -to see the results of his unwearied researches and labours speedily given -to the world, and which involved complications afterwards taken advantage -of by his enemies to effect the ruin of their great opponent. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -_THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE “DIALOGUES.”_ - - Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei - Lincei.—Galileo advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and - Delays.—His Impatience.—Authorship of the Introduction.—The - _Imprimatur_ granted for Florence.—Absurd Accusation from the - style of the Type of the Introduction. - - -Six weeks had scarcely elapsed after Galileo’s return from Rome, when he -received from his friend Francesco Stelluti the startling intelligence of -the death of his influential patron, Prince Cesi, who had been snatched -away on 1st August by an attack of fever, after a few days’ illness.[230] -This was a great blow to Galileo. It was not only that he lost in the -prince an adherent, as influential as he was devoted, but his death just -then was of the greatest moment on account of the “Dialogues.” There -was, perhaps, no one so well qualified to forward their publication as -Cesi, who, as president of the Accadémia dei Lincei, seemed just the man -for it. The Academy, deprived of its strongest support, was gradually -dissolved, after the hand was wanting which knew how to weave its -multitudinous threads into a firm and solid fabric. - -Only the third week after the prince’s death, Galileo felt the first -effects of his heavy loss. In a letter of 24th August, Castelli urgently -advised him “for many most weighty reasons which he did not wish just -then to commit to paper, to have the work printed at Florence, and as -soon as possible.”[231] Castelli added that he had inquired of Father -Visconti whether this would present any difficulties, to which he had -replied that there was nothing to prevent, and he (Visconti) desired -above all things that the work should see the light. Galileo was the -more ready to fall in with this proposition because the plague, which -had made fearful ravages in North Italy, had now made its appearance in -Tuscany, and the precautionary measures taken by the neighbouring States -made all intercourse with them, and especially with the States of the -Church, very tedious and often impossible. Galileo therefore at once -took the needful steps for publishing his book at Florence. He applied -to the Inquisitor-General of the city, to the Vicar-General, and to -the political authorities for permission, and it was granted without -hesitation on 11th September, 1630.[232] - -Galileo next addressed himself to Riccardi; represented to him the great -obstacles to publishing the work at Rome, and therefore asked permission -to publish it at Florence. This was the beginning of troubles. The chief -of the Roman censorship at first roundly refused, and when Galileo urged -his request again, he informed him through the Tuscan ambassador at the -papal court, Francesco Niccolini, that the work must be sent in for final -revision as agreed upon, without which he should never have consented to -the publication. Castelli also wrote to Galileo on 21st September,[233] -as commissioned by Riccardi, that as his coming himself to Rome, as -originally agreed upon, was rendered impossible by the outbreak of the -plague, he had better send the manuscript to Riccardi, in order that he -and Mgr. Ciampoli might make the final corrections. Castelli said further -that Riccardi was still very favourably disposed to Galileo, and that -when his work had undergone this censorship, he could send it to press -in Florence as well as anywhere else. After this Galileo made inquiries -whether, under present circumstances, a large packet of MSS. could be -sent safely over the border. But he was everywhere met with a negative, -and the remark that mere letters scarcely passed. In vain he applied -to the postmaster, in vain he appealed to the Grand Ducal secretary of -state, Bali Cioli, for help; no means could be devised, under the strict -close of the frontiers, whereby the bulky work could be transmitted to -Rome with any prospect of safety. - -Greatly disconcerted, Galileo represented this state of things to -Riccardi, and offered to send, at any rate, the preface and conclusion -of the “Dialogues,” that the ecclesiastical authorities might alter -these important parts of the work as seemed good to them, and said that -he was willing to designate the Copernican views mentioned in the book -as mere chimeras, paralogisms, dreams, and fantasies, which, as is well -known, was afterwards actually done. As to the final revision, Galileo -proposed that Riccardi should entrust it to some one at Florence. -Exceedingly annoyed by all these obstacles to an early publication of -his “Dialogues,” Galileo at the same time asked the Tuscan ambassador, -Niccolini, and his wife, who were well disposed towards him, to try and -induce Riccardi, whom he had often seen at their house, to accept this -proposal. And what friends and colleagues of the chief censor and other -eminent men had failed in, was accomplished by the delicate mediation -of a lady. On 19th October, 1630, Caterina Niccolini wrote to Galileo, -that the Padre Maestro, who was heartily devoted to him, would obligingly -excuse him from sending the whole work; let him send the introduction and -conclusion, but on condition that the whole MS. should be revised before -publication by some competent person at Florence, and by a theologian -empowered by the ecclesiastical authorities, who must belong to the -Benedictine order. Father Riccardi proposed Father Clement for the task. -The ambassador’s wife added, however, commissioned by the Master of the -Palace, that if this choice were not agreeable to Galileo, he might -himself propose a suitable person, who would be empowered to act.[234] - -And, in fact, Father Clement was not to Galileo’s taste, and he proposed -Father Hyacinthe Stephani, counsellor to the Holy Inquisition at -Florence, who was approved by Riccardi. This ecclesiastic revised the -work very thoroughly, and—so at least Galileo reports[235]—was moved -to tears at many passages by the humility and reverent obedience which -the author had displayed. Having made some insignificant corrections, -suggested by extra caution, he gave the “Dialogues” his approval, and -declared that the famous author should be begged to publish them rather -than have obstacles placed in his way. - -Riccardi, notwithstanding his friendship for Galileo, seems to have been -of a different opinion. The preface and conclusion had been sent, but -he had allowed weeks and months to pass without letting Galileo hear -anything of them, to say nothing of sending them back. Castelli once -wrote to Galileo that he had met Riccardi, and that he had told him that -these portions were now quite in order, and that he would send them to -Galileo immediately; but months again went by without his fulfilling his -promise. - -Galileo was in despair, and on 7th March, 1631, addressed a long letter -to Bali Cioli, in which he first related the course of the negotiations -respecting the “Dialogues”[236] in detail, and then asked for the -powerful intervention of his Highness the Grand Duke, at Rome, to bring -the business to a conclusion, so that he (Galileo) might enjoy while he -lived these fruits of the labours of over fifty years. Little did Galileo -foresee what dire results these “fruits” were to bring. On 8th March -his request was granted, and he was informed that Niccolini, at Rome, -would be commissioned in the name of the Grand Duke to hasten as much -as possible the termination of the negotiations with the Master of the -Palace.[237] - -Galileo was all the more pleased with the success of this attempt, -because meanwhile, weary of the long delays, he had begun to have his -“Dialogues” printed. This is confirmed by a letter from him of 20th March -to his learned friend, Cesare Marsili, in which he says that six sheets -of his work, which would consist of fifty or more, were finished.[238] We -may here remark that this proceeding of Galileo’s has been the subject of -severe and unjustifiable blame on the part of some authors actuated by -party spirit. It seems the less called for, since Galileo made no secret -of the printing having been begun, and he was not reproached for it at -the subsequent trial before the Inquisition. He quite supposed that after -Father Stephani had inspected and sanctioned the work, all the conditions -were fulfilled. He therefore considered Riccardi’s consent to the -publication in Florence as certain. It never occurred to him that after -all this he would raise new difficulties. - -A report of Niccolini’s of 19th April to Cioli[239] confirmed him in this -supposition, and rejoiced his heart, as there seemed to be an immediate -prospect of an end to these tiresome negotiations. Niccolini wrote that -he and his wife had a little while before had a long conversation with -Father Riccardi about Galileo’s affairs, which had resulted in his -promising to grant permission for the publication, but with the addition -of a declaration, for his own protection, which he was to forward to -Niccolini in a few days. On the 28th Niccolini received it, but instead -of its containing the promised _imprimatur_, it required new clauses -and imposed fresh conditions on the publication. The chief censor -indeed acknowledged, at the beginning of this letter, that he had given -the _imprimatur_ to the work, but stated that it was only with the -reservation that the author should make some alterations as agreed upon, -and send his book to Rome to be published, where with the help of Mgr. -Ciampoli all difficulties would have been overcome. “Father Stephani,” -continues Riccardi, “has no doubt subjected the book to a conscientious -revision; but as he was not acquainted with the Pope’s views, he had no -power to give any approval which would enable me to sanction the printing -without incurring the danger both to him and myself that unpleasantnesses -might arise, if things were still found contrary to the proscriptions.” -Riccardi then asserts that he had no greater desire than to serve the -Grand Duke, but he considers that it must be done so as to prevent any -danger to his Highness’s reputation. And this would not be the case if -he gave his _imprimatur_, as it was not his province to give it for -Florence,[240] while it would be secured by his assuring himself that -everything was in accordance with the commands of his Holiness. “When I -have inspected the beginning and end of the work,” he continued, “I shall -easily discover what I want to know, and will then give a certificate -that I have approved the whole work.” - -This sentence is, to say the least, very obscure. Riccardi had had these -two portions of the work in his possession for months, and could long -before have discovered from them what he wanted to know. Or had he not -condescended to look at them? This seems scarcely credible, and is in -direct opposition to what he said to Castelli months before. But a desire -to spin the matter out is evident enough from this obscure sentence as -well as the rest of the letter. The Master of the Palace then proposed, -if it were still impossible to forward the work, to send the ordinances -of his Holiness to the Inquisitor at Florence, in order that he, after -assuring himself that they had been complied with, might give the -_imprimatur_. When Niccolini expressed his suspicions that these delays -had been caused by some intrigues of Galileo’s enemies, Riccardi assured -him that no one but friends of the famous astronomer had spoken to him on -the subject, and that there really had been no cabal of any sort.[241] - -When Galileo received the news of this letter, which, contrary to all his -expectations, once more removed all hope of an end of these transactions -into the far future, he could not repress his ill humour. This is plain -enough from a letter to Cioli of 3rd May. He begins with the tart remark: -“I have read what the Father Master of the Palace has written about the -publication of the ‘Dialogues,’ and perceive, to my great vexation, that -after keeping me for nearly a year without coming to any conclusion, he -means to pursue the same course with his Holiness, namely, to delay and -spin out everything with empty words, which it is not easy to put up -with.” He then bitterly complains that this letter of Riccardi’s, instead -of the promised _imprimatur_, contains nothing but fresh delays on the -pretext of conditions with which he had complied several months before, -and in such a way as to prove to his Holiness and all who were willing to -be convinced that he had done so. “And since I perceive,” he continues -bitterly, “that my affairs are afloat on a vast and boundless ocean, -while the publication of my book is of the utmost importance to me, as -I wish to see the fruits of my labours secured, I have been considering -various ways by which it might be accomplished; but the authorization -of his Holiness is indispensable for all.” Galileo then says that in -order to come to some result it might be of the highest importance some -day, and that as soon as possible, to be summoned to appear before his -Highness, with the Inquisitor and Father Stephani. He would like to -show them the work with all the corrections from the hands of Fathers -Riccardi, Visconti, and Stephani, in order that, in the first place, -they might see how trivial the alterations were, and in the second, -how submissively and reverently he had designated all the evidence and -arguments which appeared to confirm an opinion not approved by the -authorities, as dreams, chimeras, and nullities. He concludes by saying: -“Those present will then perceive how true and just my doctrines are, and -that I have never entertained other views or opinions than those held by -the most venerable and holy fathers of the Church.”[242] - -The Grand Duke, Ferdinand II., however, with all his good will towards -his chief mathematician, was by no means inclined to interfere personally -in the matter. He was desirous to use all the influence he possessed to -bring about a decision at Rome, but it no more occurred to him now to -exercise his rights as sovereign ruler, than it did afterwards when he -gave up the infirm philosopher, at nearly seventy years of age, to the -Roman tribunal. Galileo’s suggestion, therefore, that the Grand Duke -should, to some extent, take the initiative was by no means acceptable, -and was not followed. The summons to the Inquisitor and Father Stephani -to appear with Galileo before the Grand Duke never came; Niccolini, -however, made fresh efforts to bring about a solution of the question at -Rome. He went to the Master of the Palace and strongly represented to him -that through the dedication the Grand Duke himself was greatly interested -in the publication of this work, at the head of which his exalted name -was placed.[243] Galileo finally succeeded, on 24th May, in inducing -Riccardi to address a letter to Fra Clemente Egidio, the Inquisitor -at Florence, in which he left it entirely to him, after examining the -work, to grant permission for the publication or not. The Master of the -Palace again expressly mentioned in this letter that he had given the -authorization to print, but with the reservation that the necessary -alterations should be made, and that after further revision it should -go to press in Rome, which conditions, however, had not been able to be -fulfilled owing to the plague. The most interesting parts of the letter -for us are the hints which Riccardi gives the Inquisitor, in the course -of it, as to the Pope’s views on the subject, which are to guide him -in sanctioning the work. Title as well as contents are only to relate -to the mathematical aspects of the Copernican system, and so that “the -absolute truth of this view is never conceded, but made to appear as mere -hypothesis, and without reference to Scripture.”[244] “It must also be -explained,” continued Riccardi, “that this work is only written to show -that all the arguments which can be adduced in favour of this view were -well known; that therefore the sentence of 1616 was not to be attributed -to ignorance at Rome, and the beginning and end of the book must agree -with this statement, _which portions, properly arranged, I will send from -here_. By observance of these precautions the work will meet with no -obstacles at Rome, and your reverence will be able to gratify the author, -as well as to serve his Highness, who has shown so warm an interest in -the matter.”[245] The Inquisitor replied on 31st May that he would act in -accordance with the received instructions. He says further that he had -given the MS. to Stephani, as a very eminent man and counsellor of the -Holy Office, to be revised again, and this time in accordance with the -papal instructions; also that Galileo consented most willingly to all the -corrections.[246] - -But it would almost appear as if Riccardi had again repented of the -steps he had taken for the final settlement of the business, for weeks -and months passed before Fra Clemente Egidio received the preface and -conclusion. Not till Niccolini, at Galileo’s request, had repeatedly -urged him to send them, could he be induced to do so, after a further -delay of two months, and then, as the ambassador graphically describes -the situation, not “till formally pulled by the hair.”[247] In the letter -of 19th July, 1631, which accompanied them, Riccardi empowered the author -to alter the style of the revised introduction as he pleased, and to -ornament it rhetorically, but so that the sense should remain the same. -As to the conclusion, he made the vague remark that it must be based upon -the same argument as the beginning.[248] - -This seems to be the place to enter into the oft discussed question of -the real authorship of this remarkable introduction. Some, who rely upon -the letter of Riccardi’s above quoted, attribute it to him; others even -maintain that it owes its origin to Urban VIII. himself; while, on the -other hand, some are of opinion that Galileo had the chief share in it, -though assuredly only because he considered that it would secure his -object—permission to publish the “Dialogues.” All these opinions contain -some truth, contradictory as they seem; the truth lies between them. -After careful examination of the documents relating to the subject, the -historical facts appear to be as follows:— - -When Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer of 1630, in -order to submit his “Dialogues” to the Roman censorship, an introduction -was sketched for him, which he was to complete at Florence, and on his -intended return to Rome in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript -before the Master of the Palace for final revision.[249] From the good -understanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and -Galileo, and from the contents of the introduction, we may conclude -with certainty that the sketch was made with Galileo’s concurrence, or -even that the main idea of it was his own. For on close examination we -find that the idea on which the whole introduction turns—namely, that it -was by no means ignorance of the scientific arguments in favour of the -Copernican system which led to the verdict of 1616—is precisely the same -as that stated by Galileo in his reply to Ingoli in 1624.[250] As we are -aware, since the plague prevented Galileo from returning to Florence -or sending the whole MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to -the chief censor, who kept them for months, and did not return them to -the Inquisitor at Florence till 19th July. From Riccardi’s letter we -learn two facts: firstly, that he had only concerned himself with the -introduction, leaving the conclusion to the author with the vague remark -we have quoted; and secondly, that Galileo’s preface must have undergone -considerable alterations by the chief censor, as he gave him leave to -alter the style but not the sense. There can be no more doubt that the -Pope had some hand in the final composition of the preface than that it -was not penned by himself. Riccardi appeals in both his _ex officio_ -letters to the Inquisitor of 24th May and 19th July, to the “views” and -commands of his Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst, -the Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo’s affairs he -had always and in everything acted in concert with the papal secretary, -Mgr. Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly to special commands of -Urban’s.[251] Riccardi and Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion -with the loss of their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the -subject that, “evidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet -afforded by the fact of the witnesses being compelled to silence or -suffering punishment.”[252] - -With the arrival at last of the preface and conclusion, all the obstacles -which had threatened the continuation of the printing of the “Dialogues” -were removed. Stephani, who was charged by the Inquisitor at Florence to -undertake the final censorship, was not the man to place difficulties -in the way of the appearance of the book. He took great care, however, -that the Pope’s commands as to the treatment of the Copernican doctrines -should, as far as the letter went, be strictly obeyed. The “Dialogues,” -from beginning to end, were opposed to the spirit both of the decree of -5th March, 1616, and the papal ordinances, and there was great _naiveté_ -in the idea that the fine-spun preface and the various little diplomatic -arts which Galileo employed in the course of his work could disguise its -real meaning from the learned world. But that was not Stephani’s affair; -for the MS. as a whole had been sanctioned by Father Visconti and had -received the _imprimatur_ for Rome from the authorities of the censorship. - -The delay about the preface, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, was -to be printed before the book, had two results out of which Galileo’s -enemies afterwards tried to make capital for their intrigues, and which -must therefore find mention here. The printing had been long in hand -and was proceeding when the preface arrived. It was therefore necessary -to print it on a separate sheet, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, -was placed at the beginning of the book. For technical reasons, also, -it was printed in different type from the rest of the work. From these -two insignificant circumstances, Galileo was afterwards reproached with -having by the outward form destroyed the inner connection between the -introduction and the book; and with having thus, to some extent, intended -to indicate that it had nothing to do with the “Dialogues.”[253] This was -at the time when one party was setting every lever in motion to find -cause for accusation against Galileo. The book itself, which appeared -with the double _imprimatur_ of the ecclesiastical censorship of Rome -and Florence, afforded no legal ground for it. We will not, however, -anticipate the historical course of these memorable events, but will -carefully follow them step by step. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -_THE “DIALOGUES” AND THE JESUITS._ - - Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s Friends - and the Learned World.—The hostile Party.—The Jesuits - as Leaders of Learning.—Deprived of their Monopoly by - Galileo.—They become his bitter Foes.—Having the _Imprimatur_ - for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly - safe.—The Three Dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did “Simplicius” personate - the Pope?—Conclusive Arguments against it.—Effect of the - Accusation.—Urban’s Motives in instituting the Trial. - - -By the beginning of January, 1632, the printing of the “Dialogues” was -so far advanced, that on the 3rd Galileo had the satisfaction of telling -his friend, Cesare Marsili, at Bologna, that the work would be completed -in ten or twelve days.[254] It did not, however, appear till February. -On the twenty-second of that month Galileo presented his book to the -Grand Duke, to whom it was dedicated, and to the other members of the -house of Medici.[255] On the twenty-third he sent at first thirty-two -copies to Cesare Marsili.[256] He had a large number of copies handsomely -bound for his powerful friends and patrons at Rome, but they could not -be despatched immediately, since, owing to the continued prevalence of -the plague, they would have had to be purified in the quarantine houses, -which might have injured them. It was not till May that two unbound -copies reached the papal residence in a roundabout way.[257] One of -these came into the hands of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who lent it -to Father Castelli. In a letter to Galileo of 26th September, 1631,[258] -he had vowed that, after the appearance of the “Dialogues,” he would -read no other book but that and the Breviary; and in a letter of 29th -May,[259] he now expressed to the author his admiration of his work, -which surpassed all his expectations. Shortly afterwards, Count Filippo -Magalotti, who was on very friendly terms with Galileo, and from his -relationship to the Barberinis, was an influential personage, imported -eight copies from Florence, and, as charged by the author, presented -one copy each to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, to the Tuscan ambassador -Niccolini, Father Riccardi, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor of the Holy -Office, and the Jesuit Father Leon Santi.[260] - -While these few copies were being eagerly devoured by impatient -readers at Rome, and passed rapidly from hand to hand, the book had -been circulating in the rest of Italy in spite of the difficulties of -communication. The applause which this famous work called forth from -all men of independent minds was unexampled, and was only equalled -by the bitterness and consternation it excited among the scientific -conservatives. The learned world of Italy was divided into two hostile -camps: that of Ptolemy on the one side, that of Copernicus-Galileo on -the other. In the one were to be found progress, recognition of truth, -free independent thought and research; in the other blind worship of -authority and rigid adherence to the old school. And the latter party was -far the most numerous; it was also reinforced by those, of whom there -were a considerable number, who opposed the great reformer of science -from interested motives. Besides this, the academic corporations were not -favourable to him, because he so dangerously revolutionised the modern -methods of teaching. The university of his native city seemed especially -adverse to him. It had carried its animosity so far a few years before -as to try to deprive him of the income which he enjoyed as its first -mathematician by the Grand Ducal decree of 12th July, 1620, though, -thanks to the energetic remonstrances of some influential patrons, the -attempt was not successful.[261] - -In addition to all this there is another consideration, which played a -much larger part in the sad story of Galileo’s trial than is generally -supposed. The clergy, and especially the Jesuits, had hitherto had -a monopoly of science. Everybody knows how assiduously it had been -cultivated in ancient times in the cells and schools of the convents, and -that the ecclesiastical orders were the guardians and disseminators of -learning, while among both populace and nobles ignorance flourished like -a weed. When by the natural law of progress the nations of Europe emerged -from the simplicity of childhood into the storm and stress period of -youth; when inventions,—especially printing,—and above all the discovery -of America, began to spread knowledge and culture among the masses, it -was once more the servants of Rome who, justly estimating the spirit of -the age, placed themselves, so to speak, in the van of the intellectual -movement, that they might guide its course. The strongest evidence that -the Church was in exclusive possession of the highest mental powers -is afforded by the Reformation; for the first stirrings of doubt, of -critical, philosophical speculation, arose in the bosoms of the Roman -Catholic clergy. All the reformers, from Abelard and Arnold of Brescia, -to Huss and Luther, sprang, without exception, from among them. - -Just at the juncture when the split into two creeds threatened to divide -the joints and marrow of the supreme power of the Church, the man -appeared who most effectually contributed to restore it by founding a -new ecclesiastical order, with a very peculiar organisation. This was -Ignatius Loyola. And if we seek for the explanation of the profound -influence gained by this corporation in all parts of the world, and -every grade of society, we shall find it in four factors: the highest -enthusiasm for the common cause; willing obedience to the central -authority—the general for the time being; utter unscrupulousness as -to means; and the supremacy which knowledge always confers. Far from -occupying themselves, like the Protestant clergy, exclusively with -theology, there was no branch of knowledge that was not cultivated by -these champions of the Church; indeed they stood for a century at the -summit of learning.[262] And now, in the most recent epoch of that -stigmatised century, Galileo the layman steps forth upon the arena of -the science of the heavens and the earth, and teaches the astonished -world truths before which the whole edifice of scholastic sophistry must -fall to the ground. The Jesuit monopoly of the education of youth and of -teaching altogether, became day by day more insecure, and the influence -of the society was threatened in proportion. Was it to be wondered at -that the pious fathers strained every nerve in this final conflict for -mastery, and in the attempt to prevent their world-wide mission of -educating the people from being torn from their hands? This explains why -the reformers of science appeared just as dangerous to them as those of -religion; and they resisted the former, as they had done the latter, with -all the resources at their command. - -Galileo, as one of the most advanced pioneers of science, was in the -highest degree inconvenient to the Jesuits; members of their order -had also repeatedly measured lances with the great man in scientific -discussion—Fathers Grassi and Scheiner, for instance—with very -unfortunate results, by no means calculated to make the Society of Jesus -more favourable to him. But now that his “Dialogues on the Two Systems of -the World” had appeared, which, as every intelligent man must perceive, -annihilated with its overwhelming mass of evidence the doctrines of the -old school, and raised the modern system upon its ruins, the Jesuits set -every lever in motion, first to suppress this revolutionary book, and -then to compass the ruin of the author. - -Riccardi himself remarked to Count Magalotti at that time: “The Jesuits -will persecute Galileo with the utmost bitterness.”[263] - -Besides, they found welcome allies in the overwhelming majority of the -rest of the clergy. With them the theological considerations we have -mentioned formed the motive. And the louder the applause with which -the independent scientific world greeted Galileo’s latest remarkable -work, the fiercer burnt the flame of ecclesiastical hate. There can be -no doubt that the full significance of the “Dialogues” had not been -apprehended by any of the censors to whom they had been submitted. This -is obvious from the fact that they seriously thought that the diplomatic -preface, and a few phrases in the work itself, would suffice to make it -appear innocuous. The commotion made by the book in the scientific and -theological world convinced them of their mistake. - -Meanwhile, Galileo in Florence gave himself up to unmixed delight at the -brilliant success of his “Dialogues.” His learned friends and followers, -such as Fra Bonaventura Cavalieri, Giovan Batista Baliani, Castelli, -Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, Alfonzo Antonini, Campanella, and many others, -expressed to him in repeated letters, and often with genuine enthusiasm, -their admiration of his splendid work,[264] not one of them had any -foreboding that it was to bring its grey-headed author before the bar of -the Inquisition; and Galileo himself least of all. He expected violent -opposition from his scientific opponents, and was prepared to engage in -the contest, but he considered himself quite secure from ecclesiastical -persecution. Had not influential personages at Rome, Cesi, Mgr. -Ciampoli, Cesarini, and Castelli, been urging him for years to finish -his work, the tendency of which they well knew?[265] And when it was -at last complete, it was these same friends, as well meaning as they -were influential, who had done their best to forward the publication. -Besides, the book had appeared not only with the _imprimatur_ and under -the protection of the Inquisition at Florence, as prescribed, and with -the permission of the political authorities of the city, but Galileo -could show also the _imprimatur_ of the Pater Magister Sacri Palatii, -which was not at all usual with works not printed at Rome.[266] He -considered this a double security; Jesuitism, on the contrary, contrived -afterwards to forge an indictment out of this unusual circumstance. Not -a word had appeared in print without having been read by the organs of -papal scrutiny and having received the sanction of the Church. Might -not the author well look forward to the publication of his work with -perfect tranquillity, and feel himself secure from any collision with the -ecclesiastical authorities? Undoubtedly, if he had not made the solemn -promise sixteen years before, “_entirely to renounce the opinion that the -sun is the centre of the universe, and is stationary, and that the earth -on the contrary moves, and neither to hold the same, nor in any way to -teach or defend it in speaking or writing_.” - -Galileo’s proceedings at this time, as before and after, prove that -he was totally unaware of this assumed prohibition; anyhow, he pays -not the slightest attention to it. He sends copies of his work to the -most eminent persons at Rome; is delighted at its immense success; -arms himself for defence against the indignant Aristotelians, but -never thinks of a conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, which, -sincere Catholic as he was, would have given him great pain apart -from consequences. Even in June and July there were some ill-disposed -persons, to the great annoyance of Riccardi, zealously trying to -discover something in the book which could be formulated into an -accusation against the author. The title page was adorned with a drawing -of three dolphins, one with the tail of another in its mouth, with -an insignificant motto above it.[267] This illustration was impugned -because it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical approbation, and they -expatiated with more malice than wit upon the meaning of the mysterious -device. It was a great relief to Riccardi’s mind when it was pointed -out by Count Magalotti that the same illustration appeared on almost -all the works which issued from the press of Landini at Florence, where -the “Dialogues” had been printed. This bait, then, had not taken, and -Galileo’s foes, worthy members of the Society of Jesus, had to find some -other mode of ensnaring him. They now brought against him the twofold -reproach, that the preface was printed in different type from the rest -of the book, which was true; and that several weighty arguments which -the Pope had brought against the Copernican system in conversation with -Galileo, though they might perhaps have been adduced in the MS., were -not in the printed book; this was a lie.[268] The truth however at -once came to light, for these “weighty arguments” were reduced to one, -which was brought forward at the conclusion of the “Dialogues.” But -Jesuitism, as we shall soon see, drew very singular conclusions from -the very natural circumstance that it was mentioned by Simplicius, -the defender of Ptolemy. The brethren of Father Grassi and Father -Scheiner,[269]—the latter of whom had been for a few months at Rome, and -was greatly incensed at the “Dialogues,”—well knew how to lay hold of the -Pope by his most vulnerable points, his personal vanity and boundless -ambition, which made him feel every contradiction like an attack on his -authority. They were assiduous in confirming Urban in his opinion that -the Copernican doctrine endangered the dogmas of the Christian Catholic -faith in the highest degree, and now represented that the publication of -the “Dialogues” was an incalculable injury to the Church. Besides this, -they persuaded the Pope that in his latest work Galileo had again, though -this time under concealment, entered into theological interpretations of -Holy Scripture. They thus stigmatised him as a rebel against the papal -decrees, who had only obtained the licence from Riccardi by cunning -devices,—a misrepresentation of the facts which, however, did not fail -of its effect on Urban. This is conclusively proved by the despatches of -Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 11th September, 1632, of which we shall -have to speak more particularly.[270] - -The crowning point of the intrigues of Galileo’s foes was, however, -the cunning assertion that _by Simplicius no other was intended than -Urban VIII. himself_; and they actually made him believe it. One would -scarcely have thought this possible with this shrewd Pope, who was so -well-disposed towards Galileo; but it is beyond all question that it was -so, and it put him in a boundless rage. It is decidedly indicated by -his attitude towards Galileo at the trial, especially at the beginning -of it. At that time it put him in such ill humour to be spoken to about -Galileo, that all who interested themselves for him agreed that it was -better not to confer with Urban himself, but with Cardinal Barberini -or the ministers.[271] The repeated attempts also made by Galileo and -his friends, even years afterwards, to convince Urban that it had never -entered his head to insult him, and that it was a cunning slander, prove -that for a long time the Pope had taken Simplicius for his counterfeit. - -As this manifest falsehood is revived by certain writers, even at this -time of day, as having been Galileo’s real intention, it seems necessary -to throw a little more light on it. The telling remarks which Albèri -makes on the subject might well suffice to show the absurdity of the -imputation. He says that in the first place the attachment and devotion -always shown by Galileo towards Urban, to the sincerity of which numerous -letters bear witness, exclude all idea of so perfidious an act; and in -the second, that it was Galileo’s own interest to retain the goodwill -of his powerful patron, and not frivolously to fritter it away.[272] -But we pass from this argument _ad absurdum_ to one _ad concretum_. -Simplicius is said to be Urban VIII. But not appropriately, for he was -no such headstrong Peripatetic as is represented by Simplicius; had he -been so, it was impossible that in 1624 he should have enjoyed having “Il -Saggiatore” read to him at table, that cutting satire on the Aristotelian -wisdom in general, and the wisdom of Father Grassi in particular; and -that in the next year he should have been so much pleased with Galileo’s -reply to Ingoli. - -Galileo’s enemies founded their assertion on the circumstance that at the -end of the work Simplicius employs an argument which the Pope himself -had brought forward in repeated conversations in 1624 with Galileo, -and on the weight of which he plumed himself not a little.[273] It -consisted of the reflection, undoubtedly more devout than scientific, -that God is all-powerful, so that all things are possible to Him, and -that therefore the tides could not be adduced as a _necessary_ proof -of the double motion of the earth without limiting His omnipotence. -This pious objection is received by both Salviati and Sagredo with the -utmost reverence. The former calls it heavenly and truly admirable, and -the latter thinks that it forms a fitting conclusion to the discussion, -which opinion is acted upon.[274] The Pope’s argument is thus by no means -made to appear ridiculous, but quite the contrary. As to the main point, -Simplicius says expressly that “he had this argument from a very eminent -and learned personage.” If this means Urban VIII., it is plain that -Simplicius cannot be Urban VIII. Q.E.D.[275] - -In writing his “Dialogues,” Galileo found himself in a difficult -position. As he brought forward all the arguments of the disciples of -Ptolemy against the new system, the vain pontiff would have been sorely -offended if he had not introduced his. But who should mention it, if not -Simplicius? Galileo might think that Urban would not perhaps like to see -his argument treated as the original suggestion of Simplicius, who did -not appear in a brilliant light, and devised the expedient of making him -quote it, as that of “a very eminent and learned personage,” whereby he -would imagine that he had steered clear of every obstacle. But there was -no security against calumny. How little idea Galileo could have had of -making Urban ridiculous under the guise of Simplicius appears also from -the fact that in 1636, when seeking full pardon from the Pope, and when -he would be most anxious not to irritate him, he had just completed his -famous work, “Dialogues on the Modern Sciences,” in which Simplicius -again plays the part of defender of the ancient principles; and that he -published it in 1638, just when, in view of the unfavourable answer of -1636, he was begging at least for the favour of being nursed at Florence. -There can be no doubt that this suspicion materially contributed to -injure Galileo’s cause. Pieralisi, indeed, makes an assertion as novel as -it is untenable, that this bold slander was first heard of in 1635, and -therefore not until after the famous trial; and in his book, “Urban VIII. -and Gal. Galilei,”[276] he devotes a chapter of forty-six pages to prove -this latest novelty. But all his arguments are upset by the following -passage by Galileo in a letter to his friend Micanzio on 26th July, 1636:— - - “I hear from Rome that his Eminence Cardinal Antonio Barberini - and the French ambassador have seen his Holiness and tried to - convince him that I never had the least idea of perpetrating - so sacrilegious an act as to make game of his Holiness, as my - malicious foes have persuaded him, and which was the primary - cause of all my troubles.”[277] - -Pieralisi is acquainted with these words, and seeks to weaken their -indisputable force as evidence in a lengthy disquisition; but an -impartial critic only sees in this the apologist of Urban VIII., who -desires, at all hazards, to shield him from the suspicion of having -been actuated in the matter of Galileo’s trial by personal motives, -which will always be recognised in history as a fact, though it is -also an exaggeration of some historians to maintain that it was the -actual starting-point of the whole process, Urban having wished to -revenge himself for this assumed personal insult.[278] No, it had its -effect, but was not the chief motive. The Jesuits had inspired the Pope -with the opinion that the “Dialogues” were eminently dangerous to the -Church, more dangerous and abhorrent even than the writings of Luther -and Calvin,[279] and he was highly incensed at the representation that -Galileo had shamefully outwitted Father Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and -even his Holiness himself, in obtaining the licence. Offended majesty, -the determination to guard the interests of the Church and the authority -of the Bible, indignation at Galileo’s assumed cunning, and annoyance -at having been duped by it,—these were the motives which impelled Urban -VIII. to the deed called the institution of the trial of the Inquisition -against Galileo. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -_DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616._ - - Symptoms of the Coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade of - Forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional - Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview - with the Pope and unfavourable Reception.—Report of it to - Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—Real Object of the Special - Commission to find a Pretext for the Trial.—Its Discovery in - the Assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report of the Commission and - Charges against Galileo. - - -As we have seen, even during the months of June and July a ferment -had already begun in certain circles at Rome about the “Dialogues.” -Complaints and accusations were rife, the Pope was artfully worked -upon—these were the first portents of the heavy storm which was to -break over Galileo’s head. The Master of the Palace went about Rome in -great fear for himself as well as for Galileo, and told his troubles to -Count Magalotti.[280] At the beginning of August, Riccardi begged him -to deliver up the eight copies of the “Dialogues” which Magalotti had -brought to Rome, with the assurance that he would return them in ten days -at the latest. It was not in Magalotti’s power to grant this request, the -books having, as we know, long ago passed into other hands.[281] - -A few days later the first thunderclap broke over Galileo. His publisher, -Landini, at Florence received instructions, though for the time they were -only provisional, forbidding the further sale of the “Dialogues.” The -succeeding scenes of the melancholy drama quickly followed. A special -commission was instituted at Rome by order of the Pope to investigate the -whole affair. Urban afterwards repeatedly stated with great emphasis to -Niccolini, that it was out of regard for the Grand Duke, as well as for -Galileo, that the very unusual measure was taken of not referring his -cause directly to the Holy Office, but to a separate congregation.[282] - -It is altogether a characteristic trait in all the proceedings of -the Roman curia against Galileo, that there was a parade of great -consideration for and forbearance towards him although strictly within -the limits of their real intentions. Even the favour ostensibly shown -to him of referring his cause to a preliminary commission, composed of -theologians and mathematicians, was not so great in reality as it was -trumpeted to be at the Vatican. It was composed of persons by no means -favourable to him, and all the endeavours of Niccolini and other powerful -friends of Galileo to have influential persons who were friendly to him -put on the commission, such as Fathers Castelli and Campanella, were -frustrated by the Pope. It occasioned a dangerous threat to be held -over the undaunted Campanella, who energetically exerted himself in the -matter.[283] - -Meanwhile disquieting rumours had reached Florence, and Galileo -recognised with terror his dangerous position, though not to its full -extent; this perhaps was as yet foreseen by no one. He appealed in full -confidence to his friendly young sovereign for protection, and found -a willing ear. On the 24th August a note on this business was sent to -Niccolini, by order of the Grand Duke. It is clear that Ferdinand’s -efforts to assist Galileo were sincere from the circumstance that, -although the letter was written in Cioli’s name, Galileo was the author -of it, as appears from the original draft in his handwriting in the -Palatina Library at Florence. - -The Grand Duke in this letter expresses his surprise that a book which -had been laid before the supreme authorities at Rome by the author -in person, had been carefully read there again and again, as well as -afterwards at Florence, and at the author’s request had been altered as -seemed good to the authorities, and had finally received the _imprimatur_ -both there and here, should now after two years be considered suspicious -and be prohibited. The astonishment of his Highness was the greater, -because he knew that neither of the main opinions treated of were -positively confirmed, but only the reasons for and against brought -together; and this was done, as his Highness knew for certain, for the -benefit of the Holy Church itself, in order that on subjects which in -their nature are difficult to understand, those with whom the decision -rests may see, with less expenditure of time and trouble, on which side -the truth lies, and bring it into agreement with Holy Scripture. The -Grand Duke was of opinion that this opposition must be directed rather -against the person of the author than against his book, or this or that -opinion, ancient or modern. In order, however, to convince himself of -the merits or misdemeanours of his servant, his Highness desires that -that which is granted in all disputes and before all tribunals should be -permitted to him,—to defend himself against his accusers. The Grand Duke -therefore urges that the accusations brought against the work, which have -caused it to be prohibited, may be sent here for the author, who stands -firmly on his innocence, to see them. He is so convinced that all this -originates in the calumnies of envious and malicious persecutors, that he -has offered his sovereign to leave the country and renounce his favour -unless he can palpably prove how pious and sincere his sentiments on -these subjects have always been and still are. The letter concludes with -the commission, by the Grand Duke’s orders, to take the necessary steps -towards the fulfilment of his most reasonable request.[284] - -On the same day on which this despatch went off, a mandate was issued -from Rome, which not only confirmed the provisional prohibition of the -“Dialogues,” but requested Landini to send all the copies in stock to -Rome. He replied that all the copies had been delivered to the purchasers. - -Niccolini on receipt of the Grand Duke’s order hastened to carry it out, -but met with more bitter and obstinate opposition than either he or the -Tuscan court had expected. On 4th September, when the ambassador was -about to execute his mission at the Vatican, the Pope met him bluntly -with the words: “Your Galileo has ventured to meddle with things that he -ought not, and with the most important and dangerous subjects which can -be stirred up in these days.” Niccolini remarked that the philosopher -had not published his work without the approval of the Church, to which -the Pope angrily rejoined that Galileo and Ciampoli had deceived him, -especially Ciampoli, who had dared to tell him that Galileo would be -entirely guided by the papal commands, and that it was all right; he -had not either seen or read the work, and this was all he had known -about it. His Holiness then made bitter complaints against the Master -of the Palace, adding, however, that he had been deceived himself, for -he had been enticed by fair speeches to approve the book, and by more -fair speeches to allow it to be printed at Florence, without at all -complying with the form prescribed by the Inquisitor, and with the name -of the Roman censor of the press, who had nothing whatever to do with -works which did not appear at Rome. Niccolini then ventured to say, that -he knew that a special congregation was appointed to try this affair, -and as it might happen (as was the case) that there might be persons -on it unfavourable to Galileo, he humbly petitioned that Galileo might -have an opportunity of justifying himself. Urban answered curtly: “In -these affairs of the Holy Office, nothing is ever done but to pronounce -judgment, and then summon to recant.” “Does it not then appear to your -Holiness,” answered the ambassador, “that Galileo should be informed -beforehand of the objections to, scruples and criticisms respecting his -book, and of the points to which the Holy Office takes exception?” “The -Holy Office,” replied the Pope, angrily, “as I told you before, does -not proceed in that way, and does not take that course, nor does it -ever give such information beforehand: it is not the custom. _Besides, -Galileo knows well enough what the objections are, if he only chooses -to know, because we have talked to him about it, and he has heard them -all from ourself._” Niccolini now urged that the work was dedicated to -the Grand Duke, and written by one of his most eminent servants; he -hoped, therefore, that Galileo would be treated with indulgence. Urban -replied that he had even prohibited books dedicated to himself, and that -in matters where it was a question of endangering religion, the Grand -Duke also was bound, as a Christian prince, to co-operate in enforcing -penalties. Niccolini had therefore better write plainly to his Highness -that he (the Pope) warned him not to meddle with things which he could -not come out of with honour. The undaunted ambassador now expressed -his conviction that his Holiness would not allow them to go so far as -entirely to prohibit the book, which had received sanction, without at -least hearing Galileo. But Urban replied, _that this was the least that -could happen to him, and he had better take care that he was not summoned -before the Holy Office_. The Pope then assured Niccolini that the -preliminary commission was composed of theologians and men well versed in -science, all grave and pious men, who would weigh every particular, word -for word, for it was a question of the most godless business which could -ever be discussed. He also charged the ambassador to tell his sovereign -that the doctrine was in the highest degree sinful; everything would be -maturely considered; his Highness had better not interfere, and must be -on his guard. In conclusion, the Pope not only imposed the strictest -secrecy on Niccolini as to what he had been told, but desired that the -Grand Duke also should be charged to keep the secret, adding that he -“had acted with great consideration for Galileo, by having impressed -upon him what he knew before, and by not referring his affairs, as he -ought to have done, to the Holy Office, but to a specially-appointed -congregation.” Urban added the bitter remark that his behaviour towards -Galileo had been far better than Galileo’s towards him, for he had -deceived him. - -In the narration of the whole of this interesting conversation between -the Pope and the Tuscan ambassador, we have given an almost literal -translation of the Italian original of Niccolini’s report of it to -Cioli, of 5th September, 1632.[285] Urban’s last angry expression caused -Niccolini to remark in his despatch that he found “ill will here too; -and as for the Pope, he could not be more against poor Galileo than -he was.” He then said that he had communicated Cioli’s letter of 24th -August to the Master of the Palace, and that Riccardi thought they would -hardly condemn the “Dialogues” altogether, but only alter some passages -which really were objectionable. He had also offered, as far as he could -do so without incurring censure or transgressing rules, to inform the -ambassador at once of what was going to be done, adding however, that he -must be cautious, for he had already felt the lash in this matter. He -then complained that they had not acted in accordance with his letter -to the Inquisitor, that the introduction was printed in different type -from the rest of the work, and that the conclusion did not agree with the -introduction. Towards the end of the despatch, Niccolini says that “it -will be better to act without any temper in this business, and rather to -negotiate with the ministers and Cardinal Barberini than with the Pope -himself, because he obstinately persists that it is a hopeless case, and -if you dispute it, or threaten anything, or are defiant, his Holiness -lets fall hard words and has no respect for anybody.” - -The conclusion of Cioli’s reply of 19th September to this ominous -despatch of Niccolini’s gives us an insight into the attitude which the -Tuscan Government, even at that time, desired to assume towards the papal -chair in this unfortunate business. Cioli writes:— - - “His Highness has heard the letters of your excellency of the - 4th and 5th, and by this affair of Signor Mariano and that of - Signor Galileo he was placed in so much difficulty that I do - not know how it will be. I know well that his Holiness will - never have to blame the ministers for giving bad advice.”[286] - -Two letters from Count Magalotti,[287] who was usually well informed, -arrived almost at the same time as this despatch. Both bear the date -of 4th September; one is to Mario Guiducci, the other to Galileo, who -in a letter of 23rd August, which is lost, had expressed his anxiety -to Magalotti lest his work should be pronounced suspicious, and -the Copernican doctrine condemned as heretical by the authorities. -Magalotti’s news was, on the whole, reassuring. According to the opinions -of persons who are generally present at the sittings of the Congregation -of the Holy Office, he thought he could assure Galileo that it would -never go so far as for the Copernican system to be condemned by the -_supreme authority_.[288] He thought, with Riccardi, that they would -not entirely prohibit the “Dialogues,” but only correct them, so as to -sustain the decree of 5th March, 1616. He also urgently advised, like -Niccolini, that they should arm themselves with the utmost patience, and -rather confer with Cardinal Barberini than with Urban, “for reasons -which it is not necessary to discuss here.” - -Neither Galileo himself, nor Magalotti, nor his other friends, ever -thought of any personal danger to him; Niccolini and the Grand Duke might -perhaps have been more sharp-sighted, but they were bound to silence. The -threads, however, of this great intrigue can only be disentangled by the -later historian, who has watched the progress of the whole melancholy -drama. Two facts are perfectly obvious to the attentive observer: the -first, that at Rome, with the Pope at their head, they were determined -to bring Galileo to trial before the Inquisition; and the second, that -they did not yet clearly see how it was to be done with some shadow of -justice. To find this out was the real purpose of the appointment of -the special congregation, which Urban had boasted of as a signal act -of forbearance towards Galileo. All the objections to the book were -subjects rather for accusation against the censors who had sanctioned it -than against the author, who had submitted it to them, altered it, and -again submitted the alterations. The responsibility for the publication -really rested not with the author, but with those who had sanctioned -it. The Pope’s accusation, however, that Galileo had coaxed them to -give the permission by fair speeches, was too indefinite to institute a -trial upon, and neither did the irregular quotation of the _imprimatur_ -of the Master of the Palace, nor the typographical difference between -the preface and the rest of the book offer sufficient ground for a -legal prosecution. In this difficult case, therefore, it required all -the Romish craft and legal sophistry at command, to find a pretext for -bringing Galileo to trial before the Inquisition, which should, at any -rate according to Romish principles, justify it in the eyes of the world. - -The preliminary commission appointed by Urban VIII. was to perform this -by no means easy task in brilliant style. It was certainly very much -lightened by a discovery in the acts of the trial of Galileo in 1616, -which was evidently a surprise to them—the note of 26th February, 1616. - -What vast importance they at once thought fit to assign to this -annotation without signature, we learn from a despatch of Niccolini’s -to Cioli, of 11th September.[289] Niccolini refers in it to a recent -interview with the Master of the Palace. He had again strongly advised -that nothing be done in a hurry, and that time must be gained, for the -Pope was firmly convinced that religion was really imperilled, for the -work did not treat of mathematics, but of Holy Scripture, religion, and -faith, and the orders respecting the printing of the work had not been -complied with, for the opinion of the author was not merely indicated, -but expressed in many places in the most decided and unsuitable manner. -After Riccardi had assured the ambassador that all efforts to get -Campanella and Castelli put on the preliminary commission had failed, -but that he (Riccardi) would do his best to defend Galileo, both from -friendship for him, and to serve his Highness, and because he had given -the permission to print, he confided to Niccolini, under seal of profound -secrecy, as of the highest importance, “_that it had been discovered in -the books of the Holy Office, that sixteen years ago, it having been -heard that Galileo entertained that opinion, and disseminated it in -Florence, he was summoned to Rome, and forbidden by Cardinal Bellarmine, -in the name of the Pope and the Holy Office, to hold that opinion, and -this alone is enough to ruin him entirely_.”[290] - -This communication of Riccardi’s contains an obvious mis-statement, -namely, that any document had been found showing that Galileo had been -_summoned_ to Rome in 1616. As we have seen,[291] all the historical -documents show that he was not summoned, but that his visit was -entirely voluntary. This verbal statement of Riccardi’s, unsupported -by any document, is of no value as evidence, compared with the letters -of Galileo of that period, and his depositions afterwards before his -judges, who were accurately informed of all the previous proceedings. -The second part of his communication to Niccolini is also far from -precise. He does indeed say that Galileo, in 1616, had in the name of -the Pope and the Holy Congregation been forbidden (_prohibito_), “il -poter tenere questo opinione,” but according to the father’s account this -prohibition was communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine. Riccardi is -evidently not precisely instructed, and does not know that, according to -the notification of 26th February, 1616, Galileo received an absolute -prohibition before notary and witnesses. - -We shall see the part this “document” was destined to play in the -proceedings against Galileo. - -The preliminary commission had just then, after about a month’s session, -completed its labours, and submitted to the Pope a long memorial on the -Galileo affair. The document begins with a concise statement of the -course of the negotiations about the publication of the “Dialogues,” and -then the three following indictments were brought against the author:— - -(1) Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the hypothetical -treatment by decidedly maintaining that the earth moves and the sun is -stationary. (2) He has erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides -to the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not -exist; (3) and he has further been deceitfully silent about the command -laid upon him by the Holy Office, in the year 1616, which was as follows: -“To relinquish altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre -of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to -hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, -otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office, -which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey.” - -Then follows the remark: “It must now be considered what proceedings -are to be taken, both against the person of the author and against the -printed book.” Yet the nature of these proceedings is not in any way -discussed in the document, but it now refers more in detail in five -counts to the historical events, from the time when the “Dialogues” -were submitted in Rome in 1630, to the publication in Florence in 1632. -A sixth count considers that the following points in the “Dialogues” -themselves must be laid to the author’s account:— - - “1. That without orders and without making any communication - about it, he put the _imprimatur_ of Rome on the title page. - - “2. That he had printed the preface in different type, and - rendered it useless by its separation from the rest of the - work; further, that he had put the saving clause at the end in - the mouth of a simpleton, and in a place where it is hard to - find; that it is but coolly received by the other interlocutor, - so that it is only cursorily touched upon, and not fully - discussed. - - “3. That he had very often in the work deviated from the - hypothesis, either by absolutely asserting that the earth - moves, and that the sun is stationary, or by representing - the arguments upon which these views rest as convincing and - necessarily true, or by making the contrary appear impossible. - - “4. That he had treated the subject as undecided, and as if he - were waiting for, though he does not expect, explanation. - - “5. That he contemns authors who are of a contrary opinion, and - those whom Holy Church chiefly employs. - - “6. That he perniciously asserts and sets forth that, in the - apprehension of geometrical matters, there is some equality - between the Divine and human mind. - - “7. That he had represented it to be an argument for the truth - that Ptolemaics go over to the Copernicans, but not _vice - versa_. - - “8. That he had erroneously ascribed the tides in the ocean to - the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do - not exist.” - -The special commission, however, by no means draws the conclusion from -all these errors and failings, that the “Dialogues” should be prohibited, -but says: “All these things could be corrected, if it was thought that -the book to which such favour should be shown were of any value.” - -Immediately after this follows the seventh point, saying that “the author -had transgressed the mandate of the Holy Office of 1616, ‘that he should -relinquish the said opinion,’ etc.—down to, ‘and promised to obey.’”[292] - -Herewith the memorial of the preliminary commission concludes. It draws -no conclusions from the facts adduced, but leaves that to his Holiness -the Pope. The last count confirms Galileo’s chief offence: he is guilty -of having disobeyed a special mandate of the ecclesiastical authorities, -has broken a solemn promise made before a notary and witnesses. Such a -crime, according to inquisitorial usage, demanded severe punishment. The -perfidy of 1616 had signally triumphed. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -_THE SUMMONS TO ROME._ - - Niccolini’s Attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s - Parable.—The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His Grief - and Consternation.—His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed - Order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s fruitless Efforts - to save him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to - Travel.—Castelli’s hopeful View of the Case.—Threat to bring - him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to - go.—His Powerlessness to protect his Servant.—Galileo’s Mistake - in leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati. - - -Only a few days later, on 15th September, the Pope informed the Tuscan -ambassador through one of his secretaries, Pietro Benessi, that he -(Urban) hereby notified to him, out of esteem for his Highness the -Grand Duke, that he could do no less than hand Galileo’s affairs over -to the Inquisition. At the same time the strictest secrecy as to this -information was enjoined both on the Grand Duke and Niccolini, with a -threat that otherwise they would be proceeded against according to the -statutes of the Holy Office.[293] - -Niccolini was astounded by this news, and hastened, two days afterwards, -to the Pope, to make a final attempt to avert the danger of a trial -before the Inquisition for Galileo. But his urgent though respectful -solicitations met with no response. Urban indeed said that “Signor -Galileo was still his friend,—but that opinion had been condemned sixteen -years before.” He then expatiated, as he had so often done before, on the -danger of the doctrine, and ended by saying that Galileo’s book was in -the highest degree pernicious. When Niccolini remarked that he thought -the “Dialogues” might be altered to the prescribed form, instead of -being prohibited altogether, the Pope answered affably by telling him a -parable about Cardinal Alciato. A manuscript was submitted to him with -the request that, in order not to spoil the fair copy, he would mark the -places requiring alteration with a little wax. The cardinal returned -it without any marks at all. The author thanked him, and expressed his -satisfaction that he had not found anything to find fault with, as there -was not a single mark; but the cardinal replied that he had not used any -wax, for if he had, he must have gone to a wax chandler’s, and dipped the -whole work into melted wax in order to amend it thoroughly.[294] Thus had -Cardinal Alciato enlightened the unfortunate author in his day, and Urban -enlightened Niccolini by quoting the story, to which he could only reply -with a forced smile, that nevertheless he “hoped his Holiness would allow -them to treat Galileo’s work as indulgently as possible.” - -Niccolini’s efforts had been in vain, and measures were laid with almost -breathless haste to deliver Galileo up to the Inquisition. This was -finally effected in the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of -23rd September, 1632, when it was pronounced that he had transgressed the -prohibition of 26th February, 1616, and concealed it when he obtained the -_imprimatur_. In a document of the Vatican Manuscript we have the papal -mandate which followed this sentence. It runs as follows:— - - “23rd September, 1632. His Holiness charges the Inquisitor at - Florence to inform Galileo, in the name of the Holy Office, - that he is to appear as soon as possible in the course of the - month of October, at Rome before the Commissary-General of the - Holy Office. He must also obtain a promise from Galileo to - obey this order, which the Inquisitor is to give him in the - presence of a notary and witnesses, but in such a way that - Galileo may know nothing about them, so that if he refuse and - do not promise to obey, they may, if necessary, bear witness to - it.”[295] - -On 1st October the Inquisitor carried out this order, which Galileo had -to certify by the following attestation:— - - 1st October, 1632, at Florence. “I, Galileo Galilei, certify - that on the day indicated the order has been delivered to me by - the honourable Father Inquisitor of this city, by command of - the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office at Rome, to go to Rome - in the course of the present month, October, and to present - myself before the Father Commissary of the Holy Office, who - will inform me what I have to do. I will willingly obey the - order in the course of this month October. And in testimony - thereto I have written these presents.” - - “I, Galileo Galilei wrote _manu propria_.”[296] - -This mandate to present himself before the Inquisition quite overwhelmed -Galileo, as is evident from his correspondence of that period. He was -totally unprepared for it. Scarcely recovered from a severe complaint -in the eyes, which had lasted several months and had prevented him from -using them, otherwise suffering in health, and at an advanced age, he was -now to go to Rome in the midst of the plague, which had broken out again -with increased virulence, and entailed strict quarantine regulations, in -order to give account of himself before the dread tribunal. No wonder -that it dismayed him, and in spite of his promise “willingly to obey -the order in the course of this month, October,” we find him making -every effort to get out of it. On 6th October he wrote in the greatest -excitement to Cioli, who was just then with the Grand Duke at Siena, that -he was in the greatest consternation at this summons to appear before the -Inquisition at Rome, and as he was well aware of the importance of the -matter, he would come to Siena to lay his schemes and plans before his -Highness, for he had more than one in his head, and to consult him about -the steps to be taken.[297] - -This journey, however, was not undertaken, as the court soon returned to -Florence. - -Galileo’s deep depression is most evident from a long letter of 13th -October addressed to a cardinal of the Barberini family,[298] which was -to reach him through Niccolini. Galileo remarks first that he and his -friends had foreseen that his “Dialogues” would find opponents, but he -had never imagined that the envious malice of some persons would go so -far as to persuade the authorities that they were not worthy to see the -light. He goes on to say that the summons before the Inquisition at Rome -had caused him the deepest grief, for he feared that such a proceeding, -usual only in the case of serious delinquents, would turn the fruits of -all his studies and labours during many years, which had lent no little -repute to his name with the learned all over the world, into aspersions -on his fair fame. “This vexes me so much,” continues Galileo, “that -it makes me curse the time devoted to these studies in which I strove -and hoped to deviate somewhat from the beaten track generally pursued -by learned men. I not only repent having given the world a portion of -my writings, but feel inclined to suppress those still in hand, and -to give them to the flames, and thus satisfy the longing desire of my -enemies to whom my ideas are so inconvenient.” After this desperate cry -from his oppressed soul, he expresses his conviction that, burdened -with seventy years and many bodily sufferings, increased by constant -sleeplessness, he shall not reach the end of this tedious journey—made -more arduous by unusual difficulties—alive. Impelled by the instinct -of self-preservation common to all men, he ventures to ask the good -offices of the cardinal. He begs him to represent his pitiable condition -to the wise fathers in Rome, not to release him from giving account of -himself, which he is most anxious to do, as he is sure that it will only -tend to his advantage, but only that it may be made easier for him to -obey. There are two ways of doing this. One is for him to write a minute -and conscientious vindication of all that he has said, written, or done -since the day when the conflict began on Copernicus’s book and his new -system. He is certain that his sincerity and his pure, zealous, and -devout attachment to the holy Church and its supreme head, would be so -obvious from this statement, that every one, if he were free from passion -and party malice, must confess that he had behaved so piously and like -a good Catholic, that not even any of the fathers of the Church to whom -the epithet _holy_ is applied, could have shown more piety. He asserts -and will indisputably prove, by all the works he has written on this -subject, that he has only entered into the controversy out of zeal for -the holy Church, with the intention of imparting to her servants that -knowledge which one or other of them might wish to possess, and which -he had acquired by long study, as it treated of subjects difficult to -understand and different from the learning generally cultivated. He will -also show how many opinions contained in the writings of the fathers of -the Church had been an encouragement to him, and how he was “finally -confirmed in his intention by hearing a short but holy and admirable -address, which came unexpectedly, like an echo of the Holy Spirit, from -the lips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity -of life.” But for the present he will not give this admirable saying, nor -the speaker’s name, as it does not seem prudent or suitable to involve -any one in the present affair which concerns him personally alone.[299] -Having in a touching manner begged that what he should write may be read, -and declared that should his vindication not give satisfaction on all -points he will reply in detail to objections, he proceeds to the second -means of averting the journey to Rome. - -He only wishes that his adversaries would be as ready to commit to paper -what they have perhaps verbally and _ad aures_ said against him, as he -was to defend himself in writing. If they will not accept his written -vindication, and still insist upon a verbal one, there was an Inquisitor, -Nuncius, archbishop, and other high officials of the Church at Florence, -whose summons he was quite ready to obey. He says:—“It appears to me -that things of much greater importance are decided by this tribunal. -And it is not likely that under the keen and watchful eyes of those who -examined my book with full liberty to omit, to add, and to alter as -seemed good to them, errors so weighty could escape that the authorities -of this city should be incompetent to correct or punish them.” This -passage again clearly indicates that Galileo knew nothing whatever of the -prohibition of 1616; that he had no idea of having broken his word to the -ecclesiastical authorities. His only thought is of a revision of his work -as the result of a conviction that it contained errors.[300] - -The letter to the cardinal concludes with the following assurance:—“If -neither my great age, nor my many bodily infirmities, nor the deep -concern I feel, nor the wearisomeness of a journey under the present -most unfavourable circumstances, are considered sufficient reasons, by -this high and sacred tribunal, for granting a dispensation, or at least -a delay, I will undertake the journey, esteeming obedience more than -life.”[301] - -Niccolini could not deliver this letter to the cardinal immediately, as -he was just then absent from Rome. He received however, at the same time, -an urgent petition from another quarter. Michael Angelo the younger wrote -to this dignitary, with whom he was on friendly terms, and entreated -him, out of consideration for the philosopher’s age and infirmities, to -use his powerful influence to get his affairs settled at Florence.[302] -But there was a long delay before Galileo’s letter was delivered to the -cardinal. The ambassador wished first to consult Castelli, whom the -Grand Duke had appointed as his counsel in Galileo’s affairs, whether it -was to be delivered. Niccolini had doubts about these explanations, and -expressed them both in a letter to Galileo of 23rd October,[303] and in -a despatch to Cioli of the 24th.[304] In the former Niccolini says that -he thinks Galileo’s letter is more calculated to incense them against -him than to pacify them, and the more he asserted that he could defend -his work the more it would be thought that it ought to be condemned. He -thinks that a delay will be granted to the accused of his journey to -Rome, but that he will not be released from it on any consideration. -Niccolini gave him the following friendly hint as to the attitude he -should maintain: “It appears desirable not to enter into any defence -of things which the Congregation do not approve, but to submit and to -recant what the cardinals may desire; for to speak as a Christian, one -must not maintain anything, but what they, as the highest tribunal, that -cannot err, please.”[305] By such conduct the ambassador hopes for an -easier solution of the question; not, however, without its coming to an -actual trial, and Galileo may even be somewhat restricted in his personal -liberty. He has great doubts about the passage referring to an “admirable -address, which came unexpectedly like an echo of the Holy Spirit from the -lips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of -life,” as he thinks that if the letter is handed to the cardinal, he will -hand it to the Congregation, and the cardinals may request to be informed -who this personage is. At all events he would like first to consult -Castelli, who was not just then at Rome. - -The result of the consultation was, however, to deliver the letter to -Barberini. Niccolini reported to Galileo on 6th November,[306] that he -had received it in a very friendly spirit, and was altogether very kindly -disposed towards him. The ambassador does not doubt that a delay will at -any rate be granted, that Galileo may make the journey to Rome with less -inconvenience.[307] We learn from a document in Gherardi’s archives, that -Galileo’s petitions were discussed at a sitting of the Congregation of -the Holy Office held on 11th November, in presence of the Pope, but that -he would not grant them, and decreed that Galileo must obey, and ordered -that the Inquisitor at Florence should be written to that he might compel -Galileo to come to Rome.[308] - -Niccolini, meanwhile, was unwearied in trying to get Galileo’s proposals -accepted. He went to Cardinal Ginetti, who was a member of the -Congregation and in high favour with the Pope, and to Mgr. Boccabella, -assessor of the Holy Office, and represented to both Galileo’s great -age, his failing health, and the peril to his life of a journey through -quarantine and plague. But as both prelates, on whom as members of the -Holy Office strict secrecy was imposed, “only heard what he had to say, -and answered nothing,” Niccolini went to the Pope himself, to make one -more attempt. Having as he thought put the imperious pontiff into the -best of humours, by assuring him that the unfortunate _savant_ was -ready to render prompt obedience to every command, he laid all the -circumstances before him, and used all his eloquence to awaken pity for -the infirm old man. But in vain. Niccolini asked at last whether his -Holiness had not seen Galileo’s letter to Cardinal Barberini; and he -said he had, but in spite of all that the journey to Rome could not be -dispensed with. “Your Holiness incurs the danger,” replied Niccolini, -“considering Galileo’s great age, of his being tried neither in Rome nor -Florence; for I assure your Holiness that he may die on the way under -all these difficulties combined with so much anxiety.” “He can come very -slowly (_pian piano_) in a litter, with every comfort, but he really must -be tried here in person. May God forgive him for having been so deluded -as to involve himself in these difficulties, from which we had relieved -him when we were cardinal.” This was the Pope’s stern reply to the -ambassador’s urgent representations. And when he remarked that it was the -sanction given to the book here which had occasioned all this, because -from the signature, and the orders given to the Inquisitor at Florence, -they felt quite secure, and had proceeded without scruple, Urban broke -out into violent complaints about the conduct of Father Riccardi and -Mgr. Ciampoli, and repeated that it was a question of a most pernicious -doctrine.[309] - -Niccolini, seeing that his efforts were in vain retired, but only to -hasten to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and to entreat him to take up the -cause of this persecuted man. But the cardinal made the pertinent excuse -that he could not act against the Pope’s will, but he would procure all -possible relaxation of the strict quarantine regulations for Galileo. -Niccolini could not even obtain any definite promise of delay; and, -much discomfited and with profound sorrow, he communicated the results -of his sincere and unwearied endeavours in a letter to Galileo of 13th -November, 1632, and a despatch to Cioli of the same date.[310] - -A few days after the receipt of this bad news, on 19th November, Galileo -was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence for the second time, in -accordance with the papal mandate of 11th November. He sent the following -report of it on 20th November, to Rome:— - - “I have again summoned Galileo Galilei, who said that he was - perfectly willing to go to Rome, and only hesitated on account - of his advanced age, his evident ill health, the circumstance - that he was under medical treatment, and many other things. I - then charged him to comply with the order to go to Rome, and in - presence of a notary and two witnesses gave him a respite of - one month. He again appeared quite willing, but I do not know - whether he will go. I told him what I had received.”[311] - -On 9th December the papal orders were issued to the Inquisitor at -Florence, as soon as the month had elapsed, to _compel_ Galileo to set -out for Rome.[312] Niccolini wrote to Cioli on the 11th[313] and to -Galileo on the 12th[314] December, that he had again tried to procure a -longer respite, but had found it impossible. He moreover strongly advised -Galileo to set out as soon as possible, and stay for at least twenty -days’ quarantine somewhere within the territory of Siena, as this prompt -obedience would be greatly to his advantage at Rome. - -But the time appointed had nearly elapsed, and Galileo made no -preparations for starting. Shortly before it terminated, in accordance -with his instructions, the Inquisitor at Florence sent his vicar to him. -On 18th December the Inquisitor sent the following report to Rome:— - - “My vicar found Galileo Galilei in bed. He told him he was - quite willing to come, but in these times he had no heart for - it; besides, just now, owing to having been attacked by sudden - illness, he was not in a condition to set out. He has sent me - the enclosed medical certificate. So that I have not failed to - do my duty.”[315] - -The medical certificate, dated 17th December, gives a clear idea of the -physical condition of this much-tried man, and we therefore give it in -full. It is signed by the doctors Vettorio de Rossi, Giovanni Ronconi, -and Pietro Cervieri, and is as follows:— - - “We, the undersigned physicians, certify that we have examined - Signor Galileo Galilei, and find that his pulse intermits - every three or four beats, from which we conclude that - his vital powers are affected, and at his great age much - weakened. To the above are to be ascribed frequent attacks of - giddiness, hypochondriacal melancholy, weakness of the stomach, - sleeplessness, and flying pains about the body, to which others - also can testify. We have also observed a serious hernia with - rupture of the peritoneum. All these symptoms are worthy of - notice, as under the least aggravation they might evidently - become dangerous to life.”[316] - -But much importance does not seem to have been attached to this -certificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, Niccolini -expressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical authorities at -Florence should receive extreme orders.[317] Castelli also, in a letter -of 25th December, urged his old master to set out.[318] But in this, -as in all his letters of this period, he shows that he had no idea of -the real moment to Galileo of the proceedings going on at Rome, and he -was altogether ill informed about the course things were taking.[319] -Probably great reserve was maintained towards this faithful adherent -of Galileo, who was also to be his advocate. Castelli always consoled -him with the assurance that, to the best of his belief, the final -decision of the holy tribunal would never be against him.[320] Even in -his letter of 25th December, Castelli says that he only considers it -necessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, because he entertained a -singular notion that Galileo’s cunning persecutors desired nothing more -than that he should not come to Rome, in order that they might decry -him as an obstinate rebel; for he had not committed any crime against -the Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was not -very sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before by giving up the -original of the celebrated letter of Galileo’s to him of 21st December, -1613. - -On 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his despatch of -26th December were realised. On that day a papal mandate was issued to -the Inquisitor of Florence, which said that neither his Holiness nor -the Holy Congregation could or would tolerate such evasions; it must -therefore be proved whether Galileo’s state was really such that he -could not come to Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness and the -Holy Congregation would therefore send a commissioner, with a physician, -to Florence, who would visit Galileo and make a true and trustworthy -report on his condition, and if he were in a state to travel, bring him a -prisoner in irons to Rome (_carceratum et ligatum cum ferris_). If, out -of consideration for his health, or other danger to life, his coming must -be postponed, as soon as he had recovered and the danger was over, he was -to be brought a prisoner in irons to Rome. The document concluded with -the remark that the papal commissioner and the physician would travel at -Galileo’s expense, because he had not obeyed the command to appear at -Rome when his condition would have permitted it.[321] - -To avert these extreme measures from being actually carried out, the -Grand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo on 11th January, 1633, that he -(Ferdinand) took a sincere interest in the affair, and regretted that he -was unable to spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he -should obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might perform the -journey more comfortably, he would place one of the grand ducal litters -and a trustworthy guide at his disposal, and would also permit him to -stay at the house of the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would, -within a month, be released from Rome.[322] - -The pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face of the -Roman hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign does not dare to -protect the philosopher—the greatest of whom Italy can boast—from papal -persecution, but was obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition. -It must not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then only -twenty-two, because he had been brought up in the strictest Romish -fashion by the two Grand Duchesses and Cioli, acted otherwise than any -other Italian ruler would have done in the like situation. Not one of -them would have had courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome, -to put an energetic veto on a papal mandate like this. The Venetian -Republic, in which it had been established as an axiom by Paolo Sarpi -that “the power of rulers is derived immediately from God, and spiritual -as well as temporal things are subject to it,” was the only State of -Italy which would have asserted its sovereignty and would never have -delivered up one of its officials to the Roman will. Galileo now -suffered a bitter penalty for his former thankless conduct to the Free -State. The grand ducal orders had to be unconditionally obeyed; and as -any further delay might entail the worst consequences, Galileo fixed 20th -January for his departure.[323] - -Before setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he addressed a -long letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate in the parliament of -Paris, Elia Diodati (not to be confounded with Johannes Diodati, the -translator of the Bible), who corresponded with the most learned men -of the time, and took a lively interest in Galileo’s studies and fate. -Some parts of this letter show how well this strictly theistic, or -more properly, Roman Catholic _savant_, knew how to bring the modern -astronomy into agreement with Christian philosophy and the Bible, and -this from real conviction, for this letter to his friend at Paris was -quite private. From this we may conclude that even his celebrated -demonstrations to Father Castelli, of 21st December, 1613, and the still -more elaborate ones to the Grand Duchess Christine, 1615, were the result -of honest conviction, and were not, as his enemies maintained, mere -dialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and the Copernican theory -into agreement. We give these interesting passages of the letter as well -as those which refer to Galileo’s unhappy situation:— - - “I am sorry that the two books of Morin[324] and Fromond[325] - did not reach me till six months after the publication - of my ‘Dialogues,’ because otherwise I should have had an - opportunity of saying much in praise of both, and of giving - some consideration to a few particular points, especially to - one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished - that Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and - that he should pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which - seem to me very uncertain) to establish its truth. It will - really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, he raises - astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human - sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great - curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of - much mind, I could have wished not to see him fall into, in my - opinion, a grave though wide-spread error; namely, in order - to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls scornful - jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still - more unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy - Scripture, and at length goes so far as to call those views - on these grounds nothing less than heretical. That such a - proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very - easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun, - the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order - and motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations - of God. If asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would - answer, the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is - therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the same - God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never uses words - which appear to be contrary to things as they really are, and - are only so used to accommodate them to the understandings of - rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would reply, - in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of - Scripture, which, in a hundred passages, says things for the - above reason, that if taken literally, are not only heresies, - but blasphemies, since they impute to God, anger, repentance, - forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, whether God, - in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding of the - multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which - is God’s handmaid, and is not changeable at man’s desire, has - not always observed, and does not still maintain, her usual - course in respect to motion, form, and relative positions of - the various parts of the universe—I am certain that he would - answer, the moon has always been spherical, although for a - long period the people thought she was flat; he would say, - in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate - itself to the comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so, - why, in our search for knowledge of the various parts of the - universe, should we begin rather with the words than with the - works of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than - the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled that the - opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards, - demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should - prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have - brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary, - the works are indisputably proved to vary from the literal - meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures the second - place, no detriment to Scripture results from this. Since, in - order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, even to God - Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose that - in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such - strict laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations, - out of regard for the ignorance of the masses, which are - opposed to fact? If it be true that the earth moves and the sun - stands still, it is no detriment to Holy Scripture, since it - speaks of things as they appear to the people. - - “Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning, - I wrote a letter[326] of some length, in which, supported by - the authorities of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed - what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in - questions of natural science, and I proposed that in future - it should not be brought into them. As soon as I am in less - trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less trouble, - because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been - summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited - the circulation of my ‘Dialogues.’ I hear from well-informed - parties that the Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest - quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the - Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin. And all this - although, in order to obtain the _imprimatur_, I went in person - to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of the - Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding, - and omitting, and even after he had given it the _imprimatur_, - ordered that it should be examined again at Florence. The - reviser here, finding nothing else to alter, in order to show - that he had gone through it carefully, contented himself - with substituting some words for others, as, for instance, - in several places, ‘Universum’ for ‘Nature,’ ‘quality’ for - ‘attribute,’ ‘sublime spirit’ for ‘divine spirit,’ excusing - himself to me for it by saying that he foresaw that I should - have to do with fierce foes and bitter persecutors, as has - _indeed come to pass_.”[327] - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -_GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME._ - - Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan - Embassy.—No Notice at first taken of his Coming.—Visits - of Serristori.—Galileo’s Hopefulness.—His Letter to - Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s Audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the - Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that - he must appear before the Holy Office.—His Dejection at the - News.—Niccolini’s Advice not to defend himself. - - -On 20th January this palsied old man set out, borne in a litter, on his -arduous journey to Rome.[328] Near Ponte a Centino, on the frontiers of -the States of the Church, in the unhealthy flats of the vale of Paglia, -he had to submit to a long quarantine, which, in spite of Niccolini’s -repeated efforts, had only been shortened two days.[329] He could not -resume his journey for twenty days, but arrived at length, on 13th -February, at Rome, in good preservation, and alighted at the hotel of -the Tuscan Embassy, where he was most kindly received by Niccolini. -On the next day Niccolini informed Cioli that “Signor Galilei arrived -yesterday evening in good health at this house.” He mentioned further -that Galileo had already called on Mgr. Boccabella, not as an official -personage, as he had resigned his office of assessor to the Holy Office -a fortnight ago, but as a friend who showed great interest in his fate, -and to take his advice as to the conduct to be observed. Galileo had -already introduced himself to the new assessor. Niccolini concluded his -despatch by saying that to-morrow, in the course of the forenoon, he -would introduce Galileo to Cardinal Barberini, and ask him for his kind -mediation with his Holiness, and beg him, in consideration of Galileo’s -age, his reputation, and his ready obedience, to allow him to remain at -the hotel of the embassy, and not to be taken to the Holy Office.[330] - -This request was tacitly granted for the time being, and afterwards -officially confirmed. To Galileo’s great surprise, no notice was -taken of his presence at Rome for some time. Cardinal Barberini gave -him a friendly hint, not at all _ex officio_, that he had better -keep very retired in the ambassador’s house, not receive any one, -nor be seen out of doors, as any other conduct might very likely be -to his disadvantage.[331] Of course the _savant_, anxious as he was, -scrupulously obeyed the admonition, and awaited the event in quiet -retirement, though with great impatience. Not the smallest instruction -was issued by the Holy Office; to all appearance it did not in the least -concern itself about the arrival of the accused which it had urged so -strenuously. But it was appearance only. For only two days after he -came, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor to the Holy Office (the same to whom -a year before Count Magalotti had, by Galileo’s wish, presented one of -the eight copies of the “Dialogues” brought to Rome), called several -times on Galileo, but always said expressly that his visits were entirely -of a private character and originated with himself. But as he always -discussed Galileo’s cause very particularly, there is good reason to -think that he was acting under orders from the Holy Office, who wanted to -discover the present sentiments and defensive arguments of the dreaded -dialectician, that they might act accordingly at the trial,—a measure -entirely in accordance with the traditional practice of the Holy Office. -Niccolini put this construction on the Monsignore’s visits,[332] but -not so Galileo. For although he perceived that in all probability -they were “approved or suggested by the Holy Congregation,” he was far -from thinking any evil, and was delighted that this officer of the -Inquisition, his “old friend and patron,” should “cleverly give him an -opportunity of saying something by way of expressing and confirming his -sincere devotedness to the holy Church and her ministers,” and that he -apparently listened to it all with great approval.[333] He thinks this -course pursued by the Inquisition “may be taken to indicate the beginning -of mild and kindly treatment, very different from the threatened -cords, chains, and dungeons;”[334] indeed, while he assumes that these -conferences are held at the instigation of the authorities, “and for the -purpose of gaining some general information,” he thankfully acknowledges -“that in this case they could not proceed in any way more favourable to -him or less likely to make a sensation.”[335] However, in the sequel -he was to discover soon enough, that they cared nothing whatever about -making a sensation at Rome, and that even in this respect they did not -spare him in the least. - -At this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. On 19th -February he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance the threatened storm -had passed, so that he did not allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck -were inevitable, and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the -more so as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy billows he— - - “Was taking his course with modest sail set.”[336] - -This instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo “to be always -ready to obey and to submit to whatever was ordered, for this was the -only way to allay the irritation of one who was so incensed, and who -treated this affair as a personal one.”[337] It is clear that by this -personal persecutor no other than Urban VIII. can be intended. - -The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo’s of -25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special -attention. It is as follows:— - - “We” (Niccolini and Galileo) “hear at last that the many and - serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have - been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty - in getting rid when the grounds of my defence have been heard, - which are meanwhile being gradually brought, in the best way - that circumstances allow, to the knowledge of some of the - higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen freely - to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So - that in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for.”[338] - -A despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of two days later explains the nature -of this chief accusation:— - - “Although I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo’s - affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can - learn the main difficulty consists in this—that these gentlemen - maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to discuss the - question nor to converse about it. He says, on the contrary, - that those were not the terms of the injunction, which were - that _that doctrine was not to be held nor defended_. He - considers that he has the means of justifying himself, because - it does not at all appear from his book that he does hold - or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as a settled - question, as he merely adduces the reasons _hinc hinde_. The - other points appear to be of less importance and easier to get - over.”[339] - -It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is evident from -Niccolini’s report above—from the first decidedly denies ever having -received an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory _in any way_; -all that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is, -_all that he knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and -with the decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616_. Accordingly he -does not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of the authorities, -and thinks that he can prove it even from the book itself. - -On 27th February the Tuscan ambassador had a long audience of the Pope, -officially announced Galileo’s arrival at Rome, and expressed the hope -that as he had shown his readiness to submit to the papal judgment -and the enlightened opinion of the Congregation, the Pope would now -be convinced of his devout reverence for spiritual things, especially -in reference to the matter in hand. The Pope found it convenient not -to take any notice of this indirect question, and replied that he had -shown Galileo a special and unusual favour in allowing him to stay at -Niccolini’s house instead of in the buildings of the Holy Office; and he -had only done so because he was a distinguished official of the Grand -Duke’s, and it was out of respect for his Highness that he had granted -this exceptional favour to his subject. In order to enhance its value, -Urban also told the ambassador that even a noble of the house of Gonzaga, -a relative of Ferdinand’s, had not only been placed in a litter and -brought under escort to Rome by command of the Holy Office, but had been -taken at once to the Castle and kept there for a long time, until the -trial was ended. Niccolini hastened to acknowledge the greatness of the -favour, expressed his warmest thanks for it, and ventured to plead that -in consideration of Galileo’s age and infirm health the Pope would order -that the trial should come on soon, so that he might return home as soon -as possible. Urban replied that the proceedings of the Holy Office were -generally rather tedious, and he really did not know whether so speedy -a termination could be looked for, as they were still engaged with the -preliminaries of the trial. Urban had by this time become warm, and went -off into complaints of Ciampoli and the rest of his evil counsellors; -he also remarked that although Galileo had expressly stated in his -“Dialogues” that he would only discuss the question of the double motion -of the earth hypothetically, he had, in adducing the arguments for it, -spoken of it as settled, and as if he agreed with it. In conclusion the -Pope said: _Moreover, Galileo had acted contrary to the injunction given -him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine in the name of the Holy Congregation._ -Niccolini mentioned in defence of Galileo all that he had told him about -this accusation, but the Pope adhered obstinately to his opinion. The -ambassador came away from this audience with the scant consolation that, -at all events, Urban’s personal embitterment against Galileo was a little -appeased.[340] We may remark here that what the Pope said about the -proceeding of 26th February, 1616, is just as inaccurate as Riccardi’s -communication to Niccolini was at that time.[341] - -Both Niccolini and the Grand Duke were unwearied in their good offices -for Galileo. The former urgently commended his case to Cardinal Antonio -Barberini, senr., who said he was exceedingly well disposed to Galileo, -and regarded him as a very eminent man; but added that it was a dangerous -question, which might easily introduce some fantastic religious doctrines -into the world, and especially at Florence, where men’s wits were so -subtle and over curious.[342] The Grand Duke, at Galileo’s request, sent -letters of introduction to the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio (the -well-known statesman and historian), who, as Niccolini had learnt, were -members of the Congregation.[343] Ferdinand also thanked the Pope, in an -official letter through Cioli to Niccolini, for the favour of allowing -Galileo to stay at the embassy, ending with a request that the business -might be concluded as soon as possible.[344] - -When Niccolini delivered this message to Urban on 13th March, he told -him that it would be absolutely necessary to summon Galileo to the Holy -Office as soon as the trial came on, because it was the usage and it -could not be departed from. Niccolini again urged Galileo’s health, his -age, and willingness to submit to any penalties; but Urban replied, -“It would not do to act otherwise. May God forgive Galileo for having -intruded into these matters concerning new doctrines and Holy Scripture, -when it is best to keep to universally recognised opinions. May God help -Ciampoli, also, about these new notions, as he seemed to have a leaning -towards them, and to be inclined to the modern philosophy.” The Pope -then expressed his regret at having to “subject Galileo, who had been -his friend, with whom he had often held confidential intercourse, and -eaten at the same table, to these annoyances; but it was in the interests -of religion and faith.” Niccolini remarked, that when Galileo was heard -he would be able, without difficulty, to give satisfactory explanations -of everything; to which Urban replied: “He would be heard when the time -came; but there was one argument which had never been answered, namely, -that God was omnipotent, and therefore everything was possible to Him; -but if so, why should we impose any necessity upon Him?” This was, as we -know, the argument brought forward by Urban in his intimate conversation -with Galileo in 1624, and which at the end of the “Dialogues” he had -put into the mouth of Simplicius as originating “with a very exalted -and learned personage.” Niccolini prudently replied that he did not -understand these matters, but he had heard it said of Galileo that he -did not hold the doctrine of the earth’s double motion as true, but said -that it could not be denied that as God could have created the world in -a thousand ways, He could have created it in this way. Urban replied -with some irritation: “It is not for man to impose necessity upon God.” -Niccolini, who saw that the Pope was getting angry, tried to pacify -him by saying that Galileo was here on purpose to obey and to recant -everything which could be injurious to religion. He then adroitly turned -the subject, and returned to the request that his Holiness would have -compassion on Galileo, and allow him to remain at the embassy. Urban -merely replied that he would have special apartments assigned to Galileo, -the best and most comfortable in the Holy Office. With this Niccolini had -to be content. - -In concluding the despatch of 13th March to Cioli, in which he reported -this interview, he says:—[345] - - “When I returned home I told Galileo in part the conversation - with his Holiness, but not for the present, that it was - intended to summon him to the Holy Office, because I am - convinced that this news would cause him the deepest concern, - and he would be in the greatest anxiety till the time came. I - have thought all the more that it was best to act thus, as no - further particulars are as yet known about his citation; for - the Pope told me in reference to the speedy settlement of the - business, that he did not know what hope there was of it, but - that all that was possible would be done.” - -Meanwhile, Ferdinand II., in spite of the increasingly unpromising -aspect of affairs, continued indefatigably to sustain his ambassador’s -efforts. The latter and Galileo, in two letters of 19th March,[346] -asked the Grand Duke to send letters of recommendation to the eight -other cardinals who composed the Holy Congregation, like those he had -sent to their eminences Bentivoglio and Scaglia, lest they should feel -themselves slighted, and the Grand Duke readily granted the request.[347] -The prelates, however, received these letters with mixed feelings, and -excused themselves from answering them, as it was forbidden them in their -capacity as members of the Holy Office; some even hesitated to receive -the letters at all, and it was not till Niccolini pointed out that -Cardinal Barberini and others had received them, that they consented to -do so.[348] These letters had evidently produced the happiest effect -with the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio. They united, as Niccolini -reported on the 19th to Cioli, in protecting Galileo. Scaglia even read -the celebrated “Dialogues,” and, which was more to the purpose, that he -might, with the help of Castelli,[349] who was best qualified to do it, -explain the offending passages in a conciliatory spirit. - -All this time Galileo, as is evident from his letters, was entertaining -the most confident hopes of the favourable issue of his cause, and -the final triumph of truth over falsehood.[350] Neither he nor his -indefatigable friends, Niccolini and Castelli, could, it is true, learn -anything definite about the actual state of the trial. The members of -the Congregation, who alone could have given any information, kept the -secrets of the Inquisition very close, as indeed they were bound to do -under the heaviest penalties. The month of March passed by before the -Holy Tribunal opened any direct official intercourse with Galileo. April -was now come, and with it the storm which had been so long gathering -burst over his head. - -On the 7th, Niccolini went to Cardinal Barberini by his desire, and was -informed on behalf of the Pope and the Congregation, that, in order to -decide Galileo’s cause, they could not avoid citing him to appear before -the Holy Office, and as it was not known whether it could be all settled -in the course of two hours, perhaps it would be necessary to detain him -there. Barberini continued that “out of respect for the house in which -Galileo had been staying, and for Niccolini as grand ducal ambassador, -and in consideration of the good understanding which had always existed -between his Highness and the papal chair, especially in matters relating -to the Inquisition, they had not failed to inform him (Niccolini) of -this beforehand, not to be wanting in respect for a prince so zealous -for religion.” After Niccolini had warmly thanked the cardinal for the -attention shown by the Pope and the Congregation to the Grand Duke, and -to himself as his ambassador, he pleaded Galileo’s age and health,—he -had again been suffering severely from a fresh attack of the gout,—and -finally the deep grief he would feel, and earnestly begged that his -eminence would consider whether it would not be possible to permit him -to return every evening to sleep at the embassy. As to secrecy, the -strictest silence might be enjoined on him under threat of the severest -penalties. But the prelate was not of opinion that such a permission was -to be expected; he proffered, however, every comfort for Galileo that -could be desired, and said that he would neither, as was customary with -accused persons, be treated as a prisoner, nor be placed in a secret -prison; he would have good rooms, and perhaps even the doors would not be -locked. - -Niccolini reported this notification to Cioli on 9th April,[351] and -added the following interesting information:— - - “This morning I also conversed with his Holiness on the - subject, after having expressed my thanks for the communication - made to me; the Pope again gave vent to his displeasure that - Galileo should have discussed this subject, which appears to - him to be very serious, and of great moment to religion. Signor - Galileo thinks, nevertheless, that he can defend his statements - on good grounds; but I have warned him to refrain from doing - so, in order not to prolong the proceedings, and to submit - to what shall be prescribed to him to believe respecting the - motion of the earth. He has fallen into the deepest dejection, - and since yesterday has sunk so low that I am in great concern - for his life.” - -From this, then, we learn that up to 8th April Galileo was still -intending to defend his opinions before the Holy Tribunal; and that it -was only on the urgent expostulation of the ambassador, whom he knew -to be his sincere friend, that he gave up all idea of opposition, and -resolved upon entire and passive submission. How hard it was for him to -yield is evident from the concluding sentence of Niccolini’s despatch. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -_THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION._ - - The First Hearing.—Galileo’s submissive Attitude.—The Events - of February, 1616.—Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special - Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s Certificate.—Either the - Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s Ignorance was - feigned.—His Conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The - Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—Opinions of Oregius, - Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the Palace - of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri - Bocchineri.—Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an - Enigma.—Now explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. - Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency. - - -On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first -hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General -of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the -fiscal attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all -his answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of -shortening the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive -acquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to -form a correct judgment of his depositions before the dread tribunal.[352] - -According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to -the accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether -he knows or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that -he supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He -was then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, “Dialogo di -Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” which treats of the two systems of the world, -as entirely his own; to which he replied after a close examination of -the copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written -by himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes -to know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason. -He deposed that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he -had heard that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions, -and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter, -in order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This -deposition seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case; -for we know that he went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the -one hand, to frustrate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, -Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the threatened -prohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his scientific demonstrations. -The motive of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact -that he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the -admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of -5th March. - -The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own -accord, or in consequence of a summons. “_In the year 1616 I came of my -own accord to Rome, without being summoned_,” was the decided answer. -The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time -with several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these -conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he -might instruct them about Copernicus’s book, which was difficult for -laymen to understand, as they specially desired to acquaint themselves -with the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. -The Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject. - - _Galileo_: “Respecting the controversy which had arisen on - the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the - earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the - Index, that such an opinion, considered as an established - fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible - as a conjecture (_ex suppositione_), as it was held by - Copernicus.”[353] - - _Inquisitor_: “Was this decision then communicated to you, and - by whom?” - - _Galileo_: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index - was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.” - - _Inquisitor_: “You must state what his Eminence Cardinal - Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether - he said anything else on the subject, and what?” - - _Galileo_: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that - the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a - conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence - was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as - a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same - Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, - provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in - which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that your reverence - and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with - speaking _ex suppositione_, and not with certainty.’ This - letter of the cardinal’s is dated 12th April, 1615.[354] It - means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely, - must not be either held or defended.” - -Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616, -and communicated to him. - - _Galileo_: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal - Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if - adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must - neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held - hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance - with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal - Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the - Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is - opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith - submit a copy.”[355] - - _Inquisitor_: “When the above communication was made to you, - were any other persons present, and who?” - - _Galileo_: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to - me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some - Dominican fathers were present, but I did not know them, and - have never seen them since.” - - _Inquisitor_: “Was any other command communicated to you on - this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any - one else, and what?” - - _Galileo_: “I remember that the transaction took place as - follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning, - and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the - ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[356] - But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican - opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must not be - held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those - Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came - afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present - when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be - held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should - not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not - remember it, for it is several years ago.” - - _Inquisitor_: “If what was then said and enjoined upon you as a - command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?” - - _Galileo_: “I do not remember that anything else was said or - enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what - was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what - I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way - disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held - nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun - is stationary.” - -The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him -before witnesses contained: “that he must neither hold, defend, nor teach -that opinion in any way whatsoever.”[357] Will he please to say whether -he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him. - - _Galileo_: “_I do not remember that the command was intimated - to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally_; and I remember - that the command was, _not to hold nor defend_. It may be - that, ‘and _not to teach_’ was also there. I do not remember - it, neither the definition ‘in any way whatsoever’ (_quovis - modo_), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about - it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as - a few months later I received the certificate now produced, - of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in - which the injunction given me, _not to hold nor defend_ that - opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions - of the said injunction which have just been made known to me, - namely, _not to teach_, and _in any way_, I have not retained - in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the - said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a - reminder.” - -Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the -injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the -Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal -Bellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a -_command_ was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; -but true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: “It -may be, but I do not remember it.” But the Inquisitor treats the issue -of the “command” as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may -have appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the -decree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it -was issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption -of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo “that this command issued to -him before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend, -nor teach that opinion.” Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any -way whatever” and “nor teach,” sound new, entrenches himself behind -his stereotyped answer, “I do not remember it.” Then he appeals to the -certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which -does not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query -_who_ intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: “Cardinal -Bellarmine.” He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the -cardinal’s communication as the _command_. Galileo’s depositions do not -contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of -26th February reports), after the cardinal’s communication, any further -instruction was given him by the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in -the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial -before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important -proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo’s memory. There are but -two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo -cannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned. - -Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter -supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume -with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen, -and whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo -would only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if -it would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the -advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no -means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen—supposing him to -make false depositions—from the Inquisitor’s questions that he had the -protocol of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction -be in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his -cause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has pointed out that it would -have been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed -ignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner, -never contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo’s depositions. His -simplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of -falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course -of the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his difficult part. - -While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption -of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more -weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he -knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all -Galileo’s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the -seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the strongest evidence -for the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the -letters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no -trace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses -his satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an -entire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again -mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains open. And -the attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new -system is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the -Index of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with -the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. -This is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published -in the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise on the tides to the -Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican -theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get -the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought, -more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special -prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same -date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican -theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues” themselves, -in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the -published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would -have infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system. - -We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements, -in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the -Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold, -teach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does -not take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted -on the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for -example, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th -February, 1616, and confront them with the accused. And as no attempt is -made to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply -taken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say -the least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using, -without any close examination, a paper as a valid document on the trial, -which was destitute of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely, -the signatures of the accused, of the notary and witnesses, and in spite -of three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments -are needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from -mere carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared -that he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by -Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after -the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission -to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he -afterwards had printed? - - _Galileo_: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not - ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine, - because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting - contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold, - defend, or to teach the said opinion.” - -The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what -way, Galileo had received permission to print the “Dialogues.” Galileo -briefly relates the whole course of the negotiations which preceded -the printing. As his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it -is not reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking -permission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about -the command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy -Congregation? - - _Galileo_: “I did not say anything about that command to the - Master of the Palace when I asked for the _imprimatur_ for the - book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything, because - I had no scruples about it; for I have neither maintained - nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and the sun - is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated - the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the - arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.” - -With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the -first hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath -on subjects connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in -the private residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings -of this tribunal. Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and -Niccolini’s reports) kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he -wrote to Geri Bocchineri:— - - “Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have - been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of - the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the - spacious apartments. My health is good, for which, next to God, - I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and his wife, - who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and far more than I - require.”[358] - -[Illustration] - -Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the -meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about -him, and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy -Office.[359] No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence -between Galileo and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend -and patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions, -without exciting any observation.[360] - -While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing -but favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him, -nothing was left undone to find the best method of effecting his moral -ruin. At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on, -his faithful friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed -in theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not -recalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned, had left the -city.[361] - -Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the -Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias -Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius -declared that “in the book superscribed ‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’ -the doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is -stationary is _maintained_ and _defended_.” Inchofer’s statements (he -drew up two) declared that “Galileo had not only taught and defended -that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it, -and even held it to this day.” Both these attestations were supported by -a memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted -from the “Dialogues.”[362] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his -book had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the -universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that -in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth’s -motion round the sun. - -Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses -his view that Galileo, by the publication of his “Dialogues,” had -infringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to -hold the Copernican Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or -speaking, in respect to _teaching_ and _defending_, and it was very -suspicious that he _held_ it. - -In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the -“Dialogues,”[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo -had stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only -as a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical -language, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments. - -Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special -prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it -both as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the -suspicion of holding it.[364] - -By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as decided. His -transgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the -special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of -his guilt there could be no question—neither could there be any of the -penalty. - -The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been -so essential to the old man’s health,[365] combined with great mental -agitation, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to -Geri Bocchineri:— - - “I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen - hours with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my - experience, will last as much longer. A little while ago I had - a visit from the commissary and the fiscal who conduct the - inquiry. They have promised and intimated it as their settled - intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am able to get up - again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I place - more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to - me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather - upon surmises than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my - innocence and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now - hope it more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will - conclude.”[366] - -The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has -hitherto astounded all those who have studied this famous trial; for -while at the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied -having defended the Copernican system in his “Dialogues,” and even -asserted that he had done just the contrary, at the second hearing, -almost without waiting for the Inquisitor’s questions, he makes a humble -declaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a penitent confession -that he had defended it in his book. The cause of this change in Galileo -is explained by a most interesting letter from the Commissary-General -of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at -that time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco -Barberini. This letter of 28th April, 1633, first published in full by -Pieralisi, the learned librarian of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have -so often quoted, is as follows:[367]— - - “In compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday - informed the most eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of - Galileo’s cause, the position of which I briefly reported. - Their Eminences approved of what has been done thus far, - and took into consideration, on the other hand, various - difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case, - and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has - in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the - book written by him; since in consequence of this denial there - would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure - and less regard to the other considerations belonging to - this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that - the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat - extra-judicially with Galileo, in order to render him sensible - of his error, and bring him, if he recognises it, to a - confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first sight - too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing - this object by merely adopting the method of argument with - him; but upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made - the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might - be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday - afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed - between us, by God’s grace I attained my object, for I brought - him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised - that he had erred, and had gone too far in his book. And to all - this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who - experienced great consolation in the recognition of his error, - and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested, - however, a little time in order to consider the form in which - he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as - its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner - indicated. - - I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence - with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for - I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied - that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point - that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will - maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal leniently - with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will - recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences - of satisfaction herein desired. To-day I think of examining - him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as - I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to - question him with regard to his intention, and to impose - the prohibitions upon him; and that done, he might have the - house[368] assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your - Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence. - - Rome, 28th April, 1633. - - Your Eminence’s humble and most obedient servant, - - FRA VINCᵒ DA FIRENZUOLA.” - -The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola -proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo’s -indisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the -truth, after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then -began the following melancholy confession:— - - “In the course of some days’ continuous and attentive - reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of - the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen - years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the - Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach ‘in any - manner,’ the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the - motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred - to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three years I - had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to - my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen - from my pen anything from which a reader or the authorities - might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, but - also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had - contravened the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the - kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about - my servant, I succeeded in procuring a copy of my book, and - having procured it I applied myself with the utmost diligence - to its perusal, and to a most minute consideration thereof. And - as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented - itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another - author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to - me set forth in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real - purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments - adduced on the false side, and which it was my intention to - confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel - conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. Two - arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the solar - spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide—which in - truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of - force and power than ought to have been imparted to them by - one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to - refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold - them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as - excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to - my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that - when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the - object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in - the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form, and - should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent,—not - contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,—I resorted to that - of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard - to his own subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than - the generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false - propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all this, - although with Cicero ‘_avidior sim gloriae quam satis est_,’ - if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt - I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make - an apparent show of that force of which they are really and - essentially devoid. My error, then, has been—and I confess - it—one of vainglorious ambition, and of pure ignorance and - inadvertence. - - This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this - particular, and which suggested itself to me during the - re-perusal of my book.”[369] - -After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed -immediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But -he must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial -of his inmost convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had -desired in his extra-judicial interview, further than the Inquisition -itself required. He did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the -“error” into which he had fallen in writing his “Dialogues” sufficient. -The Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution publicly -to correct it. He therefore returned at once to the court where the -sacred tribunal was still sitting, and made the following undignified -proposition:— - - “And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and - do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of - the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—if there - shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a - clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready to do so: and there - is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in the - work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again - after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of - nature, connected with the matter discoursed of at their - meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or - two other ‘days,’ I promise to resume the arguments already - adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has - been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual - method as by the blessing of God may be supplied to me. I - pray, therefore, this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good - resolution, and to enable me to put it in effect.”[370] - -It is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of science; and -yet the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific -convictions for which he had striven and laboured for half a century, -who even proposes in a continuation of his monumental work on the two -chief systems of the world to annihilate all the arguments therein -adduced for the recognition of the only true system, can never be -absolved by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and -insincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the century the opening of -which had been ominously marked by the funeral pile of Giordano Bruno, -and but eight years before, the corpse of Marc’Antonio de Dominis,—the -famous Archbishop of Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of -the Engelsburg during his trial before the Inquisition,—had, after the -sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting place and -publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical writings. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -_THE TRIAL CONTINUED._ - - Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His - Hopefulness.—Third Hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement - of it with previous Events.—Confident Hopes of his - Friends.—Niccolini’s Fears.—Decision to examine Galileo under - threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s Audience of the Pope.—Informed - that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be sentenced, - and would be imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to - “_locum suum_.”—No Evidence that he suffered Torture or was - placed in a Prison Cell. - - -On the day on which the second hearing had taken place, at Firenzuola’s -suggestion to the Pope, Galileo was permitted, in consideration of his -age and infirmities, to return to the hotel of the Tuscan ambassador, -on oath not to leave it, not to hold any intercourse with any one but -the inmates of the house, to present himself before the Holy Office -whenever summoned, and to maintain the strictest silence about the -course of the trial.[371] On the very next day Niccolini wrote to Cioli -with great satisfaction: “Signor Galileo was yesterday sent back to -my house when I was not at all expecting him, and although the trial -is not yet ended.”[372] The Tuscan Secretary of State replied on 4th -May, with the curt observation: “His Highness was much pleased at the -liberation of Signor Galileo,” and immediately adds the ill-humoured and -unworthy remark: “It appears to me that I must remind your Excellency -that when I wrote to you to entertain Signor Galileo at the embassy, the -time specified was one month, and the expenses of the remaining time -must fall upon himself.”[373] Niccolini replied with ill-concealed -indignation: “It would not become me to speak of this subject to Galileo -while he is my guest; I would rather bear the expense myself, which only -comes to fourteen or fifteen scudi a month, everything included; so that -if Galileo should remain here the whole summer, that is six months, the -outlay for him and his servant would amount to about from ninety to a -hundred scudi.”[374] - -Galileo, who had no idea that his generous protector, Niccolini, had even -had to go into unpleasant questions about his support, was entertaining -the most confident hopes of a successful and speedy termination of -his trial. Although his letters of this period are unfortunately not -extant,[375] we see from the answers of his correspondents what sanguine -accounts he sent them. Geri Bocchineri wrote on 12th May: - - “I have for a long time had no such consolatory news as - that which your letter of the 7th brought me. It gives me - well-founded hopes that the calumnies and snares of your - enemies will be in vain; and in the end, the annoyances - involved in the defence, maintenance, and perhaps even - increase, of your reputation, can be willingly borne, as - you undoubtedly have borne them, since you have gained far - more than you have lost by the calamity that has fallen upon - you! My pleasure is still more enhanced by the news that you - expect to be able to report the end of the affair in the next - letter.”[376] - -But many a post day was to pass over, many a letter from Galileo to be -received, before his trial was to come to the conclusion he so little -anticipated. - -On 10th May he was summoned for the third time before the Holy Tribunal, -where Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, -informed him that eight days were allowed him in which to write a defence -if he wished to submit one. But Galileo handed it in _at once_,[377] -from which we may conclude that he had been informed of this proceeding -beforehand. It was as follows:— - - “When asked if I had signified to the Reverend Father, the - Master of the Sacred Palace, the injunction privately laid - upon me, about sixteen years ago, by order of the Holy Office, - not to hold, defend, or ‘in any way’ teach the doctrine of the - motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, I answered - that I had not done so. And not being questioned as to the - reason why I had not intimated it, I had no opportunity to add - anything further. It now appears to me necessary to state the - reason, in order to demonstrate the purity of my intention, - ever foreign to the employment of simulation or deceit in - any operation I engage in. I say, then, that as at that time - reports were spread abroad by evil-disposed persons, to the - effect that I had been summoned by the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine - to abjure certain of my opinions and doctrines, and that I had - consented to abjure them, and also to submit to punishment for - them, I was thus constrained to apply to his Eminence, and - to solicit him to furnish me with an attestation, explaining - the cause for which I had been summoned before him; which - attestation I obtained, in his own handwriting, and it is - the same that I now produce with the present document.[378] - From this it clearly appears that it was merely announced to - me that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus of the motion - of the earth and the stability of the sun must not be held - or defended, and ... [Here the MS. is defaced] beyond this - general announcement affecting every one, any other injunction - in particular was intimated to me, no trace thereof appears - there. Having, then, as a reminder, this authentic attestation - in the handwriting of the very person who intimated the command - to me, I made no further application of thought or memory with - regard to the words employed in announcing to me the said order - not to hold or defend the doctrine in question; so that the - two articles of the order—in addition to the injunction not to - ‘hold’ or ‘defend’ it—to wit, the words ‘nor to teach it’ ‘in - any way whatsoever’—which I hear are contained in the order - intimated to me, and registered—struck me as quite novel and as - if I had not heard them before; and I do not think I ought to - be disbelieved when I urge that in the course of fourteen or - sixteen years I had lost all recollection of them, especially - as I had no need to give any particular thought to them, - having in my possession so authentic a reminder in writing. - Now, if the said two articles be left out, and those two only - be retained which are noted in the accompanying attestation, - there is no doubt that the injunction contained in the latter - is the same command as that contained in the decree of the - Sacred Congregation of the Index. Whence it appears to me that - I have a reasonable excuse for not having notified to the - Master of the Sacred Palace the command privately imposed upon - me, it being the same as that of the Congregation of the Index. - - Seeing also, that my book was not subject to a stricter - censorship than that made binding by the decree of the Index, - it will, it appears to me, be sufficiently plain that I adopted - the surest and most becoming method of having it guaranteed - and purged of all shadow of taint, inasmuch as I handed it - to the supreme Inquisitor at the very time when many books - dealing with the same matters were being prohibited solely in - virtue of the said decree. After what I have now stated, I - would confidently hope that the idea of my having knowingly - and deliberately violated the command imposed upon me, will - henceforth be entirely banished from the minds of my most - eminent and wise judges; so that those faults which are seen - scattered throughout my book have not been artfully introduced - with any concealed or other than sincere intention, but have - only inadvertently fallen from my pen, owing to a vainglorious - ambition and complacency in desiring to appear more subtle than - the generality of popular writers, as indeed in another ... - [MS. defaced] deposition I have confessed: which fault I shall - be ready to correct by writing whenever I may be commanded or - permitted by your Eminences. - - Lastly, it remains for me to pray you to take into - consideration my pitiable state of bodily indisposition, to - which, at the age of seventy years, I have been reduced by ten - months of constant mental anxiety and the fatigue of a long - and toilsome journey at the most inclement season—together - with the loss of the greater part of the years of which, - from my previous condition of health, I had the prospect. - I am persuaded and encouraged to do so by the clemency and - goodness of the most eminent lords, my judges; with the hope - that they may be pleased, in answer to my prayer, to remit - what may appear to their entire justice ... to such sufferings - as adequate punishment—out of consideration for my declining - age, which too, I humbly commend to them. And I would equally - commend to their consideration my honour and reputation, - against the calumnies of ill-wishers, whose persistence in - detracting from my good name may be inferred from the necessity - which constrained me to procure from the Lord Cardinal - Bellarmine the attestation which accompanies this.”[379] - -This touching appeal to the mercy of the judges of the Holy Office can -scarcely be read without feelings of the profoundest pity for the unhappy -old man, who, in the evening of his days, felt compelled by dread of the -stake to deny his scientific convictions. - -In looking at the defence in a judicial light, in spite of mistrust in -the truthfulness of the accused, for which there is some justification, -it must be allowed that his statements about the proceedings of sixteen -years before, agree entirely with all his letters and actions from 1616 -to 1632. In view of this state of the case, Galileo’s remark in his -defence that “he had received that certificate from the very person who -had intimated the command to him,” possesses increased significance. His -whole defence is intended to convince the judges that the two particulars -“not to teach” and “in any way” were unknown to him up to the day of his -first hearing, or, as he says, to avoid direct contradiction, “he had -lost all recollection of them.” He obviously thinks that the gravity -of the indictment lies in these words. But he seems to be absolutely -ignorant of their having been issued to him after the previous admonition -of the Cardinal, by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, with -the threat that “otherwise they would proceed against him in the Holy -Office,” indeed, by the above remark he decidedly contradicts it. -Apologists of the Inquisition at any price, of the stamp of Mgr. Marini, -do not fail to adopt the only means left to them, and call Galileo’s -defence “childish evasions unworthy of so great a man, which are sure -signs of guilt.”[380] We are of opinion, on the contrary, that the -confident hopes of a favourable issue of his trial, by which, as appears -from the replies of his correspondents and Niccolini’s despatches, -Galileo was animated up to the last moment, by no means comport with -consciousness of guilt. - -After his defence had been received, and the same obligations imposed on -him on oath as after the second hearing, he was allowed to return to the -embassy. The nearer the time approached when the old man’s illusions were -to be dispelled, the more sanguine was the intelligence he sent to his -friends. He reminds one of a consumptive patient, full of hope when in -the last stage of his disorder. Galileo receives in reply to his letters -the congratulations of his friends on the, as they suppose, doubtless -favourable issue of his trial. Cardinal Capponi writes on 21st May, that -he had never expected anything else.[381] Bocchineri, Guiducci, Agguinti, -Cini, and others heartily express their satisfaction;[382] the Archbishop -of Siena, Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo’s devoted friend, invites him, in -expectation of his speedy dismissal from Rome, to come and see him at -Siena, that he may await the extinction of the plague at Florence.[383] -Galileo accepts the friendly invitation, and informs Bocchineri that -he intends to go to Siena immediately after the end of the trial.[384] -Archbishop Piccolomini even offers his impatiently expected guest a -litter for the journey.[385] A favour granted to Galileo just at the -last, on the urgent solicitation of Niccolini, and quite unheard of in -the annals of the Inquisition, might have increased these confident -hopes. He was permitted to take the air for the sake of his health in -the gardens of the Castle of Gandolfo, to which, however, he was always -conveyed in a half-closed carriage, as he was not to be seen in the -streets.[386] - -Niccolini, however, did not share the hopes of his famous guest, and for -very good reasons. He had had an audience, on 21st May, of the Pope and -Cardinal Barberini, who had told him in answer to his inquiries when the -trial might be expected to end, that it would probably be concluded in -the congregation to take place in about a fortnight. After reporting this -in his despatch to Cioli of 22nd May, Niccolini continues: “I very much -fear that the book will be prohibited, unless it is averted by Galileo’s -being charged, as I proposed, to write an apology. Some ‘salutary -penance’ will also be imposed upon him, as they maintain that he has -transgressed the command communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine in -1616. I have not yet told him all this, because I want to prepare him for -it by degrees, in order not to distress him. It will also be advisable to -observe silence about this in Florence, that he may not hear it from his -friends there; and the more so, as it may turn out otherwise.”[387] It -was indeed “to turn out otherwise,” but in a way that even Niccolini did -not in the least suspect. - -A momentary lull now took place in Galileo’s trial—the preparation for -the great catastrophe that was to take all the world by surprise. Sultry -silence reigned for four weeks. No one, not even Niccolini, could learn -anything about the progress of the affair; the thunderbolt had already -fallen which was to crush the accused before it was known to anyone -beyond the Holy Congregation. His fate had been sealed in a private -meeting of it presided over by the Pope. Unfortunately we have no written -notes of the proceedings of this highly interesting sitting. From two -documents, which agree entirely in essentials, we simply know what the -decrees were which minutely prescribed the final proceedings to be taken -against Galileo. One of these documents is derived from the Vatican -collection of the acts of Galileo’s trial; the other is reproduced in -Gherardi’s collection of documents, and belongs to the MS. originals of -the decrees drawn up in the sittings of the Holy Congregation in the -archives of the Inquisition. - -It is decreed in both documents[388] which agree almost verbatim: To try -Galileo _as to his intention, and under threat of torture_; if he kept -firm, he was to be called upon to recant before a plenary assembly of -the Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned to imprisonment according -to the judgment of the Holy Congregation, and ordered in future not -to discuss, either in writing or speaking, the opinion that the earth -moves and the sun is stationary, nor yet the contrary opinion, under -pain of further punishment for contumacy; further, the work, “Dialogo di -Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” was to be prohibited. And in order to make this -known everywhere, copies of the sentence were to be sent to all papal -envoys, and all inquisitors into heretical crimes, and specially to the -Inquisitor of Florence, who was to proclaim it in a full conclave of the -Congregation, and read it publicly to a majority of the professors of -mathematics summoned for the purpose. - -It is noteworthy that it was expressly decreed that Galileo was to be -enjoined, “nor yet to discuss the contrary opinion,” the Ptolemaic. -They obviously accredited the clever dialectician with the skill, under -pretext of defending the old system, of demonstrating exactly the -contrary. It therefore seemed most prudent to impose absolute silence on -him on this delicate subject. - -Two days after the course of the proceedings had been secretly determined -on, the Pope gave audience to Niccolini, who once more came to beg for -a speedy termination of the trial. Urban VIII. said that it had already -been terminated, and that within the next few days Galileo would be -summoned before the Holy Office to hear his sentence. The ambassador, -who was terrified at this unexpected intelligence, hastened to implore -his Holiness, out of respect for his Highness the Grand Duke, to mollify -the severity which the Holy Congregation might perhaps have thought it -necessary to exercise; and added obligingly that the great complaisance -shown to the Grand Duke in the matter of Galileo was fully appreciated, -and that the Grand Duke was only awaiting the end of the business to -express his gratitude in person. The Pope replied, with equal suavity, -that his Highness need not take this trouble, as he had readily granted -every amelioration to Galileo out of affection for him; but as to his -cause, they could do no less than prohibit that opinion, because it -was erroneous and contrary to Holy Scripture, dictated _ex ore Dei_; -as to his person, he would, according to usage, be imprisoned for a -time, _because he had transgressed the mandate issued to him in 1616_. -“However,” added Urban, “after the publication of the sentence we will -see you again, and we will consult together so that he may suffer as -little distress as possible, since it cannot be let pass without some -demonstration against his person.” In reply to Niccolini’s renewed urgent -entreaties that his Holiness would extend his accustomed mercy to the -pitiable old man of seventy, the Pope said that “he would at any rate be -sent for a time to some monastery, as for instance, St. Croce; for he -really did not know precisely what the Holy Congregation might decree -(?!), but it was unanimous and _nemine discrepante_ in intending to -impose a penance on Galileo.” - -The very same day the ambassador sent a detailed despatch about this -audience to Cioli,[389] and remarked at the end that he had simply -informed Galileo of the approaching end of the trial, and of the -prohibition of his book, but had said nothing about the personal -punishment, in order not to trouble him too much at once; the Pope had -also enjoined this, that Galileo might not distress himself yet, and -“because perhaps in the course of the proceedings things might take a -better turn.” - -Galileo’s trial now proceeded strictly according to the programme settled -by the Congregation of the Holy Office under the papal presidency. On the -evening of Monday, 20th June, Galileo received a summons from the Holy -Office to appear the next day.[390] In this final hearing the accused -was to be questioned, under threat of torture, about his intention, that -is, as to his real conviction concerning the two systems. On the morning -of the 21st Galileo appeared before his judges. After he had taken the -usual oath, and had answered in the negative the query whether he had any -statement to make, the examiner began as follows:— - -Interrogated whether he holds or has held, and how long ago, that the sun -is the centre of the world and that the earth is not the centre of the -world, and moves, and also with a diurnal motion; - -He answered: “A long time ago, _i.e._, before the decision of the Holy -Congregation of the Index, and before the injunction was intimated to me, -I was indifferent, and regarded both opinions, namely, that of Ptolemy -and that of Copernicus, as open to discussion, inasmuch as either one or -the other might be true in nature; but after the said decision, assured -of the wisdom of the authorities, I ceased to have any doubt; and I held, -as I still hold, as most true and indisputable, the opinion of Ptolemy, -that is to say, the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun.” - -Being told that from the manner and connection in which the said opinion -is discussed in the book printed by him subsequently to the time -mentioned—nay, from the very fact of his having written and printed -the said book, he is presumed to have held this opinion after the time -specified; and being called upon to state the truth as to whether he -holds or has held the same; - -He answered: “As regards the writing of the published dialogue, my motive -in so doing was not because I held the Copernican doctrine to be true, -but simply thinking to confer a common benefit, I have set forth the -proofs from nature and astronomy which may be adduced on either side; -my object being to make it clear that neither the one set of arguments -nor the other has the force of conclusive demonstration in favour of -this opinion or of that; and that therefore, in order to proceed with -certainty we must have recourse to the decisions of higher teaching, as -may be clearly seen from a large number of passages in the dialogue in -question. I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold -the condemned opinion, and have not held it since the decision of the -authorities.” - -Being told that from the book itself and from the arguments adduced on -the affirmative side,—namely, that the earth moves and that the sun is -immovable,—it is presumed, as aforesaid, that he holds the opinion of -Copernicus, or at least that he held it at that time; and that therefore, -unless he make up his mind to confess the truth, recourse will be had -against him to the appropriate remedies of the law; - -He answered: “I do not hold, and have not held this opinion of Copernicus -since the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it; for the -rest, I am here in your hands,—do with me what you please.” Being once -more bidden to speak the truth, otherwise recourse will be had to -torture, the terrified old man answered with the resignation of despair: -“I am here to obey, and I have not held this opinion since the decision -was pronounced, as I have stated.” - -In the protocol of the trial the concluding sentence follows immediately -after this last answer of Galileo’s: “And as nothing further could be -done in execution of the decree (of 16th June), his signature was -obtained to his deposition, and he was sent back to his place.”[391] - -There is not in this document, nor in any other extant, the slightest -trace that torture was actually applied to Galileo, as has long and -even recently been fabled. Since the publication of it by Epinois -has acquainted us with the decree of 16th June, none such can be -expected ever to be found. In that decree the course of the final legal -proceedings was precisely indicated. But it was only the _threat_ of -torture that was prescribed, after which recantation and sentence of -imprisonment were to follow. The execution of this threat, then, would -have been a gross, and under the circumstances, incredible violation of -the decrees of the Holy Office itself. Moreover, the assumed torture of -Galileo is opposed, as we shall see by and by, to various historical -facts. When the whole course of the trial is unrolled before our eyes, we -shall go more deeply into the region of fable and malicious fabrication. - -But as we pursue the path of history, we come upon an error which Mgr. -Marini’s peculiar mode of interpretation has given rise to. He takes the -concluding words of the protocol of the trial of 21st June, “remissus -fuit ad locum suum,” to mean that Galileo was sent back to the Tuscan -embassy.[392] Now, it is indisputable, from a despatch of Niccolini’s to -Cioli of 26th June, 1633, that after the hearing of the 21st June, the -accused was detained in the buildings of the Holy Office, and did not -leave them till the 24th.[393] - -We have no information whatever as to the treatment he met with this time -in the buildings of the Holy Office. Was he put into the apartments he -had occupied before, or was he confined in a prisoner’s cell? From the -considerate treatment in outward things which Galileo met with during his -trial at Rome, it may perhaps be concluded _that he never was thrown into -the dungeons of the Inquisition_. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -_THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._ - - The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican - System had not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible” - Authority.—The Special Prohibition assumed as Fact.—The - Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office - exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—The - Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred - and thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to - show that Galileo had really altered his Opinion.—After the - Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’ - Monti.—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to - Siena. - - -On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, in the forenoon, Galileo was conducted -to the large hall used for melancholy proceedings of this kind, in the -Dominican Convent of St. Maria sopra la Minerva, where, in the presence -of his judges and a large assemblage of cardinals and prelates of the -Holy Congregation, the following sentence was read to him:— - - WE, Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia; - Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasia, detto d’Ascoli; - Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio; - Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona; - Fra Antonio Barberino detto di S. Onofrio; - Laudivio Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di - S. Sisto; - Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi; - Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna, Verospi, - chiamato Prete; - Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e - Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi; - - by the grace of God, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, - Inquisitors General, by the Holy Apostolic see specially - deputed, against heretical depravity throughout the whole - Christian Republic. - - Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, - Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 - denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false - doctrine taught by many, that the sun is the centre of the - world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and also with - a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught - the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain - mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having - printed certain letters, entitled “On the Solar Spots,” wherein - you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to - the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to - time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures - according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon - produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, - purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, - and in this divers propositions are set forth,[394] following - the hypothesis of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true - sense and authority of Holy Scripture: - - This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding - against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went - on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of - his Holiness and of the most eminent Lords Cardinals of this - supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the - stability of the sun and the motion of the earth were by the - theological “Qualifiers” qualified as follows: - - The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world - and does not move from its place is absurd and false - philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly - contrary to the Holy Scripture. - - The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world - and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal - motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and - theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. - - But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with - you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before his - Holiness on the 25th February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord - Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the - said false doctrine, and, in the event of your refusal, that an - injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the - Holy Office, to give up the said doctrine, and not to teach it - to others, nor to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing - your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be - imprisoned. And in execution of this decree, on the following - day, at the Palace, and in the presence of his Eminence, the - said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished - by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was intimated to you by - the Father Commissary of the Holy Office for the time before a - notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the - said false opinion, and not in future to defend or teach it in - any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon - your promising to obey you were dismissed. - - And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly - rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave - prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy - Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books which treat of - this doctrine, and declaring the doctrine itself to be false - and wholly contrary to sacred and divine Scripture. - - And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year - at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the - author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the - Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and the - Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards - informed that through the publication of the said book, the - false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability - of the sun was daily gaining ground; the said book was taken - into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a - patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been - imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said - opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be - so, although in the said book you strive by various devices - to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in - express terms as probable: which however is a most grievous - error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been - declared and defined to be contrary to Divine Scripture: - - Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office, - where, being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book - to be written and published by you. You confessed that you - began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago, - after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you - requested licence to print it, without however intimating to - those who granted you this licence that you had been commanded - not to hold, defend, or teach in any way whatever the doctrine - in question. - - You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in - various places drawn up in such a form that the reader might - fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side - are rather calculated by their cogency to compel conviction - than to be easy of refutation; excusing yourself for having - fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your - intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue, and - by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to - his own subtleties, and in showing himself more clever than - the generality of men, in devising, even on behalf of false - propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. - - And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare - your defence, you produced a certificate in the handwriting - of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by - you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against - the calumnies of your enemies, who gave out that you had - abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which - certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had - not been punished, but merely that the declaration made by - his Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the - Index, had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that - the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of - the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore - cannot be defended or held. And as in this certificate there - is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely, - the order not “to teach” and “in any way,” you represented - that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or - sixteen years you had lost all memory of them; and that this - was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested - permission to print your book. And all this you urged not - by way of excuse for your error, but that it might be set - down to a vainglorious ambition rather than to malice. But - this certificate produced by you in your defence has only - aggravated your delinquency, since although it is there stated - that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have - nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its - probability; nor does the licence artfully and cunningly - extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify - the command imposed upon you. - - And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full - truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary - to subject you to a rigorous examination, at which (without - prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you, and - set forth as above, with regard to your said intention) you - answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and - maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together - with your confessions and excuses above mentioned, and all that - ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the - underwritten final sentence against you:— - - Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus - Christ and of His most glorious Mother, and ever Virgin Mary, - by this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the - counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology - and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these - writings, in the cause and causes presently before us between - the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor - Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and you Galileo - Galilei, the defendant, here present, tried and confessed as - above, of the other part,—we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, - that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in - process, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself - in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of - heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which - is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that - the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from - east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the centre - of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as - probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary - to Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred - all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the - sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, - against such delinquents. From which we are content that you - be absolved, provided that first, with a sincere heart, and - unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid - errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary - to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be - prescribed by us. - - And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and - transgression may not remain altogether unpunished, and that - you may be more cautious for the future, and an example to - others, that they may abstain from similar delinquencies—we - ordain that the book of the “_Dialogues of Galileo Galilei_” be - prohibited by public edict. - - We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during - our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance, we enjoin that - for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven - penitential Psalms. - - Reserving to ourselves full liberty to moderate, commute, or - take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and - penance. - - And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, condemn - and reserve, in this and any other better way and form which we - can and may lawfully employ. - - So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce. - - F. Cardinalis de Asculo. - G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus. - Fr. Cardinalis de Cremona. - Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij. - B. Cardinalis Gypsius. - Fr. Cardinalis Verospius. - M. Cardinalis Ginettus.[395] - -Before proceeding to narrate the consequences of this sentence to the -culprit (namely, his recantation and punishment), this seems to be the -place to subject this memorable document to a critical review, to show -how far the sentence pronounced on Galileo had a legal basis, even -on Romish principles. To this end it will be necessary to follow the -construction of the sentences step by step, for only in this way can a -correct opinion be formed of the accordance of this cunningly devised -structure with the actual state of things. - -The sentence begins with a condensed historical review of the -transactions of 1615, obviously based on the denunciations of Lorini, -and the evidence of Caccini of 20th March, 1615. Immediately afterwards -follows the well-known opinion of the theological Qualifiers on the -principles of Copernicus. This is plainly to justify the measures taken -in consequence by the ecclesiastical authorities against his doctrine and -its most distinguished advocate. For immediately after follows, first a -recapitulation of the report registered in the Vatican MS. of the events -of 25th and 26th February, 1616, and then the decree of the Congregation -of the Index of 5th March, 1616, “by which those books were prohibited -which treat of the aforesaid doctrine, and the same was declared to -be false and entirely contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture.” The -sentence then comes to the occasion of the trial of Galileo, namely, his -“Dialogues,”—and states: firstly, that by this book he had transgressed -the special prohibition of 1616;[396] secondly, that his statement -therein, which is almost incredible, that he had left the Copernican view -undecided and as only _probable_, is a “gross error,” since a doctrine -cannot in any way be probable (_probalis_) which has already been found -and declared to be “contrary to Holy Scripture.” - -The first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, which treated -the note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic document, is certainly -correct; the second, even according to the maxims of Rome, is not to -the purpose. According to these maxims a proposition can only be made -into a dogma by “infallible” authority, namely, by the Pope speaking _ex -cathedra_, or by an Œcumenical Council; and on the other hand, it is -only by the same method that an obligation can be laid upon the faithful -to consider an opinion heretical. But a decree of the Congregation of -the Index does not entail the obligation; for, although by virtue of -the authority conferred on it, it can enforce obedience and inflict -punishment, its decrees are not “infallible.” They can, however, be -made so, according to ecclesiastical views, either by the subsequent -express confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as supreme head -of the Christian Catholic Church; or by the decree of the Congregation -being originally provided with the clause: “_Sanctissimus confirmavit -et publicari mandavit._” But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is neither -confirmed by a subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special -formula; and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the -opinion of Copernicus to be “false and contrary to Holy and Divine -Scripture,” it might still be considered as undecided, and even probable, -because the decree might be fallible, and did not entail the obligation -to adopt its sentence as an article of faith.[397] This must also have -been the view of the ecclesiastical authorities of the censorship, who -had given Galileo’s book the _imprimatur_, and thereby, as H. Martin -justly remarks,[398] relieved the author of responsibility, not in -anything relating to the assumed special prohibition, but concerning the -accordance of the work with the published decree. Point 2, therefore, -seems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The sentence now gives a brief -_résumé_ of the confessions made by Galileo during the examination, -which are employed to confirm his guilt. The twofold reproach is -urged against him, as of special weight, that he began to write his -“Dialogues” after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he said -nothing about it in obtaining the _imprimatur_ of the censors; thus the -special prohibition was treated as an established fact—on the one hand, -his disobedience to an injunction of the ecclesiastical authorities -was proved, and on the other, the _imprimatur_ was obtained on false -pretences, and was null and void. - -After a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so unedifying to -posterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, the sentence proceeds -to the discussion of an authentic document which formed the chief defence -of the accused: the certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine. -The authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult -task to perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability of the “note” -of 26th February, 1616—this main support of the whole indictment—and by -no means to make this attestation appear at variance with the actual -circumstances, or it would have become an important argument in favour -of the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for the accusation -had to be found in the words of the certificate itself. And thus we -find this document, which, as Wohlwill pertinently remarks,[399] by the -words “but only” directly denies the assumed stringent prohibition of -1616, singularly enough, thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers, -forming a weighty argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: “But -this certificate,” it says, “produced by you in your defence, has only -aggravated your delinquency; since although it is there stated that the -said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared -to discuss and defend it, and to argue its probability.” - -But as here they again had to refer to the protecting _imprimatur_ of -the ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: “nor does the licence, -artfully and cunningly extorted by you, avail you anything, since you did -not notify the command imposed upon you.” - -One cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the attestation of -Cardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, “the command imposed” did not -exist, and of course could not be communicated by Galileo to the censors. - -In the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, a passage is -dexterously interwoven, which ascribes the decree of 5th March, 1616, to -the Pope; while, as we know, it belongs officially to the Congregation -alone. The words are these: “But merely that the declaration made by -his Holiness (_fatta da nostro Signore_), and published by the Holy -Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you.” - -Undoubtedly Pope Paul V. wished the decree made and privately instigated -it, as Urban VIII. did the sentence against Galileo; and in this sense -the former may be attributed to the one and the latter to the other, -and the condemnation of the Copernican theory to both. But in this they -acted as private persons, and as such they were not (nor would they now -be), according to theological rules, “infallible.” The conditions which -would have made the decree of the Congregation, or the sentence against -Galileo, of dogmatic importance, were, as we have seen, wholly wanting. -Both Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of -the papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a -scientific controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their -sanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken, -at their instigation, by the Congregation “to suppress the doctrine of -the revolution of the earth.” Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman -Catholic posterity can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were -in error “as men” about the Copernican system, but not “as Popes.” For -us there remains the singular deduction, that the sentence on Galileo -rests again and again, even on the principles of the ecclesiastical court -itself, on an illegal foundation. - -After a brief mention of the rigid examination of 21st June, the -sentence comes to formulate the judgment more particularly. According to -this Galileo is, (1) “in the judgment of this Holy Office, vehemently -suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine -which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures ... and -that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been -declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture;” (2) and that -consequently he has incurred all the censures and penalties imposed in -the sacred canons against such delinquents. “From which we are content -that you be absolved, provided that first you abjure, curse, and detest -the aforesaid errors and heresies in the form to be supplied by us.” - -Point 1, according to Romish regulations about making an opinion an -article of faith, in its relation to heresy appears to be illegal and -incorrect. Galileo had not laid himself open to suspicion of heresy -because he had inclined to a doctrine discovered to be contrary to -Scripture by the fallible Congregation of the Index. Point 2 must also, -therefore, be illegal, which says that Galileo had “consequently” -incurred all the censures and penalties adjudged to such criminals by the -canon law. - -Galileo could never have been legally condemned on suspicion of heresy -from his “Dialogues.” In the first place, because neither he nor any -other Catholic was bound by the decree of 5th March, 1616, to regard -the confirmation of the old system or the rejection of the new as an -article of faith; in the second place, because the _imprimatur_ of the -ecclesiastical authorities relieved him from all responsibility. But he -could be condemned for disobedience to the assumed special prohibition of -26th February, 1616. In the sentence this forms the only legal basis of -the indictment and condemnation. How far this prohibition is historically -credible, we think we have sufficiently demonstrated in the course of our -work. - -And when we consider the penalties which follow from this sentence, based -partly upon incorrect, and partly upon false accusations, we find that -the Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to recant with a threat of other -and severer penalties, _far exceeded its powers_. The Holy Tribunal -was empowered to punish the “disobedience” of the philosopher with -imprisonment and ecclesiastical penances, and to forbid him to discuss -the opinion in writing or speaking, but it had no authority to extort -from Galileo, or any one else, such a confession on an opinion which had -not been defined by “infallible” authority. - -This is openly admitted even by high theological authority: “_In fact -an excess of authority and an injustice did take place_;” “but,” the -reverend gentleman hastens to add, “certainly not from malice, but from a -mistake,”[400]—a lenient opinion which we are unable to share. - -Whether any scruples were expressed, or any dissentient voices heard -in this ecclesiastical court about the manifold illegalities in the -proceedings against the famous accused, we do not know, no notes having -come down to us of the private discussions and transactions of the Holy -Tribunal. But there is one fact which leads us to conclude that all the -judges did not consent to this procedure, and that the sentence was not -unanimous: _at the head of the sentence ten Cardinals are enumerated as -judges, but the document is signed by seven only, and besides this there -is the express remark: “So we, the undersigned cardinals, pronounce”_! -Singularly enough, two hundred and thirty-one years passed by, during -which much that is valuable was written about Galileo, and a great deal -more that was fabulous, before this significant circumstance was noticed -by any author. The merit of having first called attention to it belongs -to Professor Moritz Cantor, in 1864.[401] The three cardinals who did -not sign were, Caspar Borgia, Laudivio Zacchia, and Francesco Barberini, -the Pope’s nephew, whom we have repeatedly found to be a warm patron and -protector of Galileo. - -Professor Berti offers as an explanation of the absence of the three -signatures, that the Congregation in the name of which the sentence was -passed consisted of ten members, but that at the last sitting seven only -were present, so that seven only could sign, and adds, as it appears to -us unwarrantably, “that it by no means follows that the three absentees -were of a contrary opinion.”[402] - -Pieralisi does not find the matter so simple, and devotes seven large -pages to account for the absence of the three prelates from the -Congregation. “Cardinal Borgia,” he says, “was on very bad terms with -Urban VIII., because he had addressed the Pope in a loud voice in a -consistory, and the Pope had imperiously told him to be quiet and to -go away.”[403] But it has been proved that even after this scene the -cardinal appeared at the consistories up to 12th February, 1635, although -there were complaints that he took walks in Rome instead of attending -the sittings of the Propaganda and the Holy Office. But it is not likely -that this cardinal, whose name stands at the head of the sentence, -would have absented himself from the final sitting without some good -reason. Pieralisi thinks that he was more friendly to Galileo than the -other cardinals, an opinion for which there is no evidence and which -proves nothing. Even Pieralisi confesses that he can find no reason for -the absence of Cardinal Zacchia, but assigns the following motive for -that of Cardinal Francesco Barberini: “He probably wished to uphold the -right enjoyed by the cardinal nephews, and afterwards by the secretaries -of state, of sometimes abstaining from voting in order to reserve to -themselves greater freedom in the treatment of public, private, and -political affairs.” The insufficiency of this explanation is too obvious -to need comment. Pieralisi himself comes to the conclusion that these -dignitaries did not wish to append their signatures to the famous -sentence, which is much the same thing as the conjecture that they did -not agree to it. - -In accordance with this sentence, certainly not passed unanimously by -the members of the Holy Tribunal, which forms one of the foulest blots -in the melancholy annals of the Inquisition, Galileo was compelled -immediately after hearing it to make the following degrading recantation, -humbly kneeling, before the whole assembly:— - - “I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, - Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before - this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and - Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against heretical - depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic, having - before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy Gospels - swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by God’s - help will for the future believe, all that is held, preached, - and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But - whereas—after an injunction had been judicially intimated to - me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether - abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the - world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre of - the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or - teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said - doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said - doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture—I wrote and printed - a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned, - and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favour, without - presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have - been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected - of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that - the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the - earth is not the centre and moves:— - - Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, - and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, - reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and - unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid - errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect - whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that - in future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in - writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar - suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or - person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy - Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the place where - I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfil and observe - in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall - be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of - my contravening, (which God forbid!) any of these my promises, - protestations, and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains - and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons - and other constitutions, general and particular, against such - delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which - I touch with my hands. - - I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and - bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof - I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of - my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the - Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633. - - I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.”[404] - -Certain Catholic writers express the hope, at the expense of truth, for -the sake of Galileo’s salvation and honour, that he really had, from -conviction, renounced the opinion which he had been labouring for and -advocating up to old age. Indeed, the super-Catholic author of an essay, -called “The Holy See against Galileo Galilei and the Astronomical System -of Copernicus,”[405] does not hesitate to say: “Probably the physical -absurdities of his (Galileo’s) doctrine had achieved a victory for the -voice of reason and religion.”[406] Undoubtedly there were many physical -difficulties in the way of a general acceptance of the new doctrines -(especially the prevailing incorrect ideas about the specific gravity -of the air),[407] and they were only finally overcome by the discovery -of the law of gravitation by the genius of Newton; but they were not -so great as to prevent men, like Kepler, Descartes, Gassendi, Diodati, -Philip Landsberg, Joachim Rhäticus, and others, and above all, the great -Italian reformer of physics and astronomy, from, even at that time, -recognising the truth of the new theory. It does not appear, either, that -the author of that article had much faith in his own conjecture, for he -proceeds to a demonstration, from opposite premises, which was for a time -much in vogue with the Jesuitical defenders of the Inquisition against -Galileo, and which must therefore be briefly mentioned. - -This was nothing less than an attempt to show that even if Galileo held -the Copernican system to be the only true one, he could, thanks to the -wording of the formula of recantation, utter it without doing violence -to his conscience; or, what is now known to be truth.[408] Galileo swore -that he never had believed and never would believe (1) “that the sun was -the centre of the earth and immovable.” That he could easily do, says our -author, for, in relation to the fixed stars, the sun by no means forms -the centre; and heavy bodies on the earth fall towards its centre and not -towards the sun, which, also, in this sense, was not the centre! There -was no difficulty for Galileo in recanting that the sun was immovable, -for he had himself concluded from the motion of the spots that it -revolved on its own axis.[409] As to the earth, he abjured it as an error -(2) that “the earth is not the centre;” quite right, for it is the centre -for heavy bodies: and it was not said—“the centre of the universe;” (3) -“that the earth moves;” vast efforts of sophistry were necessary to make -this desperately precise proposition square with the arguments of this -curious casuist. He therefore says, that as, according to the wording, -it is not the diurnal motion of the earth that is in question, this -proposition has quite a different meaning, in which, on the one hand, it -must be said that the earth is immovable, and on the other, that it is -only motion through the air from one place to another that is excluded. -The earth may certainly, both in relation to its physical conformation -and in contrast to what goes on upon it, be called immovable![410] At -the time when these lines were written, in 1875, the author of this -article in the “Historisch-politischen Blättern” was unknown to us. -Afterwards, through the liberality of the Bavarian Government, among -other works relating to Galileo in the Royal Library, the following -were lent to us:—(1) “Di Copernico e di Galileo, scritto postumo del P. -Maurizio-Benedetto Olivieri, Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario -della S. Rom. ed Univ. Inquisizione ora per la prima volta messo in luce -sull’ autografo per cura d’un religioso dello stesso istituto. Bologna, -1872”; (2) “Il S. Officio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un opusculo -postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento apunti di Gilberto Govi. -Torino, 1872.” To our no small surprise we found, on reading the former, -that it had by no means “seen the light” for the first time in 1872, but -had appeared thirty-one years before in a literal German translation, as -the article above mentioned in the “Historisch-politischen Blättern,” -with a few insignificant alterations, and a different title, the old -one being given in a note. Neither the editor of the first Italian work -of Olivieri, the Dominican monk, Fra. Tommaso Bonora, nor the author of -the above rejoinder,[411] Gilberto Govi, had, as appears from what they -say, the least idea of this singular fact. In Germany, Professor Clemens -of Bonn, was universally believed to be the author of this article, -which excited great attention; so firmly was it held, that Professor -Moritz Cantor, in a notice of the present work, gave no credence to -our discovery, but stated in his critique, “The anonymous writer was -not Olivieri, but Professor Clemens of Bonn.”[412] Upon this we sent -Professor Cantor the essay from the “Historisch-politischen Blättern” and -Bonora’s work for examination, when he was constrained to be convinced by -the sight of his own eyes. - -The wretched attempt thus to clear the Inquisition, by Olivieri’s -method, of the reproach of having extorted an oath from Galileo entirely -against his convictions, is unworthy of refutation. By impartial -posterity the oath is and must be regarded as perjury, and is all the -more repulsive because the promise was coupled with it that, “if he met -with a heretic, or person suspected of heresy,” he would denounce him -to the authorities of the Church; that is, the master would denounce -his disciples—for by a “heretic, or any one suspected of heresy,” the -adherents of the Copernican system must be chiefly understood—to the -persecution of the Inquisition! The taking of this degrading oath may, -under the circumstances, be excused, but it never can be justified. - -After this painful act of world-wide interest had been completed, Galileo -was conducted back to the buildings of the Holy Office. Now that he and -the Copernican system had been condemned with becoming solemnity by the -Holy Office, Urban VIII. magnanimously gave the word for mercy; that is, -Galileo was not, as the sentence prescribed, detained in the prisons of -the Inquisition, but a restricted amount of liberty was granted him. -The Roman curia never entirely let go its hold upon him as long as he -lived. On the day after the sentence was passed, the Pope exchanged -imprisonment for temporary banishment, to the villa of the Grand Duke of -Tuscany at Trinita de’ Monti, near Rome,[413] whither Niccolini conducted -his unfortunate friend on the evening of 24th June, as we find from the -despatch before quoted from him to Cioli of 26th of the month.[414] - -We learn from the same source that while Galileo took the prohibition of -his book, of which he was aware beforehand, with tolerable composure, -the unexpected proceedings of the Holy Office against him personally, -affected him most deeply. Niccolini did his best to rouse him from his -deep depression, but at first with little success.[415] Galileo longed -to leave Rome, where he had suffered so much, and therefore addressed the -following petition to Urban VIII.:— - - “Most Holy Father! Galileo Galilei most humbly begs your - Holiness to exchange the place assigned to him for his prison - near Rome, for some other in Florence, which may appear - suitable to your Holiness, in consideration of his poor health, - and also because the petitioner is expecting a sister with - eight children from Germany, to whom no one can afford help and - protection so well as himself. He will receive any disposition - of your Holiness as a great favour.”[416] - -But in the Vatican the opinion prevailed that to allow Galileo to return -to Florence already would be a superfluity of indulgence. The Pope said -to Niccolini: “We must proceed gently, and only rehabilitate Galileo -by degrees.”[417] Still Urban was disposed to grant the ambassador’s -request, and to alter the penalty so far as to allow the exile to go to -Siena, to the house of the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, whom we know -as a warm friend of Galileo’s. Niccolini’s urgent entreaties succeeded -in obtaining a papal decree of 30th June, ordering Galileo to go by the -shortest route to Siena, to go to the Archbishop’s at once, to remain -there, and strictly to obey his orders; and he was not to leave that city -without permission from the Congregation.[418] Galileo was informed of -this decree on 2nd July by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, -Father Vincenzo Maccolani di Firenzuola, in person.[419] On 10th July, -Niccolini reported to Cioli: “Signor Galileo set out early on Wednesday, -6th July, in good health, for Siena, and writes to me from Viterbo, that -he had performed four miles on foot, the weather being very cool.”[420] - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -_CURRENT MYTHS._ - - Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si - Muove.”—The Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only detained - twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—Refuted in 18th - Century.—Torture based on the words, “_examen rigorosum_.”—This - shown to be untenable.—Assertion that the Acts have been - falsified refuted.—False Imputation on Niccolini.—Conclusive - Evidence against Torture.—Galileo not truly a “Martyr of - Science.” - - -Before following Galileo’s fate to the end, so far as his relations with -the curia are concerned, it seems desirable to glance at the fables and -exaggerations, mostly originating in malice and fierce partisanship, -which, in defiance of the results of the latest historical research, are -not only circulated among the public at large, but introduced, to some -extent, even in works which profess to contain history. - -According to these legends, Galileo languishes during the trial in -the prisons of the Inquisition; when brought before his judges, he -proudly defends the doctrine of the double motion; he is then seized by -the executioners of the Holy Office, and subjected to the horrors of -torture; but even then—as heroic fable demands—he for a long time remains -steadfast; under pain beyond endurance he promises obedience, that -is, the recantation of the Copernican system. As soon as his torn and -dislocated limbs permit, he is dragged before the large assembly of the -Congregation, and there, kneeling in the penitential shirt, with fierce -rage in his heart, he utters the desired recantation. As he rises he is -no longer able to master his indignation, and fiercely stamping with his -foot, he utters the famous words: “E pur si muove!” He is, therefore, -thrown into the dank dungeons of the dreaded tribunal, where his eyes are -put out! - -The blinding of Galileo is a creation of the lively popular mind, which, -with its love of horrors, embellishes tragical historical events by -fictitious additions of this kind, just suited to the palates of people -accustomed to coarse diet. Galileo’s subsequent loss of sight may -have given rise to the fable, which first appeared in the “History of -Astronomy” by Estevius.[421] It is not known who was the inventor of the -assumed exclamation, “E pur si muove,” which sounds well, and has become -a “winged word;” but besides not being historic, it very incorrectly -indicates the old man’s state of mind; for he was morally completely -crushed. Professor Heis, who has devoted a treatise to the origin of this -famous saying, thinks that he has discovered its first appearance in the -“Dictionnaire Historique,” Caen, 1789;[422] Professor Grisar tells us, -however, in his studies on the trial of Galileo, that in the “Lehrbuch -der philosophischen Geschichte,” published at Würzburg, 1774, fifteen -years earlier, by Fr. N. Steinacher, the following edifying passage -occurs:— - -“Galileo was neither sufficiently in earnest nor steadfast with his -recantation; for the moment he rose up, when his conscience told him that -he had sworn falsely, he cast his eyes on the ground, stamped with his -foot, and exclaimed, ‘E pur si muove.’”[423] - -Besides the fact that these words are not attributed to Galileo by any of -his contemporaries, not even the best informed, the fallacy of the whole -story is obvious; for the witnesses of this outbreak, his judges, in -fact, would assuredly not have allowed so audacious a revocation of his -recantation to escape unpunished; it is, indeed, impossible to conjecture -what the consequences would have been; the recusant would certainly not -have been released two days afterwards from the buildings of the Holy -Office. - -Although this dramatic scene is not mentioned as worthy of credit by -any modern historian,[424] it is different with the hair shirt in which -Galileo is said to have performed the humiliating act. Libri, Cousin, -Parchappe, and very recently Louis Combes,[425] all gravely relate that -the philosopher had to recant “en chemise.” - -The official document, although it goes very much into detail as to the -way in which the oath was performed, says nothing of the shirt, and these -authors should have said nothing either. The doubtful source in which -this fable originated is an anonymous and very confused note on a MS. in, -the Magliabechiana Library at Florence, where among other nonsense we -find: “the poor man (Galileo), appeared clad in a ragged shirt, so that -it was really pitiable.”[426] We agree with Epinois,[427] that history -requires more authentic testimony than that of an anonymous note. - -But upon what testimony, then, do a large number of authors speak with -much pathos of the imprisonment which Galileo had to undergo? No sort -of documents are referred to as evidence of the story; this is quite -intelligible, for none exist. Or is the rhetorical phrase, “Galileus nunc -in vinculis detinetur,”[428] contained in a letter of May, 1633, from -Rome, from Holstein to Peiresc, to be taken as evidence that Galileo was -really languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition? One glance at the -truest historical source for the famous trial,—the official despatches -of Niccolini to Cioli, from 15th August, 1632, to 3rd December, 1633, -from which we have so freely quoted,—would have convinced any one that -Galileo spent altogether only twenty-two days (12-30th April, and -afterwards 21-24th June, 1633) in the buildings of the Holy Office; and -even then, not in a prison cell with grated windows, but in the handsome -and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. But such -writers do not seem to have been in the habit of studying authorities; -thus, for example, in the “Histoire des Hérésies,” by P. Domenico -Bernini, and in the “Grande Dictionnaire Bibliographique” of Moreri, we -find it stated that Galileo was imprisoned five or six years at Rome! -Monteula, in his “Histoire des Mathematiques,” and Sir David Brewster, in -his “Martyrs of Science,” reduce the period, perhaps from pity for the -poor “martyr,” to one year; Delambre, however, felt no such compassion, -and says in his “Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne,” that Galileo was -condemned to an imprisonment which lasted “several years”! Such an error -is the more surprising from the last celebrated author, as we know that -trustworthy extracts from the original acts of the Vatican MS. were in -his hands.[429] Even in a very recent work, Drager’s “Geschichte der -Conflicte zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft,” Leipzig, 1875 (“History -of the Conflicts between Religion and Science”), it is seriously stated -that Galileo was detained three years in the prisons of the Inquisition! - -Thus we see that the fable of Galileo’s imprisonment has been adopted by -several authors without any historical foundation, and this is to a far -greater extent the case with the famous story of the torture to which he -is said to have been subjected. As it has held its ground, although only -sporadically, even up to the most recent times,[430] it seems incumbent -on us to go more deeply into this disputed question. - -Curiously enough, it is towards the end of the eighteenth century that -we find the first traces of this falsehood, and from the fact that three -_savans_, Frisi,[431] Brenna,[432] and Targioni,[433] who wrote lives of -Galileo at that time, raised a protest against it. Although they were -not then able, as we are now, to base their arguments upon the Acts of -the trial, they had even then authentic materials in their hands—the -despatches between Niccolini and Cioli,[434] then recently published by -Fabroni—which rendered it utterly improbable that the old man had been -placed upon the rack. These materials were thoroughly turned to account -eighty years later by T. B. Biot, in his essay, “La verité sur le procès -de Galilei.”[435] He clearly showed from the reports of the ambassador -that Galileo had neither suffered torture during his first stay in the -buildings of the Holy Office, from 12-30th April, when he daily wrote to -Niccolini,[436] and was in better health when he returned to the embassy -than when he left it;[437] nor during the three days of his second -detention, from 21-24th June, at the end of which he was conducted by -Niccolini, on the evening of the 24th, to the Villa Medici.[438] On 6th -July he set out thence, “in very good health,” for Siena, and in spite of -his advanced age performed four miles on foot for his own pleasure,[439] -which an infirm old man of seventy, if he had suffered torture a -fortnight before, would surely not have been able to do. - -But all these plain indications go for nothing with some historians, -whose judgment is warped by partisanship, and who are not willing to give -up the notion that Galileo did suffer the pangs of torture. And so we -find this myth, at first mentioned by a few authors as a mere unauthentic -report, assuming a more and more distinct form, until it is brought -forward, with acute and learned arguments, as, to say the least, very -probable, by Libri, Brewster, Parchappe, Eckert, and others. - -These writers base their assertion on the following passage in the -sentence:— - - “And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full - truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to - subject you to a rigorous examination (_examen rigorosum_), at - which (without prejudice however, to the matters confessed by - you, and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) - you answered like a good Catholic.” - -These writers assert, on the one hand, that the expression “_examen -rigorosum_,” in the vocabulary of the Inquisition could mean nothing -but torture; and on the other, they take the expression that Galileo -had “answered as a good Catholic” under _examen rigorosum_, to mean -that they had extorted from him a confession as to his intention, and -conclude that torture had been resorted to. But on closer scrutiny of the -wording of the passage, the meaning appears to be exactly the contrary; -for the sentence in parenthesis says plainly that Galileo had “answered -as a good Catholic” “_without prejudice_” to his previous depositions -or the conclusions which his judges had previously arrived at as to his -intention, and which Galileo persistently denied. His Catholic answer -consisted in his repeated assurance that he did not hold the opinion of -Copernicus, and had not held it after the command to renounce it had been -intimated to him. The Inquisition could but call this a Catholic answer, -as Galileo thereby entirely renounced the condemned doctrine.[440] - -We turn now to the other assertion of these writers, that “_examen -rigorosum_” means torture. This is in a general sense correct, if by -torture the actual application of it is not intended. But they take the -passage in the sentence for decisive evidence that torture was actually -carried out, in which they are mistaken, as the following passage from -the “Sacro Arsenale” undoubtedly proves: “If the culprit who was merely -taken to the torture chamber, and there undressed, or also bound, without -however being lifted up, confessed, it was said that he had confessed -under torture and under _examen rigorosum_.”[441] The last expression -then by no means always implies the actual application of torture. Dr. -Wohlwill knows this passage, and the sentence therefore only proves to -him that Galileo was taken into the torture chamber; what took place -there, whether the old man was actually tortured, or whether they -contented themselves with urging him to speak the truth, and threatening -him with the instruments they were showing him (a degree of torture -called _territio realis_), appears shrouded in mystery to Dr. Wohlwill. -In spite of his acquaintance with the literature of the Inquisition, he -has fallen into a mistake. He thinks that the _territio realis_ was -the first degree of torture.[442] But this was not the case. Limborch’s -work, “Historia Inquisitionis,” with which Wohwill does not seem to be -acquainted, contains definite information on the point. He says that -there were five grades of torture, which followed in regular order, and -quotes the following passage verbatim from Julius Clarus: “Know then that -there are five degrees of torture: First, the threat of the rack; second, -being taken into the torture chamber; third, being undressed and bound; -fourth, being laid upon the rack; fifth, turning the rack.”[443] The -_territio realis_ was therefore by no means the first degree of torture; -the first was the threat of torture, still outside the torture chamber in -the ordinary court, called _territio verbalis_,[444] which proceeding we -find in the examination of Galileo on 21st June. The expression “_examen -rigorosum_” in the sentence, appears therefore, taking it to indicate -torture in a general sense, fully justified by historical facts. - -It would be more difficult to prove that “_examen rigorosum_” in the -sentence meant actual torture, or _territio realis_. According to the -rules of the Holy Office, a number of strict regulations were prescribed -for the procedure, which began with taking the accused into the torture -chamber, and the neglect of any one of them made the whole examination -null and void. The most important were as follows: First, a short final -examination had to take place outside the torture chamber, at which -the accused was told that he had better confess, or recourse will be -had to torture. (This took place precisely according to the rules of -the Holy Office at Galileo’s trial at the examination on 21st June.) -If the accused persisted, and if in a special Congregation for this -case the necessity of recourse to torture had previously been agreed -upon[445] (this must have taken place in the Congregation of 16th June), -the judge had to order the removal of the accused, to the torture -chamber by a special formal decree, as follows:—“Tunc D.D. sedentes ... -visa pertinacia et obstinatione ipsius constitati, visoque et mature -considerato toto tenore processus ... decreverunt, ipsum constituum esse -torquendum tormento funis pro veritate habendo.... Et ideo mandaverunt -ipsum constitutum duci ad locum tormentorum.”[446] - -Second, a notary of the Inquisition had to be present in the torture -chamber, and the judges had to see “that he noted down not only all the -answers of the accused, but all his expressions and movements, every word -that he uttered on the rack, even every sigh, cry, and groan.”[447] - -Third, within twenty-four hours after his release from the torture -chamber, the accused had to ratify all his utterances under the torments -of the rack, or under threat of them, in the usual court. Otherwise the -whole proceeding was null and void.[448] - -Of all these documents, which must have existed if actual torture had -been employed, or even if Galileo had been taken into the torture -chamber, there is not a trace in the Acts of the trial in the Vatican. -Dr. Wohlwill[449] and Dr. Scartazzini[450] assert, with more boldness -than evidence, that most of these documents did exist, but that -afterwards, and in the present century, as the whole of the documents -have been tampered with for a special purpose, these compromising papers -have been withdrawn! The Vatican MS. contains one document which, one -would think, is indisputable evidence that only the _territio verbalis_ -was employed against Galileo. We allude to the Protocol of the last -examination of 21st June. Up to the final answer of the accused the -questions of the Inquisitor agree _verbatim_ with the formula of -examination which the “Sacro Arsenale” gives for questioning as to the -Intention;[451] but when, if it was intended to proceed to torture or -even to take Galileo into the torture chamber, the decree about it -should follow, we find instead the concluding sentence: “_Et cum nihil -aliud posset haberi in executionem decreti habita eius subscriptione -remissus fuit ad locum suum._” This is, up to the words “_in executionem -decreti_,” the usual concluding sentence of the last examination when it -ended without torture.[452] These exceptional words refer to the decree -of 16th June, 1633, which minutely described the judicial proceedings to -be taken against Galileo, and by which certainly the _threat_ of torture, -but by no means actual recourse to it, was ordained by the Pope and the -Sacred Congregation.[453] - -The concluding sentence of the last examination of Galileo being on -the one hand in exact agreement with the decree of 16th June, and on -the other being a precise and definite statement, is a strong proof -of the correctness of the opinion long defended by calm and impartial -historians, like Albèri, Reumont, Biot, Cantor, Bouix, Troussart, Reusch, -and even the passionate opponent of Rome, Prof. Chasles, that Galileo’s -feeble frame was never subjected to the horrors of torture. Wohlwill also -acknowledges the force of this concluding sentence—if it be genuine. He -thinks these words are a falsification in the present century, while -originally Galileo’s last answer was followed by the necessary decree for -proceeding to torture, and then by the protocol about the proceedings in -the torture chamber. Dr. Scartazzini goes even further than Wohlwill, and -maintains that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol -of the examination of 21st June, as now found in the Vatican MS., is a -later falsified insertion. We shall see why he thinks so by and by. - -We may remark in passing, from our own experience, that it is always -venturesome to affirm that there are falsifications in a MS. without even -having seen it, to say nothing of having examined it. Thus, for instance, -a glance at the original shows on material grounds that there can be no -suspicion of falsification or later insertion in the protocol of 21st -June. Both pages on which it is written, fols. 452, 453, are second pages -to fols. 413 and 414, on which the protocol of Galileo’s trial of 12th -April begins. A later insertion is therefore an impossibility. Besides, -the protocol of 21st June ends in the middle of fol. 435 ro, and, after -a space of scarcely two fingers’ breadth follows an annotation of 30th -June, 1633, in exactly the same handwriting as the annotations of 16th -June, 1633, 23rd September, 9th and 30th December, 1632. This really -seems to render the bold conjecture of falsification wholly untenable. - -The unquestioned genuineness of Galileo’s signature, which concludes -this as well as all the other protocols, is also a guarantee of its -authenticity. Dr. Scartazzini has taken advantage of our information -that this signature, unlike all Galileo’s others, is in a very trembling -hand, to assert that it is not genuine. We are of opinion that a forger -would have taken every pains to make the signature as much like the -others as possible, and certainly would not have written in remarkably -trembling characters. No; this signature, which is unmistakably like the -rest, reflects his fearful agitation, and is by no means a forgery of the -nineteenth century. - -Let us see now why Dr. Scartazzini insists that not only the concluding -sentence, but the whole protocol of 21st June, is a falsification. The -reason is not far to seek. As we have seen, according to the rules of the -Inquisition, if Galileo had really suffered torture, or if they had only -proceeded to _territio realis_ against him, within twenty-four hours of -leaving the torture chamber he would have had to confirm the depositions -made there, in the ordinary court. But the passing of the sentence and -the recantation took place on the 22nd, on the day therefore on which the -tortured Galileo would have had to ratify these depositions, and not till -after this could the sentence be legally drawn up. Dr. Scartazzini sees -plainly enough that Galileo’s ratification, the drawing up and passing -of the sentence, and the recantation, could not possibly all have taken -place in one morning. But he finds his way out of this _cul-de-sac_ in -a remarkably simple manner; he boldly asserts that the date is false, -that the last examination was not on 21st June, but earlier, perhaps -on the 17th! The whole protocol, therefore, must be false. Of course -Dr. Scartazzini has not a shadow of evidence to give for his assertion. -He contents himself with the singular reason that the papal decree of -16th June did not admit of a delay of five or six days, but would be at -once carried out.[454] This arbitrary assertion is contradicted by the -official report of Niccolini to Cioli of 26th June, 1633, in which he -says that Galileo was summoned on Monday evening to the Holy Office, and -went on Tuesday morning to learn what was wanted of him; he was detained -there, and taken on Wednesday to the Minerva.[455] The dates given by -Niccolini agree precisely with those of the protocol of Galileo’s last -hearing, which is assumed to be false! In face of this evidence, so -conclusive for any serious historian, Dr. Scartazzini remarks: “the -Tuscan ambassador’s memory must have failed him, whether involuntarily -or voluntarily.”[456] We leave all comment on this kind of historical -evidence to the reader. - -But we must raise a decided protest, in the name of impartial -history, against the way in which Dr. Scartazzini, in order to lend -some probability to the above remark, afterwards tries to make out -that Niccolini had repeatedly sent romances to Florence, in order to -represent to the Grand Duke, who was so anxious about Galileo, how much -he (Niccolini) had exerted himself for him, and had actually achieved. -Thus Dr. Scartazzini comes to the conclusion, which must excite the ire -of every right-minded person, that “the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, -is a liar.”[457] Niccolini then, Galileo’s noblest, most devoted, and -indefatigable friend, who was at his side in every difficulty, and -certainly did more for him at Rome than was ordered at Florence, and -perhaps even more than was approved,—this historical figure, worthy of -our utmost reverence,—was a liar! Happily it is with Dr. Scartazzini -alone that the odium of the accusation rests; in the annals of _history_, -the name of Niccolini stands untarnished, and every Italian, every -educated man, will think with gratitude of the man who nobly and -disinterestedly stood by the side of Galileo Galilei at the time of his -greatest peril. Honour be for ever to his memory! - -We give, in conclusion, one more instance of a curious kind of evidence -that Galileo really was subjected to torture. Professor Eckert thinks he -knows with “almost geometrical certainty that Galileo suffered torture -during the twenty-four hours which he spent before the Inquisition.” -In proof of this assertion the author says: “In conclusion, the two -hernias which the unfortunate old man had after his return is a proof -that he must have endured that kind of torture called _il tormento della -corda_.”[458] This shrewd conclusion falls to the ground in face of -the medical certificate of 17th December, 1632, wherein among the rest -we find: “We have also observed a serious hernia, with rupture of the -peritoneum.”[459] And further, this certificate affords indisputable -evidence that both his age[460] and his state of health, in consequence -of the rupture, were sufficient to protect him against torture according -to the rules of the Holy Office.[461] Galileo would have had to be -professionally examined by a physician and surgeon, and, according to -their written report, he would either have been subjected to torture, -or a dispensation would have been granted against it, and all this -would have been minutely recorded in the Acts of the trial.[462] It is -needless to say that among these papers there is not a trace either of -any protest of Galileo’s, nor of the certificates of the physicians of -the Holy Office; and that according to the protocol of the hearing of -21st June, it never went so far, and the Pope himself, as the decree of -16th June undoubtedly proves, never intended that it should. - -No, Galileo never suffered bodily torture, nor was he even terrified by -being taken into the torture chamber and shown the instruments; he was -only mentally stretched upon the rack, by the verbal threat of it in the -ordinary judgment hall, while the whole painful procedure, and finally -the humiliating public recantation, was but a prolonged torture for the -old man in his deep distress. Libri, Brewster, and other rhetorical -authors have desired to stamp Galileo as a “martyr of science” in the -full sense of the words. But this will not do for two reasons, as Henri -Martin[463] justly points out. In the first place, Galileo did not suffer -torture; and in the second, a true martyr, that is, a witness unto blood, -never under any circumstances, not even on burning coals, abjures his -opinions, or he does not deserve the name. - -For the sake of Galileo’s moral greatness, his submission may be -regretted, but at all events greater benefit has accrued from it to -science, than if, in consequence of a noble steadfastness which we should -have greeted with enthusiasm, he had perished prematurely at the stake -or had languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition. It was after the -famous trial that he presented the world with his immortal “Dialoghi -delle Nuove Scienze.” - - - - -PART III. - -_GALILEO’S LAST YEARS._ - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -_GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI._ - - Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany - to ask for his release.—Postponed on the advice of - Niccolini.—Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican - System.—Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors - of Italy.—Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate - against the Publication of any New Work of Galileo’s - or New Edition.—Curious Arguments in favour of the Old - System.—Niccolini asks for Galileo’s release.—Refusal, - but permission given to go to Arcetri.—Anonymous - accusations.—Death of his Daughter.—Request for permission - to go to Florence.—Harsh refusal and threat.—Letter to - Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention of the Count de Noailles - on his behalf.—Prediction that he will be compared to - Socrates.—Letter to Peiresc.—Publication of Galileo’s Works in - Holland.—Continued efforts of Noailles.—Urban’s fair speeches. - - -Galileo arrived safely at Siena on 9th July, and was most heartily -welcomed by Ascanio Piccolomini.[464] But neither his devoted kindness, -nor stimulating converse with his friend, who was well versed in -science, and the learned Alessandro Marsili, who lived at Siena, could -make him forget that he was still a prisoner of the Inquisition, and -that his residence there was compulsory. He longed for liberty, the -highest earthly good, and next to this for Florence, which had become -a second home to him. In order to attain this fervent desire, on 23rd -July he addressed a letter to Cioli,[465] with an urgent request that -his Highness the Grand Duke, to please whom Urban VIII. had done so -much, would be graciously pleased to ask the Pope, on whose will alone -it depended, for his release. Only five days afterwards, Galileo -received tidings from Cioli that Ferdinand II. had in the kindest -manner consented to make the attempt, and that Niccolini was already -commissioned to petition at the Vatican, in the name of the Grand Duke, -for a full pardon for his chief philosopher.[466] But the ambassador -had good reasons for thinking that it was too soon, and that it would -certainly be in vain to ask for Galileo’s entire release, and replied to -this effect to Cioli, adding the advice not to do anything in it till -autumn.[467] It was therefore decided at Florence, in consideration of -Niccolini’s doubts and his intimate knowledge of affairs at Rome, not -to intervene with the Pope in favour of Galileo for two months, which -decision was communicated by Bocchineri to the prisoner at Siena in a -letter of 13th August.[468] - -While Galileo was bearing his banishment in Siena, which Ascanio -Piccolomini did all in his power to ameliorate, with resignation, and -was even diligently at work on his “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” war -was being waged with great vigour against the Copernican doctrine at -Rome, and the utmost efforts were being made to stifle it in Catholic -countries in general, and in Italy in particular. Urban VIII. first -visited with severe punishment all those dignitaries of the Church who, -in virtue of their official position, had conduced to the publication -of the “Dialogues.” Father Riccardi was deprived of his office, and the -Inquisitor at Florence was reprimanded for having given permission to -print the work.[469] In accordance with a decree passed in the sitting -of the Congregation of 16th June, 1633, the sentence on, and recantation -of, Galileo were sent to all the nunciatures of Europe, as well as to -all archbishops, bishops, and inquisitors of Italy. The form in which -this commission was issued to the ecclesiastical dignitaries is of great -historical interest. One of the letters which accompanied the decree and -ordered its publication has been preserved to us by Father Polacco in his -“Anti-Copernicus Catholicus,” published at Venice in 1644.[470] It was -addressed to the Inquisitor at Venice, and was as follows; the rest were -probably similar:— - - Most Reverend Father,— - - Although the treatise of Nicholas Copernicus, ‘De - Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium,’ had been suspended by the - Congregation of the Index, because it was therein maintained - that the earth moves, but not the sun, but that it stands - still in the centre of the world (which opinion is contrary to - Holy Scripture); and although many years ago, Galileo Galilei, - Florentine, was forbidden by the Congregation of this Holy - Office to hold, defend, or teach the said opinion in any way - whatsoever, either verbally or in writing; the said Galileo - ventured nevertheless to write a book signed Galileo Galilei - Linceus; and as he did not mention the said prohibition, he - extorted licence to print, and did then actually have it - printed. He stated, in the beginning, middle, and end of it, - that he intended to treat the said opinion of Copernicus - hypothetically, but he did it in such a manner (though he ought - not to have discussed it in any way) as to render himself - very suspicious of adhering to this opinion. Being tried on - this account, and in accordance with the sentence of their - Eminences, my Lords, confined in the prison of the Holy Office, - he was condemned to renounce this opinion, to remain in prison - during their Eminences’ pleasure, and to perform other salutary - penances; as your Reverences will see by the subjoined copy of - the sentence and abjuration, which is sent to you that you may - make it known to your vicars, and that you and all professors - of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it; that - they may know why they proceeded against the said Galileo, and - recognise the gravity of his error in order that they may avoid - it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to - suffer in case they fell into the same. - - Your Reverences, as brother, - - Cardinal of St. Onufrius. - - Rome, 2nd July, 1633. - -Again it is worthy of note, that even in this letter it was deemed -necessary to lay special stress on the circumstance that Galileo had -acted contrary to a special prohibition issued several years before. But -then, to be sure, this formed the only _legal_ ground for the proceedings -against him. - -From a letter from Guiducci to Galileo from Florence of 27th August,[471] -we learn the manner in which the publication had taken place there, on -the 12th. Both the documents were read aloud in a large assembly of -counsellors of the Holy Office, canons and other priests, professors -of mathematics and friends of Galileo, such as Pandolfini, Aggiunti, -Rinuccini, Peri, and others, who had been invited to the ceremony. This -proceeding was followed in all the more important cities of Italy, as -well as in the larger ones of Catholic Europe. It is characteristic -of the great split which existed in the scientific world about the -Copernican system, that Professor Kellison, Rector of the University of -Douai, wrote in reply to a letter of the Nuncio at Brussels, who had sent -the sentence and recantation of Galileo to that academy: “The professors -of our university are so opposed to that fanatical opinion (_phanaticæ -opinioni_), that they have always held that it must be banished from the -schools.... In our English college at Douai this paradox has never been -approved, and never will be.”[472] - -The Roman curia, however, did not confine itself to trying to frighten -all good Catholics from accepting the Copernican doctrine by as wide a -circulation as possible of the sentence against Galileo; but in order to -suppress it altogether as far as might be, especially in Italy, all the -Italian Inquisitors received orders neither to permit the publication of -a new edition of any of Galileo’s works, nor of any new work.[473] On the -other hand, the Aristotelians, who had been very active since the trial, -were encouraged to confute the illustrious dead, Copernicus and Kepler, -and the now silenced Galileo, with tongue and pen. Thus in the succeeding -decades the book market was flooded with refutations of the Copernican -system.[474] - -In fighting truth with falsehood very curious demonstrations were sure -now and then to come to light on the part of the adherents of the wisdom -of the ancients. We will here only mention a book dedicated to Cardinal -Barberini, which appeared in 1633: “Difesa di Scipione Chiaramonti -da Cesena al suo Antiticone, e libro delle tre nuove stelle, dall’ -opposizioni dell’Autore de’ due massimi sistemi Tolemaico e Copernicano,” -in which such sagacious arguments as the following are adduced against -the doctrine of the double motion of the earth:— - - “Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no - limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. - - “It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, etc., turn - round. If the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in - the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live there, it - would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth. - - “The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one - species; namely, that of stars—they therefore all move or all - stand still. - - “It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the - earth, which is a sink of impurity, among the heavenly bodies, - which are pure and divine things.”[475] - -But although Galileo was condemned to silence, there were courageous and -enlightened men who, in spite of the famous sentence of the Inquisition, -not only rejected such absurdities but made energetic advance along the -new paths. At the Vatican, however, they seemed disposed, as we shall -soon see, to make Galileo answerable for the defence of the Copernican -system in Italy. For instance, at the beginning of November the Tuscan -ambassador thought the time was come to take steps for obtaining pardon -for Galileo with some prospect of success; and at an audience of the -Pope on 12th November he asked, on behalf of the Grand Duke, for the -prisoner’s release. Urban replied somewhat ungraciously, that he would -see what could be done, and would consult with the Congregation of the -Holy Office; but he remarked that it had come to his ears that some -people were writing in defence of the Copernican system. Niccolini -hastened to assure him that Galileo was not in the least implicated -in it, and that it was done entirely without his knowledge. Urban -answered drily, that he had not been exactly informed that Galileo had -anything to do with it, but he had better beware of the Holy Office. In -spite of reiterated urgent entreaty, Niccolini could get nothing more -definite about Galileo’s release than the above evasive promise, and he -communicated the doubtful success of his mission to Cioli in a despatch -of 13th November,[476] in rather a depressed state of mind. - -Urban was not disposed to grant a full pardon to Galileo, and therefore -made a pretext of the Congregation to the ambassador, as if the decision -depended upon it, whereas it rested entirely with himself. Niccolini, -however, still persisted in his efforts. He went to Cardinal Barberini -and other members of the Holy Office, warmly recommending him to their -protection.[477] Meanwhile an indisposition of the Pope, which lasted -fourteen days, delayed the decision, as the Congregation did not venture -to come to any without his concurrence. At length he made his appearance -in the sitting of the Congregation of 1st December, and through the -mediation of Cardinal Barberini, the petition for Galileo’s release was -at once laid before him.[478] It was refused; but he was to be permitted -to retire to a villa at Arcetri, a _miglio_ from Florence, where he was -to remain until he heard further; he was not to receive any visits, but -to live in the greatest retirement.[479] Niccolini informed him of this -amelioration of his circumstances in a letter of 3rd December,[480] with -the expression of great regret that he could not at present obtain his -entire liberation. He added that the Pope had charged him to say that -Galileo might go to Arcetri at once, that he might receive his friends -and relations there, but not in large numbers at one time, as this might -give rise to the idea that he was giving scientific lectures. A few days -after the receipt of this letter Galileo set out for Arcetri.[481] - -No sooner had he reached his villa, called “il Giojello,” which was -pleasantly situated, than he made it his first care to thank Cardinal -Barberini warmly for his urgent intercession, which had, however, only -effected this fresh alleviation of his sad fate.[482] Some rhetorical -historians make Galileo’s two daughters leave the Convent of St. Matteo, -which was certainly within gunshot of “Giojello,” in order to tend their -old and suffering father with childlike and tender care; a touching -picture, but without any historical foundation. On the contrary, it was -really one of Galileo’s greatest consolations to pay frequent visits to -his daughters, to whom he was tenderly attached, at St. Matteo, when -permitted to do so by the Holy Office. It was also a great satisfaction -to him that on a very early day after his arrival at Arcetri the Grand -Duke came from Florence, and paid the convict of the Inquisition a long -visit.[483] - -But while Galileo was once more partaking of some pleasures, the -implacable malice of his enemies never slumbered. There were even -some who would have been glad to know that he was for ever safe in the -dungeons of the Inquisition. As, however, he gave them no pretext on -which they could, with any shadow of justice, have seized him, they had -recourse to the most disgraceful means—to lying, anonymous denunciation, -in which his enlightened and therefore disliked friend, the Archbishop -Ascanio Piccolomini, was ingeniously involved. On 1st February, 1634, -the following communication, without signature, was received at the Holy -Office at Rome from Siena:— - - Most Reverend Sirs,— - - _Galileo has diffused in this city opinions not very Catholic_, - urged on by this Archbishop, his host, who has suggested to - many persons that Galileo had been unjustly treated with so - much severity by the Holy Office, and that he neither could nor - would give up his philosophical opinions which he had defended - with irrefragable and true mathematical arguments; also that he - is the first man in the world, and will live for ever in his - works, to which, although prohibited, all modern distinguished - men give in their adherence. Now since seeds like these, sown - by a prelate of the Church, might bring forth evil fruit, a - report is made of them.[484] - -Although this cowardly denunciation did not bear any immediate -consequences either to Piccolomini or Galileo, events which took place -soon after show most clearly the unfavourable impression it produced at -the Vatican. Galileo, who was very unwell, asked permission of the Pope, -through the mediation of his faithful friend Niccolini, to move into -Florence for the sake of the regular medical treatment which he required, -and which he could not well have at the villa outside the city.[485] As -if to dye his tragic fate still darker, just while he was awaiting the -result of Niccolini’s efforts, his favourite daughter Polissena, or by -her conventual name Marie Celeste, was taken so ill that her life was -soon despaired of. - -It was on one of the last days of March that Galileo was returning to -his villa with a physician from a visit to his dying daughter at the -Convent of St. Matteo, in deep depression of spirits. On the way the -physician had prepared him for the worst by telling him that the patient -would scarcely survive till the morning, which proved to be the case. -On entering his house in anguish of soul, he found the messenger of the -Inquisition there, who in the name of the Holy Office gave him a strict -injunction to abstain from all such petitions in future, unless he -desired to compel the Inquisition to imprison him again. This unmerciful -proceeding had been ordered by a papal mandate of 23rd March.[486] The -Inquisitor at Florence reported on it on 1st April to Cardinal Barberini, -as follows:— - - “I have communicated to Galileo what was commanded by your - Eminence. He adduced as an excuse that he had only done it on - account of a frightful rupture. But the villa he lives in is - so near the city that he can easily have the physicians and - surgeons there, as well as the medicines he requires.”[487] - -A passage in a letter from Galileo to Geri Bocchineri at Florence, of -27th April, shows that the excuse was no empty pretext, and that he -urgently needed to have medical aid always at hand. He says:— - - “I am going to write to you about my health, which is very - bad. I suffer much more from the rupture than has been the - case before; my pulse intermits, and I have often violent - palpitation of the heart; then the most profound melancholy has - come over me. I have no appetite, and loathe myself; in short, - I feel myself perpetually called by my beloved daughter. Under - these circumstances I do not think it advisable that Vincenzo - should set out on a journey now, as events might occur at any - time which might make his presence desirable, for besides what - I have mentioned, continued sleeplessness alarms me not a - little.”[488] - -A letter to Diodati at Paris, from Galileo, of 25th July, is also -of great interest; an insight may be gained from it, not only into -his melancholy state of mind, but it also contains some remarkable -indications of the motives for the fierce persecution on the part of -Rome. We give the portions of the letter which are important for our -subject:— - - “I hope that when you hear of my past and present misfortunes, - and my anxiety about those perhaps still to come, it will - serve as an excuse to you and my other friends and patrons - there (at Paris), for my long delay in answering your letter, - and to them for my entire silence, as they can learn from - you the unhappy turn which my affairs have taken. According - to the sentence pronounced on me by the Holy Office, I was - condemned to imprisonment during the pleasure of his Holiness, - who was pleased, however, to assign the palace and gardens - of the Grand Duke near the Trinità dei Monti, as my place of - imprisonment. As this was in June of last year, and I had been - given to understand that if I asked for a full pardon after the - lapse of that and the following month, I should receive it, I - asked meanwhile, to avoid having to spend the whole summer and - perhaps part of the autumn there, to be allowed, on account of - the season, to go to Siena, where the Archbishop’s house was - assigned to me as a residence. I staid there five months, when - this durance was exchanged for banishment to this little villa, - a _miglio_ from Florence, with a strict injunction not to go - to the city, and neither to receive the visits of many friends - at once, nor to invite any. Here, then, I was living, keeping - perfectly quiet, and paying frequent visits to a neighbouring - convent, where two daughters of mine were living as nuns; I - was very fond of them, especially of the eldest, who possessed - high mental gifts, combined with rare goodness of heart, and - she was very much attached to me. During my absence, which - she considered very perilous for me, she fell into a profound - melancholy, which undermined her health, and she was at last - attacked by a violent dysentery, of which she died after six - days’ illness, just thirty-three years of age, leaving me in - the deepest grief, which was increased by another calamity. - On returning home from the convent, in company with the - doctor who visited my sick daughter shortly before her death, - and who had just told me that her situation was desperate, - and that she would scarcely survive till the next day, as - indeed it proved, I found the Inquisitor’s Vicar here, who - informed me of a mandate from the Holy Office at Rome, which - had just been communicated to the Inquisitor in a letter from - Cardinal Barberini, that I must in future abstain from asking - permission to return to Florence, _or they would take me back - there (to Rome), and put me in the actual prison of the Holy - Office_. This was the answer to the petition, which the Tuscan - ambassador had presented to that tribunal after I had been nine - months in exile! From this answer it seems to me that, in all - probability, my present prison will only be exchanged for that - narrow and long-enduring one which awaits us all. - - From this and other circumstances, which it would take too long - to repeat here, it will be seen that the fury of my powerful - persecutors continually increases. They have at length chosen - to reveal themselves to me; for about two months ago, when - a dear friend of mine at Rome was speaking of my affairs to - Father Christopher Griemberger, mathematician at the college - there, this Jesuit uttered the following precise words:—‘_If - Galileo had only known how to retain the favour of the fathers - of this college, he would have stood in renown before the - world, he would have been spared all his misfortunes, and could - have written what he pleased about everything, even about the - motion of the earth._’ From this you will see, honoured Sir, - that it is not this opinion or that which has brought, and - still brings about my calamities, _but my being in disgrace - with the Jesuits_. - - I have also other proofs of the watchfulness of my persecutors. - One is that a letter from some foreigner, I do not know from - whom, addressed to me at Rome, where he supposed me still to - be, was intercepted, and delivered to Cardinal Barberini. It - was fortunate for me, as was afterwards written to me from - Rome, that it did not purport to be an answer to one from - me, but a communication containing the warmest praises of my - “Dialogues.” It was seen by many persons, and, as I hear, - copies of it were circulated at Rome. I have also been told - that I might see it. To add to all this, there are other mental - disquietudes and many bodily sufferings oppressing me at the - age of over seventy years, so that the least exertion is a - torment and a burden to me. In consideration of all this, my - friends must be indulgent to me for omissions which look like - neglect, but really arise from inability.”[489] - -This deep dejection, however, could not last long with a man of so -active a mind as Galileo. The impulse which had been implanted in him -to investigate the problems of nature was too strong to be repressed by -either mental or bodily sufferings. So far from it, it was this which, -ever re-asserting itself with its normal energy, helped him to bear -them with resignation, and he often forgot his painful situation in his -scientific speculations. Thus, but a few months after his daughter’s -death, we find him rousing himself and eagerly at work again on his -masterpiece, the “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.”[490] He also resumed -his extensive scientific correspondence, of which unfortunately, and -especially of the following year, 1635, the letters of his correspondents -only have mostly come down to us.[491] - -While the prisoner of Arcetri was thus eagerly fulfilling his great -mission to his age, his friends were exerting themselves in vain to -obtain at least an extension of his liberty. The Count de Noailles, -French ambassador at Rome, had once attended Galileo’s lectures at Padua, -and had become so enthusiastic an adherent, that he afterwards told -Castelli that he must see Galileo once more before leaving Italy, even if -he walked fifty miles on purpose.[492] He therefore united his efforts -with Niccolini’s to obtain some amelioration for Galileo. But in vain. At -an audience which Niccolini had on 8th December, 1634, Urban said indeed -that he esteemed Galileo very highly, and was well disposed towards him; -but all remained as before.[493] - -In the year 1634 the band of dauntless men, who again and again -ventured to attempt to obtain Galileo’s liberty from the papal chair, -was increased by the celebrated officer of state and man of learning, -Fabri von Peiresc. Like Noailles, he had attended Galileo’s lectures -at Padua,[494] had since been one of his most ardent admirers, and had -long maintained friendly intercourse with Cardinal Francesco Barberini. -Peiresc now interceded eagerly with this prelate for Galileo, and even -ventured openly to say, in a long and pressing letter of 5th December, -1634, to Barberini:—[495] ... “Really such proceedings will be -considered very harsh, and far more so by posterity than at present, when -no one, as it appears, cares for anything but his own interests. Indeed, -it will be a blot upon the brilliance and renown of the pontificate -of Urban VIII., unless your Eminence resolves to devote your special -attention to this affair....” On 2nd January, 1635, Barberini wrote -a long letter in reply,[496] in which he was prolix enough on many -subjects, but about Galileo he only made the dry remark, towards the end -of the letter, that he would not fail to speak to his Holiness about it, -but Peiresc must excuse him if, as a member of the Holy Office, he did -not go into the subject more particularly. In spite of this, however, -only four weeks later, Peiresc again urged Barberini, in a letter of -31st January,[497] to exert his powerful influence on behalf of Galileo. -Peiresc justified his zeal by saying, “that it arose as much from -regard for the honour and good name of the present pontificate, as from -affection for the venerable and famous old man, Galileo; for it might -well happen, by a continuance of the harsh proceedings against him, that -some day posterity would compare them with the persecutions to which -Socrates was subjected.”[498] - -Galileo, who had received copies of these letters, thanked Peiresc most -warmly in a letter of 21st February, 1635, for his noble though fruitless -efforts, and added the following remarkable words:— - - “As I have said, I do not hope for any amelioration, and this - because I have not committed any crime. I might expect pardon - and favour if I had done wrong, for wrong-doing affords rulers - occasion for the exercise of clemency and pardon, while towards - an innocent man under condemnation, it behoves them to maintain - the utmost severity, in order to show that they have proceeded - according to law. But believe me, revered sir, and it will - console you to know it, this troubles me less than would be - supposed, for two grounds of consolation continually come to - my aid: one of these is, that in looking all through my works, - no one can find the least shadow of anything which deviates - from love and veneration for the Holy Church; the other is my - own conscience, which can only be fully known to myself on - earth and to God in heaven. He knows that in the cause for - which I suffer, many might have acted and spoken with far more - learning and knowledge, but no one, not even among the holy - fathers, with more piety and greater zeal for the Holy Church, - nor altogether with purer intentions. My sincerely religious, - pious spirit would only be the more apparent if the calumnies, - intrigues, stratagems, and deceptions, which were resorted to - eighteen years ago to deceive and blind the authorities, were - brought to the light of day.”[499] - -If the issue of the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616 were admitted, -this letter would be a piece of hypocrisy as glaring as it was -purposeless; for in that case Galileo would not have been an innocent -man under condemnation, who had committed no crime, and his conscience -could not have consoled him in his painful situation. What he wrote to -Peiresc about his religious spirit was also quite true, Galileo really -was a truly religious man; his own revolutionary discoveries had not for -a moment given rise to any doubts in his mind of supernatural mysteries -as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. All his letters, even to his -most intimate friends, proclaim it indisputably. He also perfectly well -knew how to make his researches and their results agree with the dogmas -of his religion, as is clear from his explanations to Castelli, Mgr. -Dini, and the Grand Duchess Christine. The strangest contradictions were -continually arising from this blending of a learned man striving to -search out the truths of nature, and a member of the only true Church -bound in the fetters of illusive credulity. Thus, at the end of 1633, -he did not hesitate to act in opposition to his solemn oath, literally -construed, by secretly sending a copy of his condemned and prohibited -“Dialogues” to Diodati, at Paris, that they might be translated into -Latin, and thus be more widely circulated. In 1635 the work really -appeared in a Latin translation, from the press of the Elzevirs, in -Holland, edited by a Strasburg professor, Mathias Bernegger, in order -that no suspicion might rest upon Galileo of having had anything to do -with it.[500] Such an act was very improper for a pious Catholic, and -Galileo really was one. In the following year, however, he told his old -friend, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, at Venice, with great delight, that -Bernegger had brought out by the same publishers the Apology to the Grand -Duchess Christine of 1615, in Italian with a Latin translation. The -secret translator, concealed under the pseudonym of Ruberto Robertini -Borasso, was also Diodati.[501] In a letter to Micanzio, as well as in -another of 12th July, Galileo expressed an ardent wish that a large -number of copies of it might be introduced into Italy, “to shame his -enemies and calumniators.”[502] As we know, this letter to the Grand -Duchess contained nothing but a theological apology for the Copernican -system, so that what gratified Galileo so much in its publication, was -that the world would now learn that he, who had been denounced as a -heretic, had always been an orthodox Christian, into whose head it had -never entered, as his enemies gave out, to attack the holy faith. Martin -is quite justified in saying that “the reputation of a good Christian and -true Catholic was as dear to Galileo as that of a good astronomer.”[503] - -While Galileo was enjoying the twofold satisfaction of seeing his -“Dialogues” attain a wider circulation (they had meanwhile been -translated into English),[504] and yet of being acknowledged as a pious -subject of the Roman Catholic Church, the Count de Noailles continued -his efforts at Rome, before his approaching departure from Italy, to -obtain pardon for Galileo. Castelli, who, in consequence of his too great -devotion to Galileo and his system, had been banished for three years -from Urban’s presence, had at length, by the end of 1635, been taken -into favour again,[505] and reported faithfully to Galileo all the steps -taken to procure his liberty. The utmost caution had been exercised in -order to attain this end.[506] Count Noailles and Castelli had persuaded -Cardinal Antonio Barberini, in repeated interviews, that nothing had been -further from Galileo’s intention than to offend or make game of Urban -VIII., upon which the cardinal, at the request of the French ambassador, -promised to intercede with his papal brother for Galileo. On 11th July -Noailles made the same assurances to the Pope at an audience, whereupon -he exclaimed: “Lo crediamo, lo crediamo!” (We believe it), and again -said that he was personally very well disposed to Galileo, and had -always liked him; but when Noailles began to speak of his liberation, -he said evasively that _this affair was of the greatest moment to all -Christendom_. The French diplomatist, who knew Urban’s irritable temper, -did not think it advisable to press him further, and consoled himself for -the time, even after this cool reply, with the thought that the brother -cardinal had promised to use his good offices for Galileo. - -Castelli informed Galileo in a letter of 12th July[507] of all this, and -advised him to write a letter of thanks to Cardinal Antonio for his kind -intercession, which he at once did.[508] Noailles placed all his hopes on -a farewell audience with the Pope, in which he meant to ask for Galileo’s -pardon. On 8th August he drove for the last time to the Vatican. Urban -was very gracious, and when Galileo’s affairs were introduced he even -promised at last to bring the subject before the Holy Congregation.[509] -Noailles told Cardinal Antonio of this most favourable result with joyful -emotion, who said at once: “Good! good! and I will speak to all the -cardinals of the Holy Congregation.”[510] They were apparently justified -in entertaining the most sanguine hopes, but the future taught them that -all this was nothing but fair speeches with which Urban had taken leave -of the French ambassador. For there can be no doubt that if the Pope, -with his absolute power, had been in earnest about Galileo’s liberation, -the Congregation would not have been slow to comply with his wishes. -Galileo, however, remained as before, a prisoner in his villa at Arcetri, -which he had meanwhile bought, and the papal favour, of which a promise -had been held out, was limited to allowing him, at the end of September, -to accept an invitation from the Grand Duke to visit him at his Villa -Mezzomonte, three miles from Florence,[511] and on 16th October to -leave his place of exile for one day to greet the Count de Noailles, at -Poggibonsi, in passing through it on his way to France.[512] This was the -extent of the papal clemency for the present, and it was not till the old -man was quite blind and hopelessly ill, with one foot in the grave, that -any humane feeling was awakened for him at the Vatican. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -_FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT._ - - Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle - Nuove Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method - of taking Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered - to Holland.—Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the - Moon.—Visit from Milton.—Becomes Blind.—Letter to Diodati.—On - a hint from Castelli petitions for his Liberty.—The Inquisitor - to visit him and report to Rome.—Permitted to live at Florence - under Restrictions.—The States-General appoint a Delegate to - see him on the Longitude Question.—The Inquisitor sends word - of it to Rome.—Galileo not to receive a Heretic.—Presents - from the States-General refused from fear of Rome.—Letter to - Diodati.—Galileo supposed to be near his End.—Request that - Castelli might come to him.—Permitted under Restrictions.—The - new “Dialoghi” appear at Leyden, 1638.—They founded Mechanical - Physics.—Attract much Notice.—Improvement of Health.—In 1639 - goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily. - - -Galileo was unceasingly active in his seclusion at Arcetri. In the year -1636 he completed his famous “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.”[513] He also -exerted himself, like a loving father who wishes to see his children -provided for before he dies, about the preservation and republication -of his works which were quite out of print. But all these efforts were -frustrated by envy, ecclesiastical intolerance, and the unfavourable -times. His cherished scheme of bringing out an edition of his collected -works could neither be carried out by the French mathematician, Carcavy, -who had warmly taken up the subject,[514] nor by the Elzevirs through -the mediation of Micanzio.[515] He had also to give up his project of -dedicating his “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze” to the German Emperor, -Ferdinand II., and of publishing them at Vienna, as he learnt from his -friend and former pupil there, Giovanni Pieroni, that his implacable -foes, the Jesuits, were all-powerful; that Ferdinand himself was entirely -under their influence; and moreover that his bitterest foe, Father -Scheiner, was just then at Vienna.[516] In the following year, however -(1637), Pieroni succeeded by his prudent and untiring efforts, during -the temporary absence of Scheiner, in obtaining a licence for Galileo’s -latest work,[517] and afterwards one at Olmütz also; but meanwhile he had -sent the MS. by Micanzio[518] to be printed by the Elzevirs at Leyden, -and, under the circumstances described by Pieroni, he did not prefer to -bring out his book at a place where his bitterest enemies were in power. - -He was at this time also deeply interested in a subject which originated -as far back as 1610. It had occurred to him soon after the discovery -of Jupiter’s moons, by a series of observations of them, to make -astronomical calculations and tables which would enable him to predict -every year their configurations, their relative positions and occasional -eclipses with the utmost precision; this would furnish the means of -ascertaining the longitude of the point of observation at any hour of -the night, which appeared to be of special importance to navigation. -For hitherto the eclipses of the sun and moon had had to be employed -for the purpose, which, however, on account of their rarity and the -want of precise calculation, were neither entirely to be relied on nor -sufficient. Galileo had offered his discovery,—the practical value of -which he overrated,—in 1612, to the Spanish Government, and in 1616 -tedious negotiations were carried on about it, which however led to -no result, were then postponed till 1620, and in 1630 entirely given -up.[519] Now (August, 1636,) as he heard that the Dutch merchants -had even offered a premium of thirty thousand scudi to any one who -should invent a sure method of taking longitudes at sea, he ventured, -without the knowledge of the Inquisition, to offer his invention to the -Protestant States-General. Diodati at Paris was the mediator in these -secret and ceremonious negotiations. On 11th November, Galileo’s offer -was entertained in the most flattering manner in the Assembly of the -States-General, and a commission was appointed, consisting of the four -_savans_, Realius, Hortensius, Blavius, and Golius, to examine into the -subject and report upon it.[520] - -While Galileo was impatiently waiting for the decision that was never -come to, he made his last great telescopic discovery, although suffering -much in his eyes, that of the libration and titubation of the moon, about -which he wrote his remarkable letter to Alfonso Antonini, bearing the -signal date: “Della mia carcere di Arcetri li 10 febbrajo 1637.”[521] - -The complaint in Galileo’s eyes grew rapidly worse. By the end of June -the sight of the right eye was gone, and that of the other diminished -with frightful rapidity from a constant discharge.[522] But in spite of -this heavy calamity, combined with his other sufferings, his interest -in science did not diminish for a moment. Even at this sad time we -find him carrying on a brisk correspondence with the learned men of -Germany, Holland, France, and Italy, continuing his negotiations with -the States-General with great zest,[523] as well as occupying himself -perpetually with astronomy and physics. He was indeed often obliged to -employ the hand of another;[524] but his mind worked on with undiminished -vigour, even though he was no longer able to commit to paper himself the -ideas that continually occupied him. - -On 2nd September he received a visit from his sovereign, who came to -console and encourage him in his pitiable situation.[525] A few months -later an unknown young man, of striking appearance from his handsome face -and the unmistakable evidences which genius always exhibits, knocked -at the door of the solitary villa at Arcetri: it was Milton, then -twenty-nine years of age, who, travelling in Italy, sought out the old -man of world-wide fame to testify his veneration.[526] - -In December of the same year Galileo became permanently quite blind, and -informed Diodati of his calamity on 2nd January, 1638, in the following -words:— - - “In reply to your very acceptable letter of 20th November, I - inform you, in reference to your inquiries about my health, - that I am somewhat stronger than I have been of late, but alas! - revered sir, Galileo, your devoted friend and servant, has been - for a month totally and incurably blind; so that this heaven, - this earth, this universe, which by my remarkable observations - and clear demonstrations I have enlarged a hundred, nay, a - thousand fold beyond the limits universally accepted by the - learned men of all previous ages, are now shrivelled up for - me into such narrow compass that it only extends to the space - occupied by my person.”[527] - -Up to the time when Galileo entirely lost his sight, absolutely -nothing had been able to be done for his liberation at Rome. Even the -faithful Castelli wrote on 12th September, to Galileo’s son Vincenzo, -that he had not been able to do anything whatever for his father; but -he piously adds, “I do not fail every morning at holy mass to pray the -Divine Majesty to comfort him, to help him, and to grant him His Divine -grace.”[528] This precisely indicates the hopeless state of Galileo’s -affairs. Just then, during the first few days of December of the same -year, darkness closed round him for ever; and not long afterwards, 12th -December, Castelli suddenly wrote to him, that he had been given to -understand that Galileo had not been forbidden in 1634 to send petitions -_direct_ to the Holy Office, but only through other persons.[529] When -the decided papal rescript of 23rd March, 1634,[530] is compared with -this curious interpretation of it, there can be no doubt that it was -intended to enable the curia to take a more lenient view without direct -collision with a former mandate. Galileo at once sent Castelli’s letter -to the Tuscan Court, with a request for instructions, as he did not wish -to do anything without the concurrence of his sovereign.[531] He was -informed that he had better draw up a petition to the Holy Office, and -get it handed in at Rome through Castelli.[532] The latter had meanwhile -informed himself under what formalities Galileo should make his request, -and sent him on 19th January, 1638,[533] a draught of the petition, with -the remark that it must be sent, together with a medical certificate, -direct to the assessor of the Congregation of the Holy Office; this -Galileo immediately did. The petition was as follows:— - - “Galileo Galilei, most humble servant of your most worthy - Eminence, most respectfully showeth that whereas, by command - of the Holy Congregation, he was imprisoned outside Florence - four years ago, and after long and dangerous illness, as the - enclosed medical certificate testifies, has entirely lost his - eyesight, and therefore stands in urgent need of medical care: - he appeals to the mercy of your most worthy Eminences, urgently - intreating them in this most miserable condition and at his - advanced age to grant him the blessing of his liberty.” - -The utmost caution was exercised at Rome before granting this -petition. No confidence was placed in the medical certificate; but -the Inquisitor-General of Florence, Father Fanano, was instructed to -visit Galileo and to make an exact report of his health, and whether it -was to be feared, if he lived at Florence, that he would promote the -propagation of his errors.[534] Fanano at once conscientiously executed -his commission, and on 13th February, 1638, sent the following report to -Cardinal Francesco Barberini:— - - “In order the better to execute his Holiness’s commission, I - went myself, accompanied by a strange physician, an intimate - friend of mine, to see Galileo, quite unexpectedly, at his - villa at Arcetri, to find out the state he was in. My idea - was not so much by this mode of proceeding to put myself in a - position to report on the nature of his ailments, as to gain - an insight into the studies and occupations he is carrying on, - that I might be able to judge whether he was in a condition, if - he returned to Florence, to propagate the condemned doctrine - of the double motion of the earth by speeches at meetings. I - found him deprived of his eyesight, entirely blind; he hopes - for a cure, as the cataract only formed six months ago, but at - his age of seventy the physician considers it incurable. He has - besides a severe rupture, and suffers from continual weariness - of life and sleeplessness, which as he asserts, and it is - confirmed by the inmates of his house, does not permit him one - hour’s sound sleep in the twenty-four. He is besides so reduced - that he looks more like a corpse than a living man. The villa - is a long way from the city, and the access is inconvenient, so - that Galileo can but seldom, and with much inconvenience and - expense, have medical aid.[535] His studies are interrupted by - his blindness, though he is read to sometimes; intercourse - with him is not much sought after, as in his poor state of - health he can generally only complain of his sufferings - and talk of his ailments to occasional visitors. I think, - therefore, in consideration of this, if his Holiness, in his - boundless mercy, should think him worthy, and would allow him - to live in Florence, he would have no opportunity of holding - meetings, and if he had, he is so prostrated that I think it - would suffice, in order to make quite sure, to keep him in - check by an emphatic warning. This is what I have to report to - your Eminence.”[536] - -This report at last opened the eyes of Urban VIII. as to Galileo’s real -condition. The cry of distress from the blind old man, approaching -dissolution, was too well justified to be wholly ignored, and a partial -hearing was given to it at all events, at a sitting of the Congregation -held on 25th February, under the presidency of the Pope.[537] But a full -release, in spite of the information that Galileo was more like a corpse -than a living man, still appeared too dangerous to be ventured on. On 9th -March Galileo received from the Inquisitor-General, Father Fanano, the -following communication:— - - “His Holiness is willing to allow you to remove from your villa - to the house which you own in Florence, in order that you may - be cured of your illness here. But on your arrival in the city - you must immediately repair, or be taken, to the buildings of - the Holy Office, that you may learn from me what I must do and - prescribe for your advantage.”[538] - -Galileo availed himself of the permission to return to his little -house, Via della Costa, at Florence, on the very next day. Here the -Inquisitor-General, as charged by the Holy Office, informed him, “for -his advantage,” of the order, _not to go out in the city under pain of -actual imprisonment for life and excommunication, and not to speak with -any one whomsoever of the condemned opinion of the double motion of the -earth_.[539] It was also enjoined upon him not to receive any suspicious -visitors. - -It is characteristic of the mode of proceeding of the Inquisition, that -Fanano set Galileo’s own son, who was nursing him with the tenderest -affection, to watch over him. The Inquisitor enjoined upon Vincenzo -to see that the above orders were strictly obeyed, and especially to -take care that his father’s visitors never stayed long. He remarks, in -a report to Francesco Barberini of 10th March, that Vincenzo could be -trusted, “for he is very much obliged for the favour granted to his -father to be medically treated at Florence, and fears that the least -offence might entail the loss of it; but it is very much to his own -interest that his father should behave properly and keep up as long as -possible, for with his death a thousand scudi will go, which the Grand -Duke allows him annually.” In the opinion of the worthy Father Fanano, -then, the son must be anxious for his father’s life for the sake of the -thousand scudi! In the same letter the Inquisitor assured Barberini that -he would himself keep a sharp look out that his Holiness’s orders were -strictly obeyed, which, as we shall soon see, he did not fail to do. - -Galileo’s confinement in Florence was so rigorous that at Easter a -special permission from the Inquisition was required to allow him to go -to the little Church of San Giorgio, very near his house, to confess, -to communicate, and to perform his Easter devotions,[540] and even -this permission only extended expressly to the Thursday, Good Friday, -Saturday, and Easter Sunday.[541] On the other hand, as appears from -the dates of his letters,[542] he was allowed, during June, July, and -August, to go several times to and fro between his villa at Arcetri and -Florence. - -Galileo was now once more to discover how rigidly he was watched by the -Inquisition. His negotiations with the States-General, in spite of the -urgent intercession of such men as Diodati, Hortensius, Hugo Grotius, -Realius, Constantine Huyghens (Secretary of the Prince of Orange, and -father of the celebrated Christian Huyghens), and others, had not led to -any result. His proposed method of taking longitudes at sea, well worked -out as it was theoretically, presented many difficulties in practical -application. His methods of precisely determining the smallest portions -of time, and of overcoming the obstacles occasioned by the motion of the -vessel, did not prove to be adequate.[543] He had endeavoured, in a long -letter to Realius of 6th June, 1637,[544] to dismiss or refute all the -objections that had been made; but this did not suffice, and although the -States-General acknowledged his proposal in the main in the most handsome -terms, even accepted it, and offered him a special distinction (of which -presently), it appeared necessary to have some personal consultation -on the subject with the inventor. For this purpose, Hortensius, who -had also a great desire to make Galileo’s acquaintance, was to go to -Florence.[545] The Inquisitor-General heard that a delegate was coming -from Germany to confer with Galileo on the subject. He at once reported -this on 26th June to Rome,[546] whence he received instructions under -date of 13th July from the Congregation of the Holy Office, that Galileo -_must not receive the delegate if he were of a heretical religion, or -from a heretical country_, and the Inquisitor will please communicate -this to Galileo; on the other hand, there was nothing to prevent the -interview _if the person came from a Catholic country, and himself -belonged to the Catholic religion_; only, in accordance with the previous -regulations, the doctrine of the double motion of the earth must not be -spoken of.[547] - -A few days after the Inquisitor had delivered his instructions to -Galileo, the German merchants of the name of Ebers residing in Florence, -presented him in the name of the Dutch Government with a very flattering -letter, and a heavy gold chain, as a recognition of his proposals and -a pledge of the ultimate adjustment of the negotiations. The envoys -of the States-General found Galileo very ill in bed, his blinded eyes -continually running and very much inflamed. He _felt_ the gold chain, -which he could not see, and had the letter read to him. He then handed -the chain back to the merchants, on the plea that he could not keep it -now, as the negotiations had been interrupted by his illness and loss of -sight, and he did not at all know whether he should ever be in a position -to carry them through.[548] The real motive, however, was nothing but -fear of the Inquisition,[549] and as the sequel showed, he was quite -right. Fanano sent a report on 25th July of all these circumstances -to Cardinal Barberini at Rome. It is so characteristic that we cannot -refrain from giving it:— - - “The person who was to come to see Galileo has neither appeared - in Florence, nor is likely to appear, so far as I am informed; - but I have not yet been able to learn whether in consequence - of some hindrance on the journey or from some other cause. I - know, however, that presents for Galileo and a letter to him - have come to some merchants here. A highly estimable person, - who is in my confidence, and has spoken with the person who - has the presents and letter in charge, told me that both bear - the seal of the Dutch Government; the presents are in a case, - and may be gold or silver work. Galileo has steadily refused - to accept either the letter or the presents, whether from fear - of incurring some danger, on account of the warning I gave - him on the first news of the expected arrival of an envoy, - or whether because he really could not perfect his method of - taking longitudes at sea, and is not in a state to do it; for - he is now quite blind, and his head is more in the grave than - fit for mathematical studies. Insurmountable difficulties had - also occurred in the use of the instruments indicated by him. - Besides, it is said here, that if he had fully brought his plan - to perfection, his Highness (Ferdinand II. of Tuscany) would - never have permitted it to pass into the hands of renegades, - heretics, or enemies of the allies of his house. This is what I - have to report to your Eminence.”[550] - -The news that Galileo had not accepted the distinction offered him by -the Dutch Government gave great satisfaction at Rome; and Urban VIII. -even charged the Inquisitor at Florence, by a mandate of 5th August, to -express to Galileo the gratification of the Holy Congregation at his -conduct in this affair.[551] - -About this time he was sunk so low, physically as well as mentally, -that he and every one thought his dissolution was at hand. In a letter -to Diodati of 7th August, in which he told him of his interview with -the German merchants at Florence, he expressed the fear that “if his -sufferings increased as they had done during the last three or four days, -he would not even be able to dictate letters.”[552] He added, perhaps in -reference to the Inquisitor’s intimation of 13th July: “It would be a -fruitless undertaking if Signor Hortensius were to take the trouble to -come and see me, for if he found me living (which I do not believe), I -should be quite unable to give him the least satisfaction.” - -His profound vexation about the regulations imposed upon him in this -matter by the Roman curia is very evident in a letter to Diodati of 14th -August. He writes:— - - “As ill luck would have it, the Holy Office came to know of - the negotiations I was carrying on about the geographical - longitude with the States-General, which may do me the - greatest injury. I am extremely obliged to you for having - induced Signor Hortensius to give up his intended journey, and - thereby averted some calamity from me which would probably - have been in store for me if he had come. It is indeed true - that these negotiations ought not to do me any harm, for the - just and obvious reasons that you mention, but rather to bring - me fame and honour, if my circumstances were but like those - of other men, that is, if I were not pursued by misfortune - more than others. But having been often and often convinced by - experience of the tricks fate plays me, I can but expect from - its obstinate perfidy, that what would be an advantage to any - one else will never bring anything but harm to me. But even in - this bitter adversity I do not lose my peace of mind, for it - would be but idle audacity to oppose inexorable destiny.”[553] - -Galileo, who thought his hours were numbered, dictated his will on 21st -August, in the presence of a notary and witnesses, and directed that he -should be buried in the family vault of the Galilei in the Church of -Santa Croce at Florence.[554] On 8th September the Grand Duke paid the -dying astronomer, as was supposed, a visit of two hours, and himself -handed him his medicine.[555] - -It had been for a long time a cherished wish of Galileo’s to have with -him during the evening of his days his most devoted and favourite -disciple, Father Castelli.[556] But the professorship which he held at -Rome made the attainment of this wish difficult. As it was now supposed -that a speedy death would deprive the world of the great philosopher, -the Grand Duke requested through Niccolini at Rome that Castelli might -come to Florence, for a few months at least, that he might yet receive -from the lips of his dying master many ideas of importance for science, -which he might not perhaps confide to any but his trusted friend.[557] -After some difficulties were surmounted, he actually received the papal -consent, but only on condition that a third person should always be -present during the conversations with Galileo.[558] Early in October -Castelli arrived in Florence, where the Inquisitor-General, as charged by -the Holy Office, gave him permission to visit Galileo, with the express -prohibition, _under pain of excommunication, to converse with him on the -condemned doctrine of the earth’s double motion_.[559] The permission, -however, to visit Galileo seems to have been very limited, for Castelli -repeatedly wrote to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, with the most urgent -entreaties to obtain an extension of it for him from the Pope. Castelli -protests in this letter that he would rather lose his life than converse -with Galileo on subjects forbidden by the Church. He gives as a reason -for the need of more frequent interviews that he had received from -the Grand Duke the twofold charge to minister to Galileo in spiritual -matters, and to inform himself fully about the tables and ephemerides of -the Medicean stars, because the Prince Giovanni Carlo, Lord High Admiral, -was to take this discovery to Spain.[560] The cardinal replied that in -consideration of these circumstances, Urban VIII. granted permission for -more frequent visits to Galileo, under the known conditions;[561] but the -official permission, was not issued until about November.[562] Nothing is -known in history, however, of the Lord High Admiral’s having ever taken -Galileo’s method of taking longitudes to the Peninsula. - -During the same year (1638), the Elzevirs at Leyden issued Galileo’s -famous work: “Discourses on and Demonstrations of Two New Sciences -appertaining to Mechanics and Motion.”[563] This work, known under the -abridged title, “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” was dedicated to the -Count de Noailles, in grateful remembrance of the warm interest which he -had always shown in the author.[564] It is the most copious and best of -all Galileo’s writings, and he himself valued it more highly than any of -the others.[565] In it he created the new sciences of the doctrine of -cohesion in stationary bodies, and their resistance when torn asunder; -also that of phoronomics, and thereby opened up new paths in a field -of science that had been lying fallow. He must, indeed, be regarded as -the real founder of mechanical physics. It is not our province to enter -farther into the contents of this work, or its importance for science. -It has, however, some significance in our historical review of Galileo’s -relations with the curia, for it excited immense attention in all learned -circles, and increasingly attracted the notice of the scientific world -to the prisoner of the Inquisition. This was by no means agreeable to -the Romanists, who would have been glad to see him sink into oblivion. -Galileo now again received communications from all countries, some of -them expressing the highest admiration of his new work, and others asking -more information on many of the theories expounded. And we now behold -the shattered old man of seventy-four, only partially recovered from his -severe illness, carrying on an extensive correspondence full of the most -abstruse problems in physics and mathematics.[566] - -In January, 1639, as his health had so far improved as to allow the hope -to be indulged that he might be spared some time longer, he returned -to his villa at Arcetri, not to leave it again alive. Was this move a -voluntary one? We have no document which finally settles the question. -But we hold ourselves justified in doubting it. Not only because it is -difficult to reconcile a voluntary return to Arcetri with his previous -efforts to obtain permission to reside in Florence, but there is a later -letter from him bearing the expressive date: “From the Villa Arcetri, -my perpetual prison and place of exile from the city.”[567] And when -the wife of Buonamici, who was distinguished for her mental powers, -gave him a pressing invitation to Prato, which is only four miles from -Florence, he reminds her in his reply of 6th April, 1641, that “he was -still a prisoner here for reasons which her husband was well aware of”; -he then presses her to visit him at Arcetri, adding: “Do not make any -excuses, nor fear that any unpleasantness may accrue to me from it, for -I do not trouble myself much how this interview may be judged by certain -persons, as I am accustomed to bearing many heavy burdens as if they were -quite light.”[568] From such utterances it is clear that Galileo had -little pleasure in residing at Arcetri, and that therefore his second -banishment from Florence was not voluntary, but was the result of a papal -order.[569] - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -_LAST YEARS AND DEATH._ - - Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious - Resignation.—Continues his scientific Researches.—His - pupil Viviani.—Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations - about Longitudes.—Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with - him.—Last Discussion of the Copernican System in reply to - Rinuccini.—Sketch of its Contents.—Pendulum Clocks.—Priority - of the discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from - Castelli.—Torricelli joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his - Deathbed.—Death, 8th Jan., 1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian - Burial.—Monument objected to by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. fears - to offend him.—Buried quietly.—No Inscription till thirty-two - years later.—First Public Monument erected by Viviani in - 1693.—Viviani directs his Heirs to erect one in Santa - Croce.—Erected in 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican - System.—In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the Clause in Decree - forbidding Books which teach the new System to be expunged.—In - 1820 permission given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s Work - and others not expunged from the Index till 1835. - - -We now come to the last three years of Galileo’s life. - -From two documents published by Professor Gherardi,[570] we learn that -in 1639 Galileo once more asked at Rome for some favours not specified, -but that they were absolutely refused by the Pope. From this time Galileo -came no further into direct contact with the Roman curia. He had been -compelled to give up all hope of any amelioration of his lot from the -implacable Urban VIII. So he ended his days quietly and resigned, as the -prisoner of the Inquisition, in his villa at Arcetri. Castelli also, who -(as his letters to Galileo of 1639 bear witness)[571] had warmly exerted -himself on his behalf with Cardinal Barberini and other influential -persons, had probably come to the conclusion that nothing more could -be done for his unfortunate friend, for from this time we find nothing -in his letters to Galileo but scientific disquisitions and spiritual -consolations.[572] - -This indicates the two interests which occupied the latest period -of Galileo’s life—deep piety and scientific meditations. His utter -hopelessness and pious resignation are very clearly expressed in the -brief sentence he used often to write to Castelli: “Piace cosi a Dio, -dere piacere cosi ancora a Noi.”[573] (If it please God, it ought also to -please us.) He never omitted in any letter to his old friend and pupil to -commend himself in conclusion to his prayers,[574] and in his letter of -3rd December, 1639, he added: “I remind you to persevere in your prayers -to the all-merciful and loving God, that He will cast out the bitter -hatred from the hearts of my malicious and unhappy persecutors.” - -The lofty genius with which nature had endowed Galileo never displayed -itself in so striking and surprising a manner as during these last three -years. No sooner were his physical sufferings in some measure relieved, -than he occupied himself in scientific speculations, the results of which -he partly communicated to his great pupil and subsequent biographer, -Viviani, by word of mouth, and partly dictated them to some of those -about him. The society of young Viviani, then eighteen years of age, who, -by permission of the Inquisition, spent the last two years and a half of -the old master’s life near him,[575] was the greatest comfort to him, -and he conceived a fatherly affection for the talented youth. We owe it -partly to the assistance and stimulus given by Viviani that the aged -Galileo worked on to the end in improving and enlarging his “Dialoghi -delle Nuove Scienze,” made a number of additions, and added new evidence -of great importance to science in two supplementary dialogues.[576] - -During this last period of his life also, he again took up the -negotiations with the States-General, broken off by his severe illness -in 1638. After he became blind he had given up all his writings, -calculations, and astronomical tables relating to the Medicean stars, to -his old pupil, Father Vincenzo Renieri, in order that he might carry them -further; he was well adapted for the task, and executed it with equal -skill and zeal.[577] The new ephemerides were just about to be sent to -Hortensius, when Diodati informed Galileo of his sudden death in a letter -of 28th October, 1639.[578] The three other commissioners charged by -the States-General with the investigation of Galileo’s proposal having -also died one after another, in quick succession, it was difficult to -resume the negotiations. The interest of the Netherlanders in Galileo’s -scheme (perhaps from its acknowledged imperfection) had also evidently -cooled, and his proposal to replace the commissioners was not carried -out, although he offered to send Renieri to Holland to give all needful -explanations by word of mouth. Galileo’s death then put an end to these -fruitless negotiations.[579] - -At the beginning of 1640 Fortunio Liceti, a former pupil of Galileo’s, -published a book on the phosphorescent Bolognian stone. In the fiftieth -chapter of this work he treats of the faint light of the side of the moon -not directly illuminated by the sun, and rejects the view advocated -by Galileo in his “Sidereus Nuntius,” that it arises from a reflection -of the sun’s rays striking our earth, which the earth reflects to our -satellite, who again reflects them to us. Galileo was undecided whether -it were not best to take no notice of Liceti’s objections, the scientific -value of which he did not estimate very highly, when a letter from Prince -Leopold de’ Medici, brother of the reigning Grand Duke, relieved him of -his doubts.[580] This prince, who has gained a permanent name in the -history of science by founding the celebrated “Accadémia del Cimento,” -invited Galileo to give him his views on Liceti’s objections.[581] This -challenge sufficed to rouse all the blind old man’s dialectic skill, -though he was then seventy-six and bowed down by mental and bodily -sufferings. He dictated a reply, in the form of a letter to Prince -Leopold, which occupies fifty large pages in the extant edition of his -“Opere,” and in fire, spirit, mastery of language, and crushing argument, -it is quite a match for the most famous controversial works of his -manhood.[582] - -A most interesting direct correspondence then ensued between Galileo -and Liceti, which was carried on from June, 1640, to January, 1641, in -which not this question only was discussed, but Galileo took occasion -to express his opinions, with great spirit and learning, on the modern -Peripatetic school and philosophy, on Aristotle himself, and his -fanatical followers. These letters of the venerable hero of science are -characterised by ostensible politeness pervaded by cutting irony, which -makes them instructive and stimulating reading.[583] - -Ten months before his death, thanks to an indiscreet question from one -of his former pupils, a last opportunity occurred of speaking of the -Copernican system. Francesco Rinuccini, Tuscan resident at Venice, and -afterwards Bishop of Pistoja, having apparently forgotten that the master -had solemnly abjured that opinion, and had even been compelled to promise -to denounce its adherents wherever he met with them to the Inquisition, -informed him in a letter of 23rd March, 1641,[584] that the mathematician -Pieroni asserted that he had discovered by means of the telescope a small -parallax of a few seconds in some of the fixed stars, which would place -the correctness of the Copernican system beyond all question. Rinuccini -then goes on to say, in the same breath, that he had lately seen the -manuscript of a book about to appear, which contained an objection to -the new doctrine, and made it appear very doubtful. It was this: because -we see exactly one half of the firmament, it follows inevitably that the -earth is the centre of the starry heavens. Rinuccini begs Galileo to -clear up these doubts for him, and to help him to a more certain opinion. - -This was the impulse to Galileo’s letter of 29th March, 1641,[585] which, -as Alfred Von Reumont truly says,[586] whether jest or mask, had better -never have been written. There is no doubt that it must not be taken in -its literal sense. Precisely the same tactics are followed as in the -letter which accompanied the “Treatise on the Tides,” to the Grand Duke -of Austria in 1618, and in many passages of the “Dialogues on the Two -Systems.” Galileo conceals his real opinions behind a thick veil, through -which the truth is only penetrable by the initiated. The cautious course -he pursued in this perilous answer to Rinuccini is as clever as it is -ingenious, and appears appropriate to his circumstances; but it does -not produce a pleasant impression, and for the sake of the great man’s -memory, one would prefer to leave the subject untouched. - -We will now examine this interesting letter more closely. When we call -to mind the disquisitions on the relation of Scripture to science, which -Galileo wrote to Castelli in 1613, and to the Grand Duchess Christine -in 1615, the very beginning is a misrepresentation only excusable on -the ground of urgent necessity. He says: “The incorrectness of the -Copernican system should not in any case be doubted, especially by us -Catholics, for the inviolable authority of Holy Scripture is opposed -to it, as interpreted by the greatest teachers of theology, whose -unanimous declaration makes the stability of the earth in the centre, -and the revolution of the sun round it, a certainty. The grounds on -which Copernicus and his followers have maintained the contrary fall to -pieces before the fundamental argument of the Divine omnipotence. For -since this is able to effect by many, aye, endless means, what, so far -as we can see, only appears practicable by one method, we must not limit -the hand of God and persist obstinately in anything in which we may -have been mistaken.[587] And as I hold the Copernican observations and -conclusions to be insufficient, those of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and their -followers appear to me _far more delusive and mistaken, because their -falsity can clearly be proved without going beyond the limits of human -knowledge_.”[588] - -After this introduction Galileo proceeds to answer Rinuccini’s question. -He treats that argument against the Copernican system as delusive, and -says that it originates in the assumption that the earth stands still -in the centre, and by no means from precise astronomical observation. -_He refutes, therefore, the scientific objection to the new doctrine._ -Speaking of the assumed discovery of Pieroni, he says, that if it should -be confirmed, however small the parallax may be, _human science must -draw the conclusion from it that the earth cannot be stationary in the -centre_. But in order to weaken this dangerous sentence, he hastens to -add, that if Pieroni might be mistaken in thinking that he had discovered -such a parallax of a few seconds, those might be still more mistaken who -think they can observe that the visible hemisphere never varies, not -even one or two seconds; for such an exact and certain observation is -utterly impossible, partly from the insufficiency of the astronomical -instruments, and partly from the refraction of the rays of light. - -As will be seen, Galileo takes great care to show the futility of the -new arguments brought into the field against the Copernican system. -It therefore seems very strange that some writers, and among them the -well-known Italian historian, Cesare Cantu, suppose from this letter that -at the close of his life Galileo had really renounced the prohibited -doctrine from profound conviction![589] The introduction, and many -passages thrown in in this cautious refutation, must, as Albèri and -Henri Martin justly observe, be regarded as fiction, the author having -the Inquisition in view; it had recently given a striking proof of its -watchfulness by forbidding the author of a book called “De Pitagorea -animarum transmigratione,” to apply the epithet “clarissimus” to -Galileo, and it had only with great difficulty been persuaded to permit -“notissimus Galileus”![590] - -A short time before the close of Galileo’s brilliant scientific career, -in spite of age, blindness, and sickness, he once more gave striking -evidence of the genius which could only be quenched by death. It will -be remembered that the inadequacy of his proposed chronometer had been -the chief obstacle to the acceptance by the States-General of his method -of taking longitudes at sea. Now, in the second half of the year 1641, -it occurred to him, as is confirmed beyond question by Viviani, who -was present,[591] though the idea is generally ascribed to Christian -Huyghens, of adding a pendulum to the then very imperfect clocks, as -regulator of their motion. As this was sixteen years before Huyghens made -known his invention of pendulum clocks, priority indisputably belongs to -Galileo. But it was only permitted to the blind master to conceive the -great idea—he was not to carry it out. It was his intention to employ the -eyes and hands of his son Vincenzo, a very clever mechanician, to put -his idea in practice, and he told him of his plan. Vincenzo was to make -the necessary drawings according to his father’s instructions, and to -construct models accordingly. But in the midst of these labours Galileo -fell ill, and this time he did not recover.[592] His faithful pupil, -Castelli, who probably foresaw the speedy dissolution of the revered old -man, came to see him about the end of September, 1641. In October, on the -repeated and urgent invitation of Galileo, Torricelli joined Castelli -and Viviani, not to leave the Villa Arcetri until they left it with -Galileo’s coffin. Torricelli was then thirty-three, and the old master -had discerned his eminent talents from a treatise on the theory of motion -which he had sent him.[593] Castelli was not permitted to stay till the -close. At the beginning of November he had to return to Rome, leaving -Galileo, Torricelli, and Viviani eagerly occupied with the completion of -the “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.” - -On 5th November Galileo was attacked by an insidious hectic fever, which -slowly but surely brought him to the grave.[594] Violent pains in his -limbs threw him on a sick bed, from which he did not rise again. In spite -of all these sufferings, which were augmented by constant palpitation -of the heart and almost entire sleeplessness, his active mind scarcely -rested for a moment, and he spent the long hours of perpetual darkness -in constant scientific conversation and discussions with Torricelli and -Viviani, who noted down the last utterances of the dying man with pious -care. As they chiefly related to the “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” they -are to be found in the two supplementary Dialogues added to that work. - -On 8th January, 1642, the year of Newton’s birth, having received the -last sacraments and the benediction of Urban VIII., Galileo breathed his -last, at the age of nearly seventy-eight years. His son Vincenzo, his -daughter-in-law Sestilia Bocchineri, his pupils Torricelli and Viviani, -and the parish priest, were around his bed.[595] And when Vincenzo closed -his father’s sightless eyes for their last long sleep, they gave not a -thought at Rome to the severe loss sustained by science by Galileo’s -death, but only prepared in hot haste to guard the interests of the -Church, and as far as it lay in their power, to persecute the Cæsar of -science even beyond the grave. The aim was now, as far as possible, to -extinguish his memory, with which so many perils for Rome were bound up. - -Even around his bier the struggle began. Some pettifogging theologians -went so far as to wish that Christian burial should be denied him, and -that his will should be declared null and void, for a man condemned -on suspicion of heresy, and who had died as a prisoner of the -Inquisition, had no claim to rest in consecrated ground, nor could he -possess testamentary rights. A long consultation of the ecclesiastical -authorities in Florence, and two circumstantial opinions from them were -required to put these fanatics to silence. - -Immediately after Galileo’s death his numerous pupils and admirers made a -collection for a handsome monument to the famous Tuscan. The Inquisitor, -Fanano, at once sent word of this to Rome, and received a reply by order -of the Pope, dated 23rd January, that he was to bring it in some way to -the ears of the Grand Duke that it was not at all suitable to erect a -monument to Galileo, who was sentenced to do penance by the tribunal of -the Holy Office and had died during that sentence; good Catholics would -be scandalised, and the reputation of the Grand Duke for piety might -suffer. But if this did not take effect, the Inquisitor must see that -there was nothing in the inscription insulting to the reputation of the -holy tribunal, and exercise the same care about the funeral sermon.[596] - -Besides this, Urban VIII. seized the next opportunity of giving the -Tuscan ambassador to understand that “it would be a bad example for the -world if his Highness permitted such a thing, since Galileo had been -arraigned before the Holy Office for such false and erroneous opinions, -had also given much trouble about them at Florence, and had altogether -given rise to the greatest scandal throughout Christendom by this -condemned doctrine.”[597] In the despatch in which Niccolini reported -these remarks of the Pope to his Government, he advised that the matter -be postponed, and reminded them that the Pope had had the body of the -Duchess Matilda, of Mantua, removed from the Carthusian convent there, -and buried at St. Peter’s at Rome, without saying a word to the Duke -about it beforehand, excusing himself afterwards by saying that all -churches were papal property, and therefore all the bodies buried in them -belonged to the clergy! If, therefore, they did not wish to incur the -danger of perhaps seeing Galileo’s bones dragged away from Florence, all -idea must be given up for the present of suitably celebrating his memory. - -Niccolini received an official reply that there had been a talk of -erecting a monument to Galileo, but that his Highness had not come to any -decision, and proper regard would certainly be paid to the hints received -from the Pope.[598] The weak Ferdinand II. did not venture to act in the -least against the heartless Pope’s wishes. Even Galileo’s desire in his -will to be buried in the vault of his ancestors in the Church of Santa -Croce, at Florence, was not respected. His mortal remains were placed in -a little obscure room, in a side chapel belonging to the Church, called -“the Chapel of the Novitiate.” He was buried according to the desire of -Urban VIII., very quietly, without any pomp. No monument nor inscription -marked his resting place; but though Rome did all she could to obliterate -the memory of the famous philosopher, she could not effect that the -immortal name of Galileo Galilei should be buried in the grave with his -lifeless remains. - -It was not till thirty-two years later, when Urban VIII. had long been in -his grave, and more lenient views were entertained about Galileo at the -Vatican, that Fra Gabriel Pierozzi, Rector of the Novices of the Convent -of Santa Croce, ventured to adorn Galileo’s grave with a long bombastic -inscription.[599] In 1693 Viviani, whose greatest pride it was to sign -himself “Discépolo ultimo di Galileo,” erected the first public monument -to his immortal master. The front of his handsome house in the Via San -Antonio was made to serve for it, for he placed the bronze bust of -Galileo, after the model of the famous sculptor, Giovanni Caccini, over -the door. A long eulogy on Galileo was engraved over and on both sides of -it.[600] - -But Viviani was not content with thus piously honouring the memory of the -master; in his last will he enjoined on his heirs to erect a splendid -monument to him, which was to cost about 4000 scudi, in the Church of -Santa Croce.[601] Decades, however, passed after Viviani’s death before -his heirs thought of fulfilling his wishes. At length, in 1734, the -preliminary steps were taken by an inquiry from the Convent of Santa -Croce, whether any decree of the Holy Congregation existed which would -forbid the erection of such a monument in the Church? The Inquisitor at -Florence immediately inquired of the Holy Office at Rome whether it would -be permitted thus to honour a man “who had been condemned for notorious -errors.”[602] The opinion of the counsellors of the Holy Office was -taken. They said that there was nothing to prevent the erection of the -monument, provided the intended inscription were submitted to the Holy -Congregation, that they might give such orders about it as they thought -proper.[603] This opinion was confirmed by the Congregation of the Holy -Office on 16th June, 1734.[604] And so the pompous monument to Galileo, -which displayed the tastelessness of the age, and was not completed till -four years later, could be raised in the Church of Santa Croce, this -pantheon of the Florentines, where they bury their famous dead, and of -which Byron finely sings in “Childe Harold”:— - - “In Santa Croce’s holy precincts lie - Ashes which make it holier, dust which is - Even in itself an immortality, - Though there were nothing save the past, and this, - The particle of those sublimities - Which have relapsed to chaos:—here repose - Angelo’s, Alfieri’s bones, and his, - The starry Galileo, with his woes; - Here Machiavelli’s earth returned to whence it rose.”[605] - -On 12th March, 1737, Galileo’s remains were removed, in presence of all -the professors of the University of Florence, and many of the learned -men of Italy, with great solemnity and ecclesiastical pomp, from their -modest resting-place to the new mausoleum in a more worthy place in the -Church of Santa Croce itself, and united with those of his last pupil, -Viviani.[606] - -It had long been perceived at Rome that, in spite of every effort, -it was vain to try to bury the Copernican system with Galileo in the -grave. It could no longer greatly concern the Roman curia that Galileo’s -memory was held in high honour, when the cause for which he suffered had -decidedly gained the victory. It was by a singular freak of nature that -in the very same year which closed the career of this great observer of -her laws, another who was to complete the work begun by Copernicus and -carried on by Galileo, entered upon his. He it is, as we all know, who -gave to science those eternal forms now recognised as firmly established, -and whose genius, by the discovery of the law of gravitation, crowned -the edifice of which Copernicus laid the foundations and which Galileo -upreared. During the lifetime of the latter, and the period immediately -succeeding his death, the truth of the system of the earth’s double -motion was recognised by numerous learned men; and in 1696, when -Newton published his immortal work, “Philosophiæ naturalis principia -Mathematica,” it became thoroughly established. All the scientific world -who pursued the paths of free investigation accepted the Copernican -system, and only a few ossified devotees of the old school, in common -with some theological philosophers, still raised impotent objections to -it, which have been continued even up to this day by some wrong-headed -people.[607] - -At Rome they only accommodated themselves to the new system slowly and -reluctantly. In 1757, when it was no longer doubted by any one but a few -fanatics, the Congregation of the Index thought the time was come for -proposing to Pope Benedict XIV. to expunge the clause from the decree -of 5th March, 1616, prohibiting all books which teach that the sun is -stationary and the earth revolves. This enlightened pontiff, known as -a patron of the arts and sciences, entirely agreed, and signified his -consent on 11th May, 1757.[608] But there still remained on the Index -the work of Copernicus, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” Diego di -Zuñiga’s “Commentary on the Book of Job” (these two works, however, only -“donec corrigantur,” but this was quite worthless for strict Catholics as -far as the work of Copernicus was concerned, as since the announcement of -these “corrections” by the decree of 15th May, 1620, no new edition had -appeared), Foscarini’s “Léttera sópra l’opinione de i Pittagorici e del -Copernico della mobilità della Terra et stabilità del Sole, e il nuove -Pittagorico Sistéma del Mondo,” Kepler’s “Epitome astronomiæ Copernicæ,” -and finally, Galileo’s “Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistémi del Mondo.” -This last work had indeed been allowed to appear in the edition of -Galileo’s collected works,[609] undertaken at Padua in 1744, which had -received the prescribed ecclesiastical permission; but the editor, the -Abbot Toaldo, had been obliged expressly to state in an introduction -that the theory of the double motion can and must be regarded only as a -mathematical hypothesis, to facilitate the explanation of certain natural -phenomena. Besides this, the “Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems” had -to be preceded by the sentence on and recantation of Galileo, as well as -by an Essay “On the System of the Universe of the Ancient Hebrews,” by -Calmet, in which the passages of Scripture bearing on the order of the -world were interpreted in the traditional Catholic fashion.[610] - -The celebrated French astronomer Lalande, as he himself relates,[611] -tried in vain when at Rome, in 1765, to get Galileo’s works expunged from -the Index. The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Index objected -that there was a sentence of the Congregation of the Holy Office in -existence which must first be cancelled, but this was not done, and all -remained as before; and even in the edition of the Index of 1819, strange -to say, the five works mentioned above were to be found as repudiated by -the Roman curia! - -It then happened in the following year, 1820, that Canon Joseph Settele, -professor of optics and astronomy at the Archive-gymnasium at Rome, -wrote a lesson book, “Elementi d’astronomia,” in which the Copernican -system, in accordance with the results of science, was treated _ex -professo_. The Master of the Palace, Philip Anfossi, to whom in his -capacity of chief censor of the press the book was submitted, demanded -under appeal to the decree of 5th March, 1616, still in force, that the -doctrine of the double motion should be only treated hypothetically, and -refused the _imprimatur_ until the MS. had been altered. Canon Settele, -however, was not disposed to make himself ridiculous in face of the whole -scientific world by compliance with these antiquated conditions, and -appealed to Pope Pius VII., who referred the matter to the Congregation -of the Holy Office. Here at last some regard was had to the times, and -in the sitting of 16th August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might -treat the Copernican system as established, which was approved by Pius -VII. without hesitation. Father Anfossi could not, after this decision, -prevent the work from publication as it was, but he resolutely pointed -out the contradiction between this permission and the decree of 5th -March, 1616, and published a treatise entitled: “Can any one who has -made the Tridentine Confession, defend and teach as a thesis, and as -an absolute truth and not a mere hypothesis, that the earth revolves -and the sun is stationary?”[612] This gave rise to discussions in the -College of Cardinals of the Holy Inquisition as to the attitude to be -adopted by ecclesiastical authority towards the Copernican system, which -had been universally adopted for more than a century. In the sitting of -11th September, 1822, they finally agreed, with express reference to the -decree of the Index Congregation of 10th May, 1757, and 16th August, -1820, “that the printing and publication of works treating of the motion -of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general -opinion of modern astronomers is permitted at Rome.”[613] This decree -was ratified by Pius VII. on 25th September. - -But full thirteen years more went by until, in 1835, when the new edition -of the catalogue of prohibited books appeared, the five works in which -the theory of the double motion was maintained and defended were expunged -from the list. - -It was not until 1835, therefore, that the last trace was effaced of the -memorable warfare so long and resolutely waged by ecclesiastical power -against the superior insight of science. If it is denied to history to -surround the head of Galileo, the greatest advocate of the new system, -with the halo of the martyr, ready to die for his cause, posterity -will ever regard with admiration and gratitude the figure of the man, -who, though he did not heroically defend the truth, was, by virtue of -his genius, one of her first pioneers, and had to bear for her sake an -accumulation of untold suffering. - - - - -APPENDIX. - - - - -I. - -_HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._[614] - - -We know next to nothing of the history of the Vatican MS. up to the time -when Napoleon I. took possession of the papal city. During this period, -when proud Rome had sunk so low as to be a department of France, in -1811, by the mandate of the then ruler of the world, the treasures of -the Vatican archives were removed from Rome to Paris. Among them was -the volume containing the Acts of Galileo’s trial. It is not known how -Napoleon’s special attention came to be directed to them; but it is -certain that he requested Alexander Barbier, then State Librarian, to -furnish him with a detailed report about them.[615] Barbier handed it -to the Minister of Worship and Instruction. He also proposed that the -whole of the documents should be printed, in the interests of historical -truth, in the original Latin and Italian, with a French translation. The -proposal was approved by the Emperor, and the volume was handed over to -Barbier that he might have the translation made. - -When the convulsions of 1814 had swept Napoleon out of Paris, and -transported him to Elba, and the Bourbons again ruled France, the Roman -curia repeatedly took steps to regain possession of the volume. - -After the return of Pius VII. to Rome in 1814, after his compulsory -residence at Fontainebleau, Mgr. Marini was staying at Paris as Papal -Commissary, in order to demand from the new French Government the -restitution of the archival treasures taken by Napoleon from the Holy -See. He first applied for the Acts of Galileo’s trial to the Minister -of the Interior, who referred him to the Count de Blacas, Minister of -the Royal Household.[616] He assured Marini that he would have a search -instituted in the royal library.[617] He wrote on the same day to Barbier -charging him to search for the documents, and to report to him on their -historical value.[618] Barbier’s answer is too characteristic not to be -given. - - “A Son Excellence le Ministre de la Maison du Roi, - Paris, 5 Decembre, 1814. - - Monseigneur, - - Je m’empresse de répondre à la lettre par laquelle votre - Excellence me fait l’honneur de me demander s’il existe, dans - le dépôt général des bibliothèques de S.M. ou dans l’une de ses - Bibliothèques particulières, des pièces qui faisaient partie - des Archives Pontificales et qui sont reclamées par le garde de - ces Archives, savoir le procès de Galilée. - - _Il y a plus de trois aus que je possède le procès de Galilée._ - - Rien n’est plus célèbre que ce procès dans l’histoire des - Sciences et dans celle de l’Inquisition. Aussi s’en est on - occupé avec un grand zèle jusqu’à ces derniers temps; ce qui - est probablement cause qu’ après l’avoir examiné avec tante - l’attention qu’il merite, _je n’y ai remarqué ancun détail qui - ne soit connu_ (sic). L’importance de ce recueil consiste donc - principalement dans la réunion des pièces qui ont motivé, dans - le XVIIᵉ siècle, la condamnation d’un habile astronome, pour - une opinion qui est généralement enseignée aujourd’hui dans - toutes les écoles, même ecclésiastiques. - - Je suis, Monseigneur, etc., - - BARBIER.”[619] - -It is clear that Barbier expected to find support in the Acts of the -trial for the assumed torture of Galileo; and as they reported nothing -of the kind, and could not report anything consistently with the facts -of history, the librarian entirely overlooked the vast importance of the -papers. After this report Count Blacas felt no scruple about letting the -Papal Commissary have them. On 15th December the minister wrote a note to -Barbier, asking him for the volume of documents, that he might himself -hand it to Marini.[620] He also wrote to the Papal Commissary that the -documents had been found, and that it would give him great pleasure to -deliver them to him.[621] Marini accordingly went three times to the -minister’s hotel, and once to the Tuileries, but without success. He -therefore begged, in a letter of 28th January, 1815, to have a day and -hour appointed for an audience.[622] To his dismay he received in reply -a letter from Count Blacas of 2nd February, 1815, saying that the King -himself wished to look through the trial of Galileo, that the MS. was in -his majesty’s cabinet, and therefore could not be given up immediately, -but it should be done as soon as the King had returned it.[623] - -Marini was therefore on the track of the documents, though he did not -get them. But only twenty-four days after he received this explanation -the famous hundred days occurred, and Louis XVIII. left his palace in -the darkness of night for Ghent. Napoleon had scarcely set out for St. -Helena, and the legitimate sovereign made his entry into Paris, than we -find the Papal Commissary again eagerly trying to get back the precious -MS.[624] But what must have been his dismay when he was informed by Count -Pradel, temporary successor of Count Blacas, on 6th November, 1815, -that the documents were no longer to be found in the King’s cabinet, -and that it was not known what had become of them.[625] Further efforts -were fruitless. All that he could get from the French Government was the -doubtful promise that the papers should be restored when found. - -Two years later, in August, 1817, he again attacked Count Pradel on the -subject,[626] and was assured that they were not in the cabinet of the -royal palace; he might have a search made among the archives in the -Louvre, they might have been put aside there.[627] Marini suspected that -the papers had been purloined, and asked the minister of police, Count -Decazes, to help him in his search. He, however, referred him to the -Minister Of the Interior,[628] that is, to the place where he had begun -his inquiries three years before. Afterwards he applied to the president -of the ministry, the Duke of Richelieu, and to the influential M. de -Lainé, but with no more success than before. - -In 1820 Venturi applied to Delambre, Secretary of the Academy of -Sciences, with the request to get for him, if possible, extracts from -and copies of the Acts of the trial, as he was urgently in want of them -for the second volume of his “Memorie e lettere inedite fuora o disperse -di Galileo Galilei.” Delambre eagerly took up the question. Some light -is thrown on the steps he took by the following note to Barbier of 27th -June, only published a few months ago:— - - “Le secretaire perpétuel de l’Académie pour les Sciences - Mathématiques est venu pour avoir l’honneur de converser - avec M. Barbier, sur un article intéressant de biographie - astronomique, le procés de Galilée et les pièces originales - dont M. Barbier a été longtemps dêpositaire. Il desire - cette conversation pour lui-même et pour M. Venturi, etc., - Delambre.”[629] - -Three days later Delambre wrote to Venturi that the original Acts -certainly had been at Paris some years ago, but had disappeared, and it -was not now known whether they were still there or had been taken away. -He told him that during the Empire the publication and translation of -the documents had been projected, but political events had prevented it -from being carried out; the extracts, however, then made, and the French -translation which had been begun, were in existence. These, which M. -Barbier had placed at Delambre’s disposal, he sent to Venturi. Delambre -expressed his great regret that the material which he could obtain was -not complete; but he consoled himself with the opinion that by the -publication of the documents in Riccioli’s “Almagestum novum,” 1651, -and in the first volume of Venturi’s work, nothing essential would be -wanting; and “that unfortunate business, which would be ridiculous if -it were not so repulsive, is now as widely known as can be desired.” -Delambre, as it seems, was only concerned with the clearing up of the -torture question; and as the fragments which had come to his knowledge -contained no evidence of torture, and as he might have been informed by -Barbier that there was no trace of it in any of the papers, he wrote as -above in calm conviction to Venturi. - -Eight years afterwards Count Darü, who was intending to bring out his -work on astronomy, made inquiries of Barbier about the existence of the -Acts of Galileo’s trial. The information he received must have been -wholly unsatisfactory, as appears from the following letter from the -Count to Barbier of 16th October, 1828:— - - “J’ai reçu Monsieur ... les deux lettres que vous m’avez fait - l’honneur de m’écrire. J’ai trouvé, joint à la seconde, le - billet de M. l’abbé Denina[630] qui prouve que la traduction du - procès de Galilée a existé au moins en partie. Du reste, nous - en avions déjà la preuve par l’extrait de M. Delambre. _Je suis - persuadé que le procès existe quelque part à Paris_, et ce me - semble, il doit se trouver dans quelque bibliothèque du roi, - peut être même aux Archives de la liste civile. J’en parlerai a - M. le baron de la Bouillerie. - - Recevez, etc., - - DARÜ.”[631] - -But Darü’s further inquiries seem to have been unsuccessful; anyhow, the -long-sought-for volume remained concealed for seventeen years longer. In -1845 Gregory XVI. requested Pelegrino Rossi, French ambassador at Rome, -who was devoted to the papacy, to use his influence to get the Acts -restored, if they should be discovered at Paris. This shows that it was -disbelieved at Rome that they could not be found. At first Rossi’s urgent -mediation only obtained the assurance from Louis Philippe that the Pope’s -cherished wish should be fulfilled, provided that the papers should be -found, but on the express condition that they should be published entire -at Rome. And as the curia, of course, promised to comply, the MS. which -had been mysteriously concealed for thirty-one years was “found” and -restored. - -In 1848-9, when the Papal See was attacked by the revolutionary spirit -which pervaded Europe, the fugitive Pope, Pius IX., confided the -hardly-won documents to the prefect of the Secret Archives, Marino -Marini. He not only took good care of them, but took the opportunity of -fulfilling the obligation to the French Government incurred on their -restoration. On 12th April, 1850, the Pope returned from Gaeta to his -capital under the protection of French bayonets, and his thoughts must -soon have recurred to these documents, for on 8th May of the same year he -presented them to the Vatican Library. In the same year, also, Marini’s -work, “Galileo Galilei e l’Inquizione,” appeared at Rome, intended to be -the fulfilment of the French conditions. - -We purposely say “intended to be,” for they were not really so at all. -The entire contents of the Vatican MS. were thereby by no means given -to the public, but such a sight of it as the editor thought proper, and -which was, as far as possible, an apology for the Inquisition. Instead of -the full original text of the Acts, the world only received disjointed -extracts, arbitrary fragments—in many instances nothing at all. Perhaps -it was perceived at head-quarters that a comparison of Marini’s work with -the documents would bring strange things to light, for they were suddenly -removed from the too public Vatican Library and placed among the papal -archives. - -And for a long time there seemed to be no disposition to place these -important historical materials at the disposal of independent historians. -Thus we learn from Albèri, editor of “Le Opere di Galileo Galilei,” -Florence, 1842-1856, in 16 vols, in which all the materials for the -history of Galileo are collected, that Marini had made obliging offers -to him about the Vatican MS.; but his death put an end to the hopes thus -raised, and Albèri had to content himself with reproducing the extracts -and documents given by Venturi and Marini. It is obvious that the MS. -was not accessible to him, or he would surely have included the Acts in -his great work. Professor Moritz Cantor, who asked to see them ten years -later, met with no better success. He complains bitterly in his essay, -“Galileo Galilei,” that the attempts he made through the good offices of -an eminent _savant_, with Father Theiner, keeper of the Secret Archives, -had been without avail. - -However, though neither Albèri nor Cantor attained their wish, Henri de -L’Epinois, a few years later, was more successful. In the introduction -to his work, “Galilée, son procès sa Condemnation,” 1867, he relates -that in a conversation with Theiner at Rome, he expressed his regret at -the inadequacy of Marini’s book, and his desire to see the subject of -Galileo’s trial cleared up. Theiner liberally responded to this appeal -by placing the documents at his disposal. But Epinois had only just -made hasty copies of the most important, and indices of others, when -he was compelled by urgent private affairs to return to France. The -copies of the Vatican MS. which he took with him were therefore in many -respects inaccurate and incomplete, and even the indices left much to be -desired. Nevertheless, historical research will always be indebted to -Epinois for publishing his notes, in spite of their shortcomings, which -were best known to himself.[632] The melancholy picture of Galileo’s -trial was first presented in faithful outline, and it became possible to -weave the story with approximate accuracy. Many details, however, were -still wanting; and though the fictitious stories of many writers were -considerably checked by Epinois’s communications, some scope was still -left for them. What was wanted was the entire publication of the Vatican -MS., and if possible with diplomatic precision. - -Nine years again went by, during which Epinois seems to have found no -opportunity of completing his work. Meanwhile, Professor Domenico Berti -asked for the favour of a sight of the papers, and in 1876 he was engaged -in Theiner’s room in copying the documents.[633] In the same year his -work, “Il Processo Originale di Galileo Galilei,” appeared, bearing upon -the title page the unwarranted addition, “publicato per la prima volta da -Domenico Berti.” Epinois had been the first to publish the Vatican MS., -though only partially; the words would only have been correct if Berti -had published them complete. This he professes to have done,[634] but as -five documents are wanting, and the contents of fifty others only shortly -given, it cannot be regarded as complete. - -Besides these unfortunate lapses, Berti’s publication is very -disappointing to the historian. Instead of giving the reader as good an -idea as possible of this interesting MS., the documents are taken out of -all connection, and given numbers and superscriptions of which there is -not a trace in the original, and the marking of the folios is omitted. -“Improvement” of the orthography, punctuation, etc., is consistently -carried out. One of the numberings is quite left out (the oldest, upper -paging), and, following Epinois, he reads the second incorrectly. - -In the same year in which Berti’s book appeared, Sante Pieralisi received -an invitation from high quarters to inspect the volume. He accepted the -flattering offer with no small satisfaction, but does not seem to have -known how to turn it to account. He confined himself to comparing the -most important documents in Epinois and Berti with the originals, and to -giving a list, by no means complete, of their deviations from them.[635] - -In consequence of the controversy as to the genuineness of the document -of 26th February, 1616, we resolved in the spring of 1877 to attempt to -get a sight of the papers, our sole reason being the desire to see for -ourselves whether external evidence was for or against falsification, or -whether any certain conclusions could be drawn from it. We had then no -idea whatever of publishing the Vatican MS. ourselves, as we at that time -considered Berti’s publication of it to be nearly complete. - -Through the good offices of the Austrian ambassador, we were promised -that when we came to Rome, Cardinal Simeoni, Secretary of State, would -permit us to see the documents. Two days afterwards we were on our way -to Rome, and soon had the volume in our hands. As we turned over the -pages with a curiosity easy to be imagined, and compared it with Berti’s -publication, we discovered, to our no small surprise, its many omissions -and inaccuracies. The idea then occurred to us of making a copy of all -the documents in the collection with the greatest possible precision. Not -the least “improvement” should be made; the text should be reproduced -exactly, with its peculiar orthography, accentuation, and punctuation, -its abbreviations, errors, and special marks, so far as it was possible -by means of typography. - -We made known our intention to the first prefect of the Vatican Library, -Mgr. Martinuzzi, to whom Cardinal Simeoni had referred us; he not only -made not the slightest objection, but showed great interest in our -project. During our long daily tarriance in the Vatican afterwards, he -was most obliging, and heaped attentions upon us which lightened the -labour. - -We might have been engaged about three weeks in copying the MS., sending -the pages copied during the day to Messrs. Cotta, at Stuttgard, to be -printed, when we were surprised one morning by a visit in the Vatican -from M. de L’Epinois. He told us that he had been two months at Rome, -and had undertaken a correction of Berti’s book from the original. We -informed him of our enterprise, which he spoke of as “quite a different -thing”; and when we returned his call, he again spoke of a correction -of Berti, and regretted that he had not copied the whole MS. Of any -intention of publishing it complete he said not a word. We therefore -contentedly went on with our work; the copying was nearly finished and -the printing in progress, when one afternoon on our return from the -Vatican we found a letter from Epinois, in which he said that he had not -had time to call on us again, and informed us of the speedy appearance of -his complete publication of the Vatican MS., and that we should receive -a copy in a few days. This announcement was most surprising. We went at -once to seek M. de L’Epinois, but learnt that he had left Rome early that -morning. - -Our work was too far advanced to be given up, and so we went on, in the -hope that even now there might be some little place in the world for it. -By the time Epinois’s book reached us the copying was finished, and we -were correcting the proofs by the originals. It was not without value, -even for our enterprise, for we compared our proofs with it line by -line and word by word, made notes of deviations, and then went to the -Vatican to see which was right. We readily acknowledge that in this way -we discovered and corrected many errors which had crept into our copy. -The variations which still exist are all well known to us, and are left, -either because Epinois is mistaken, or we consider our reading to be the -best. This is not the place for a criticism of his work; we will only -bear witness, after comparing it with the original, to its accuracy. - - - - -II. - -_DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._ - - -The Acts of the two trials of Galileo, of 1615-16 and 1632-33, which -are stitched together, and to which several other documents are added -relating to the surveillance of Galileo until his death, and the -erection of his monument, form a pretty thick quarto volume, twenty-two -centimeters broad and thirty high. - -It is done up in a loose sheet of white paper, which can lay no claim to -veneration from age, and is in an equally loose green pasteboard cover, -which may boast of historic antiquity, as may also the faded and frail -red strings by which the volume is fastened. The cover is too short -and too narrow, so that the edges get mercilessly rubbed. In this way, -unfortunately, many a letter, word and even signature in these precious -papers have been lost, and it is high time to protect them from further -injury. - -The documents are only slightly fastened together in places, and you can -see from the outside how far the Acts of the first trial extend. This -slight fastening also enables you to see that all the blank pages, of -which there are 194, are partly reverse sides, partly second pages of -documents, and it may easily be discovered to which document each blank -page belongs. In some cases these second pages have been cut away, as -appears from the broad piece left. The suspicion from this that important -documents have been withdrawn seems inadmissible, for the pages cut out, -as is seen from those left, which correspond with the rest, belonged to -finished documents, and the abstraction of a document would certainly -not have been betrayed by leaving a broad strip behind. - -The paging is in the greatest confusion. On the title page, in the right -hand corner, are the figures 949, and under them 336. The historical -introduction, by an unknown hand, prefixed to the papers, is numbered -337-340. The first document bears the double paging - - 950 - 341, - -the upper number being struck through. On folio - - 951 - 342 - -a third paging begins with 1, on the right hand lower edge. The triple -numbering goes on regularly to - - 959 - 350 - 9. - -After - - 992 - 383 - 41 - -the uppermost and oldest paging is discontinued. Folios 384-386, blank -pages of the Acts of the first trial, only bear the double paging, -probably because, being blank, they were not paged until the papers of -both trials were put together. - -The double paging may be thus explained. The old numbering comprises all -the documents belonging to 1616; and as it is to be seen on the title -page, as well as the words: “Ex archivo S. Offij,” and Vol. 1181, it -is clear that these documents were originally comprised in a volume of -the Archives of the Holy Office numbered 1181. The Acts of the second -trial, 1632-33, must have belonged to another volume, as appears from -the paging, as the first document bears the number 387, but the number -of the volume is not traceable. When the Acts of 1616 and 1632-33 were -bound together, in order to form a continuous paging, the old numbers of -the first trial were struck through, and the paging continued backwards, -reckoning from the first folio of the second trial. - -The Introduction helps to determine the time when the two parts were -united. It only extends to the mention of Galileo’s defence; it is clear, -therefore, that it was written after 10th May (the date of the defence), -and before 21st June, the date of the last examination, while the -numbering, which is that of the second paging only, shows that the union -had taken place. The title page also is included in the second paging. We -may therefore conclude that the authorship of the Introduction and the -joining of the Acts up to 10th May, 1633, is to be attributed to the same -person. - -The object of this report undoubtedly was to give the Pope and -Congregation, before their final verdict on Galileo; a _résumé_ of the -whole affair from its beginning. The united Acts were the vouchers. The -drawing up of such a _résumé_ was part of the ordinary proceeding in -every trial before the Inquisition, and it had to be circulated among the -cardinals and qualifiers before the final sitting[636]. As in Galileo’s -case this final sitting took place on 16th June, under the personal -presidency of the Pope, it is in exact agreement with this that both the -summary and paging referred to in it only extend to the events of 16th -June. - -As to the addition of the further documents, it may be observed that -after the papers were put together the collection ended with six second -pages, of which four, 448, 449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of -Pasqualigus; and two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of -Galileo of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of 16th -June, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the last second page, 451, -forming part of the above-named document, and the three previous pages -were left blank. The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June -was written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining space -(half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes were made—the first about -the mandate of 30th June, to send the sentence and recantation to all -Inquisitors, etc., and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second -note reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd July. The -rest of the documents which the Vatican MS. now contains must have been -added as they came in, or when there were several to be added. The paging -was, of course, continuously carried out. - -The last document but one of the collection is a short historical summary -of the process. Berti says that this must have been drawn up at least a -year after its conclusion,[637] but Pieralisi[638] has pointed out that -he should have said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when -the inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, 1734, came in as -to the erection of a monument in Santa Croce, this _résumé_ was drawn up -to put the cardinals, who might not know much about it, in possession of -the chief facts of Galileo’s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of paper -containing the _résumé_ is stitched to the letter of Fra. Ambr*** and -the decision of the cardinals written on the fourth page. If any doubts -remain that this summary was written in 1734, they will disappear on -comparing it with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol -of the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, within -parentheses, the most important part of the summary, followed by the -decision of the cardinals, in almost verbatim translation from Italian -into Latin. The date and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear. - - - - -III. - -_ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._ - - -We now proceed to the examination of the documents contained in this -famous volume. They differ in historical value, for they are not all -as Professor Berti says,[639] original documents, but often copies, -and more or less cursory annotations. Those only can be considered -original documents which have autograph signatures; as all the letters -in the MS. with one exception,[640] the protocol of the examination of -Caccini, and the protocols of the examinations of Galileo; those of the -depositions of Ximenes and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor -at Florence to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of -their authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly of annotations on -the decrees relating to the trial, decrees and mandates of the Pope and -Holy Congregation, or notices of their execution. _But the original Acts -corresponding with these annotations are not comprised in the Vatican -MS._ Moreover, a careful examination of the Vatican Acts with Gherardi’s -Documents shows, that especially after the conclusion of the trial till -Galileo’s death, many papal decrees were issued of which there is no -mention in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must be looked -upon as an incomplete source. But on the other hand, there is no doubt -that the Acts of the trial itself lie before us altogether. - -Dr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed the suspicion -that a short time before the MS. was removed from the Archives of the -Holy Office to France, the Acts of the trial underwent alterations -with a special purpose, in the expectation that the Archives would be -robbed, and that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr. -Marino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations were -completed![641] Wohlwill takes all the preliminary report—the origin of -which is clear, and in accordance with the rules of the Inquisition—for -a forgery intended to influence “readers outside the Vatican.” He also -thinks that the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head -of the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one can make out, -and Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory reason for it. As he -had only Epinois’s first edition of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti’s -imperfect publication in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions. -It is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill’s bold conjectures turn -out to be phantoms on an actual examination of the papers, and this will -certainly be confirmed by Epinois, Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have -seen them. This is not the place to refute Wohlwill’s suspicions, as we -have done so elsewhere.[642] It only remains for us to give the material -evidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of 26th February -neither is nor can be a later falsification. - -As is well known, before we had inspected these documents we had fully -adopted the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and -Professor Gherardi in Italy, that the “document” of 26th February, -1616, was of a later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according -to the ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of the -“Dialogues on the Two Systems” to trial for disobedience to an order of -the Sacred Congregation, though the work seemed to be protected by the -ecclesiastical _imprimatur_. We confess that we went to Rome with but -little hope of finding external evidence for or against the genuineness -of the document. It had been long in Professor Berti’s hands, and he had -defended it with learned dialectics, while the controversy would have -been closed by adducing material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore, -sufficient inducement to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should -enable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document was not -a falsification, even though its genuineness might not be capable of -demonstration. - -Contrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, and we -may say, entirely objective examination, we must pronounce _that the -suspicion of a later origin is not tenable_. - -Now for the reasons. The note of 26th February begins on the same page as -that of the 25th, and they are in precisely the same ink and handwriting. -As, however, in case of a forgery, the perpetrator would not have been -so unskilful as to add a note in different ink and writing under another -sixteen years old, but would have written both on another sheet, and -carefully incorporated them with the Acts, we had to find out whether -it was possible that the pages on which the notes are found (folios 378 -vo. and 379 ro.), could have been afterwards added to the Acts. This was -found to be impossible. It is excluded by two circumstances. - -1. Folios 378 vo. and 379 ro. are _second_ pages to existing documents; -and folio 378 belongs to 377, on which is written the famous opinion of -the Qualifiers of the Holy Office on the two propositions of Galileo, -taken from the work on the Solar Spots. Folio 379 again belongs to folio -357, which is a page of the protocol of the examination of Caccini. - -2. In this collection of the Acts of the trial, all the paper on which -the documents of the Holy Office were written at Rome, bears the same -watermark,—a dove in a circle,—which is not found on any of the paper -of later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the -notes of 25th and 26th February. - -As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had -to be given up, there was still one suspicion left—that the two notes -had been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there -are so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But -this hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a -scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in -the same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be -found in any document of the later trial. - -In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to -maintain that the note of 26th February is a _later_ falsification. -Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured, -and Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the “falsifiers” went -to work. In the _Revista Europa_, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877, -Dr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most -convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it -is entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is -that the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th -February was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding -the edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery -by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini -quotes only the second paging, which was done _after_ the assumed -forgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according -to the pleasure—not of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632 -there was a regular numbering from 949-992, originating in 1616, and no -transposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini’s plan, -without entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm -of impossibilities. - -But firmly as it is now established that the document of 26th February, -1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally certain that the proceedings -did not take place in the rigid manner described in that annotation. -In the course of this work we have become acquainted with the various -reasons which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a downright -untruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To all these reasons one -more may now be added. Had the course of events been that recorded in the -annotation, so important an act would have been made into a protocol, -and would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and witnesses. Only a -document of this kind would have afforded conclusive evidence on another -trial. We learn from another document of the trial that such a proceeding -was a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, in order -that the accused might not be able to deny what had happened. When on 1st -October, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence, -who issued the command to him to present himself at Rome in the course of -the month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had received the order -and would obey it; no sooner had he left the room than it was entered by -a notary and witnesses who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment, -and affirmed under Galileo’s signature that they had been present when he -“promised, wrote, and signed the above.”[643] - -If these measures were so strictly observed in the case of this much less -important act, we may be tolerably certain that they would not have been -omitted in the far more important one of 1616, if the stringent command -had really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General in the name -of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before notary and witnesses, to -maintain henceforth absolute silence, in speaking and writing, about the -Copernican system. Such a document would have furnished the Holy Office -with legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in case of his breaking -his word, and for punishing his disobedience; in short, for subjecting -him to the consequences of this categorical injunction. - -Did such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact of the stringent -intimation, we did not believe that such a document ever had existed. -Nevertheless, when at Rome, we eagerly sought to discover whether, -contrary to all expectation, this most important document was extant, -or to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the Archives of -the Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor Gherardi had found -such valuable notes about the trial of Galileo. We therefore addressed -a memorial to the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which -we made a concise statement of the present state of the researches -relating to Galileo’s trial, remarking that though the suspicion of -a falsification was not tenable, the correctness of the note of 26th -February seemed doubtful, and could only be acknowledged as trustworthy -if either the original protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were -discovered in the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four -weeks we received the following reply:— - - “Illm̃o Signore, - - In sequito della richiesta fattasi da V. S. Illm̃a di avere dei - documenti relativi a Galileo, mi recai a premura di commetterne - le opportune indagini. Praticatesi le più diligenti ricerche, - vengo informato non esistere affatto negli Archivi i documenti - che si desideravano. - - Nel portare ciò a sua notizia, ho il piacere di dichiararle i - sensi della mia distinta stima— - - Di V. S. Illm̃a, - - Affmo per servirla, - - GIOVANNI CARD. SIMEONI. - - Roma 20 Luglio, 1877.” - -By this decisive information it is established that _now_, at any -rate, _no other document is extant relating to the proceedings of 26th -February, 1616, than the well-known annotation_. Was this also the -case in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for disobedience and signally -punished? The history of the trial, the otherwise incomprehensible -attitude of the Interrogator towards Galileo, are strongly in favour -of an affirmative answer. From his first examination to his defence, -Galileo persistently denies having received any other command than the -warning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor defend the Copernican -doctrine, while the Interrogator maintains that a command was issued to -him before a notary and witnesses “not in any way to hold, teach, or -defend that doctrine.” The contradiction is obvious. In confirmation of -his deposition, Galileo brings an autograph certificate from Cardinal -Bellarmine which fully agrees with it. One would then have expected -to see the Interrogator spare no pains to convict Galileo on this -turning-point of the trial. The production of a legal protocol about -the proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole affair -and annihilated Galileo’s defence. But as it was not produced, and the -Interrogator, singularly enough, omits all further inquiry into Galileo’s -ignorance of the absolute prohibition, and simply takes it for granted, -we may conclude that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act -of 26th February than this note without signature. It must therefore -be admitted by the historical critic that one of the heaviest charges -against Galileo was raised on a paper of absolutely no legal value, and -that sentence for “disobedience” was passed entirely on the evidence of -this worthless document. - - - - -IV. - -_GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS._ - - -In the course of this work we have always acknowledged the authenticity -of the documents first published by Gherardi in his “Il Processo Galileo: -Riveduto Sopra documenti di nuove fonte,” in the _Rivista Europea_, -vol. iii., 1870, and our story has in many cases been based on them. It -behoves us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity -beyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin of the -collection; secondly, by comparing the documents with others universally -acknowledged to be authentic. - -On the first point we refer to the professor’s account prefixed to the -documents. In December, 1848, he came to Rome, and was at first, though -only for a short time, deputy to the parliament summoned by Pius IX., -then held, in quick succession, the offices of member of the assembly -for framing a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister -of Instruction to the Revolutionary Government. These offices greatly -facilitated Gherardi’s historical researches, and he pursued them with -ardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. His attention was specially -directed to the discovery of the original documents of Galileo’s trial. -Even in December, 1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the -Archives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully guarded -by the soldiers and agents of the Provisional Government to save these -historical treasures from the fury of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to -get a sight of the complete collection of the Acts, which had two years -before been brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, for -as we know, during the Revolution, these documents were in the hands of -Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Secret Archives. So Gherardi had to -content himself with seeking more or less evident traces of the trial -among the Archives left in the greatest confusion and partly hastily -plundered by the fugitive custodians. It was not without difficulty that -he discovered, what was before unknown, that the Acts of the Inquisition -were divided into two classes: the first contains the protocols of the -sittings and decrees of the Holy Congregation, sometimes in full and -sometimes merely extracts. The folios containing these were marked -Decreta. The second class contains the protocols of the examinations of -accused persons and witnesses, all Acts relating to trials, and finally -the sentences passed. These folios were marked Processus. There was a -third register marked Rubricelle, which served as an index to everything -relating to any person or cause. - -As there were not nearly so many gaps in the Decreta as in the Processus, -Gherardi turned his attention, the Rubricelle in hand, to the former. He -began to make extracts from the documents relating to Galileo’s trial, -and had already made ten, when he came upon a collection of papers -containing thirty-two of such extracts, all relating to the trial. To -these papers was added an extract from a letter from Count Blacas, from -Prague, of 20th January, 1835, in which he stated that he had repeatedly, -but without success, instituted a search for the Acts of Galileo’s trial, -which had been detained at Paris since 1815, and that nothing would give -him greater pleasure, should they come into his hands, than to deliver -them to his Holiness, but this was not a suitable time to renew the -demand for them. - -It is clear from this letter that the curia made at least one attempt to -regain possession of the Vat. MS. between 1820 and 1845, and Gherardi -concludes from the circumstance that this letter was found with the -said collection that a copy of it had been sent to the Count, perhaps -to show him that it was desired to put all the papers relating to -Galileo’s cause together—a project intended to urge the Count to renewed -efforts for their recovery. Be that as it may, the important thing is -that Gherardi, having convinced himself of the entire agreement of his -ten extracts (the most important), with the corresponding ones in the -collection, concluded that the other twenty-two were correct, and did not -make any more extracts. - -In April, 1849, in spite of the precautions taken, the Archives of -the Inquisition seemed no longer safe from the mob, and were removed, -with other ecclesiastical libraries, to the Apollinarius church, where -Gherardi was again able to look at them. But it was but for a moment, -as he decidedly declined all responsibility for a collection of such -immense historical value. Moreover, the advance of the French army to -Rome to effect the restoration of Pius IX., would have left him but -little time for historical researches. On 4th July, in consequence of -the capitulation of the municipal council, the French General Ouidinot -marched at the head of his troops into “liberated” Rome, while Garibaldi -left it on the other side with his 4000 volunteers, and with him all the -patriots who had specially distinguished themselves in the service of the -Republic during its short existence. Among these was Gherardi, who turned -his steps towards Genoa, where he lived for his studies during his exile. -On leaving Rome he had only been able to take ten extracts with him, and -had now to wait for an opportunity of completing them by those in the -Archives of the Inquisition, and he waited patiently twenty-one years. -In 1870 the time at length came. He gives us no further particulars as -to how he succeeded in getting the collection into his hands again, but -simply says that he did so, and no longer delayed to give this valuable -historical material to the world. - -The history of Gherardi’s Documents is of itself a pledge of their -authenticity, and it is absolutely confirmed by comparing them with the -corresponding documents of the Vatican MS. We have compared them line -for line and word for word, and have found that they contain nothing -Whatever that in the least diverges from those Acts. On the contrary, -they throw light on and complete them, and in some cases agree with them -verbatim—perhaps the best possible proof of the authenticity of both. - - - - -V. - -DECRETVM[644] - -989. Fol. 380 ro. 38 - - -Sacræ Congregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium, à S.D.N. -PAVLO Papa V. Sanctàq. Sede Apostolica ad Indicem Librorum, eorumdemq; -permissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem, et impressionem, in vniuersa -Republica Christiana specialiter deputatorum, vbiquè publicandum. - - Cvm ab aliquo tempore citra, prodierint in lucem inter alios - nonnulli Libri, varias hæreses, atq; errores continentes, - Ideo Sacra Congregatio Illustrissimorum S. R. E. Cardinalium - ad indicem deputatorum, nè ex eorum lectione grauiora in - dies damna in tota Republica Christiana oriantur, eos omninò - damnandos, atque prohibendos esse voluit; Sicuti præsenti - Decreto pœnitus damnat, et prohibet vbicumq; et quouis idiomate - impressos, aut imprimendos. Mandans, vt nullus deinceps - cuiuscumque gradus, et conditionis, sub pœnis in Sacro Concilio - Tridentino, et in Indice Librorum prohibitorum contentis, eos - audeat imprimere, aut imprimi curare, vel quomodocumque apud - se detinere, aut legere; Et sub ijsdem pœnis quicumque nunc - illos habent, vel habuerint in futurum, locorum Ordinarijs, seù - Inquisitoribus, statim à præsentis Decreti notitia exhibere - teneantur, Libri autem sunt infrascripti, videlicet. - - _Theologiæ Calvinistarŭ Libri tres, auctore Conrado - Schlufferburgio. | Scotanus Rediuiuvs, siue Comentarius - Erotematicus in tres prio- | res libros, codicis, &._ - - _Grauissimæ quæstionis Christianarum Ecclesiarum in - Occidentis’, | præfertim partibus ab Apostolicis temporibus - ad nostram vsque | ætatem continua successione, &. statu: - historica explicato, Au- | ctore Jacobo Vsserio Sacræ Theologiæ - in Dulbiniensi[645] Academia | apud Hybernos professore._ - - _Federici Achillis Ducis Vuertemberg. Consultatio de Pincipatu - | inter Provincias Europæ habita Tubingiæ in Illustri Collegio - | Anno Christi 1613._ - - _Donnelli Enucleati, siue Commentarium Hugonis Donelli, de Iure - | Ciuili in compendium ita redactorum &._ - - Et quia etiam ad notitiam præfatæ Sacræ Congregationis - peruenit, falsam illiam doctrinam Pithagoricam, diuinæq; - scripturæ omnino aduersantem, de mobilitate Terræ, et - immobilitate Solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus de reuolutionibus - orbium cœlestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job etiam docent, - iam diuulgari et à multis recipi; sicuti videre est ex - quadam epistola impressa cuiusdam Patris Carmelitæ, cui - titulus, Lettera del R. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini - Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de Pittagorici, e del Copernico, - della mobilità della Terra, e stabilità del Sole, et il nuouo - Pittagorico Sistema del Mondo, in Napoli per Lazzaro Scoriggio - 1615. in qua dictus Pater ostendere conatur, præfatam doctrinam - de immobilitate Solis in centro Mundi, et mobilitate Terræ, - consonam esse, veritati, et non aduersari Sacræ Scripturæ: Ideo - nè vlteriùs huiusmodi opinio in perniciem Catholicæ veritatis - serpat, censuit dictos Nicolaum Copernicum de reuolutionibus - orbium, et Didacum Astvnica in Job, suspendendos esse donec - corrigantur. Librum verò Patris Pauli Antonij Foscarini - Carmelitæ omninò prohibendum, atque damnandum; aliosq́; omnes - Libros pariter idem docentes prohibendos, Prout præsenti - Decreto omnes respectiuè prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In - quorum fidem præsens Decretum manu, et sigillo Illustrissimi & - Reuerendissimi D. Cardinalis S. Cæciliæ Ep̃i Albaneñ signatum, - et munitum fuit die 5. Martij 1616. - - P. Episc. Albanen. Card. S. Cæciliæ. - - Locus † sigilli. _Registr. fol. 90._ - - _F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus Ord. Prædic. Secret._ - -ROME, Ex Typographia Cameræ Apostolicæ. M.DCXVI. - - - - -VI. - -_REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._[646] - - -We give the Sentence and Recantation as given by Giorgio Polacco in his -work, “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de terræ Statione, et de salis motu, -contra systema Copernicanum, Catholicæ Assertionis,” pp. 67-76, Venice, -1644. Everything indicates that these are the only authentic copies of -the originals, while the opinion adopted by many authors that the Latin -texts published by P. Riccioli in his “Almagestum Novum,” 1651, are -the originals, is not tenable on close examination, for it is obvious -that they are translated from the Italian. According to the rules of -the Inquisition, sentences and recantations were written in the mother -tongue,[647] that they might be generally understood. P. Olivieri, -General of the Dominicans and Commissary of the Inquisition, also says -in his posthumous work, “Di Copernico e di Galileo,” Bologna, 1872, p. -62, “We find the history of it, etc., in the sentence passed on Galileo, -which is given in many works in a Latin translation. I take it from -Venturi, who gives it in the Italian original.” - -Professor Berti, in his “Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei,” etc., -pp. 143-151, has given the Sentence and Recantation in a Latin text which -agrees precisely with Riccioli’s, even in some misprints. He says that -they are taken from some MS. copies in the Archivio del Santo, at Padua, -and thinks that they are the very copies sent by the Cardinal of St. -Onufrio, at the command of the Pope, to the Inquisitor at Padua in 1633. -Incited by this remark, when at Padua we went to inspect these valuable -MSS. But what was our surprise on being told that these documents had -already been sought for in vain at the request of Dr. Wohlwill, and that -no one remembered to have seen them. Professor Berti will perhaps have -the goodness to clear the matter up. The documents were probably only -exact copies of Riccioli’s text. - - -_SENTENZA._ - - Noi Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia. - Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasis, detto d’Ascoli. - Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio. - Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona. - Fra Antonio Barberina detto di S. Onofrio. - Laudiviò Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di - S. Sisto. - Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi. - Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna. Verospi, - chiamato Prete. - Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e - Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi. - - Perla misericordia di Dio della S. R. E. Cardinali in tutta - la repubblica cristiana contra l’eretica pravità Inquisitori - Generali della S. Sede Apostolica specialmente deputati. - - Essendo che tu Galileo, figliolo del qu. Vincenzo Galilei - Fiorentino dell’ età tua d’ anni 70 fosti denonciato del - 1615 in questo S. Officio, che tenessi come vera la falsa - dottrina da molti insegnata, che il Sole sia centro del mondo - et immobile, e che la terra si muova anco di moto diurno: - Che avevi alcuni discepoli, a’ quali insegnavi la medesima - dottrina: Che circa l’ istessa tenevi corrispondenza con alcuni - Matematici di Germania: Che tu avevi dato alle stampe alcune - lettere intitolate delle Macchie Solari, nelle quali spiegavi - l’ istessa dottrina, come vera: Et che all’ obbiezioni, che - alle volte ti venivano fatte, tolte dalla Sacra Scrittura - rispondevi glossando detta Scrittura conforme al tuo senso. - E successivamente fu presentata copia d’ una scrittura sotto - forma di lettera, quale si diceva essere stata scritta da te - ad un tale già tuo discepolo, ed in essa seguendo la posizione - di Copernico, si contengono varie proposizioni contro il vero - senso, ed autorità della sacra Scrittura. - - Volendo per ciò questo S. Tribunale provvedere al disordine - ed al danno, che di quì proveniva, et andava crescendosi con - pregiudizio della Santa Fede; d’ ordine di Nostro Signore, e - degli Emin. Signori Cardinali di questa suprema, et universale - Inquisizione, furono dalli Qualificatori Teologi qualificate - le due proposizioni della stabilità del Sole e del moto della - terra; cioè. - - Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile di moto locale, - è proposizione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente - eretica per essere espressamente contraria alla sacra Scrittura. - - Che la terra non sia centro del mondo, nè immobile, ma che si - move etiandio di moto diurno, è parimenti proposizione assurda, - e falsa in filosofia, e considerata in teologia, ad minus - erronea in fide. - - Ma volendosi per allora proceder teco con benignità, fu - decretato nella S. Congregazione tenuta avanti Nostro Signore - à 25 Febbraro 1616. Che l’ Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale - Bellarmino ti ordinasse che tu dovessi onninamente lasciare - la detta dottrina falsa, e ricusando tu di ciò fare, che dal - Commissario del S. Uffizio ti dovesse esser fatto precetto - di lasciar la detta dottrina, e che non potessi insegnarla - ad altri, nè difenderla, nè trattarne; al qual precetto non - acquietandoti, dovessi esser carcerato; et in esecuzione - dell’ istesso decreto, il giorno seguente nel Palazzo, et - alla presenza del suddetto Eminentissimo Signore Cardinale - Bellarmino, dopo essere stato dall’ istesso Signor Cardinale - benignamente avvisato et ammonito, ti fu dal Padre Commissario - del Santo Uffizio di quel tempo fatto precetto, con notaro e - testimonii, che onninamente dovessi lasciar la detta falsa - opinione, e che nell’ avvenire tu non la potessi, nè difendere, - nè insegnare in qual si voglia modo, nè in voce, nè in scritto; - et avendo tu promesso d’ obbedire fosti licenziato. - - Et acciocchè si togliesse affatto così perniciosa dottrina, - e non andasse più oltre serpendo, in grave pregiudizio della - cattolica verità, usci decreto della Sacra Congregazione dell’ - Indice, col quale furono proibiti i libri, che trattano di tal - dottrina, et essa dichiarata falsa, et onninamente contraria - alla sacra e divina Scrittura. - - Et essendo ultimamente comparso quà un libro stampato in - Fiorenza l’ anno prossimo passato, la cui inscrizione mostra - che tu ne fossi l’ autore, dicendo il titolo: _Dialogo di - Galileo Galilei delli due massimi sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico - e Copernicano_. Et informata appresso la sacra Congregazione, - che con l’ impressione di detto libro ogni giorno più prendeva - piede la falsa opinione del moto della terra, e stabilità del - Sole; fu il detto libro diligentemente considerato, e in esso - trovata apertamente la transgressione del suddetto precetto - che ti fu fatto, avendo tu nel medesimo libro difesa la detta - opinione già dannata, et in faccia tua per tale dichiarata, - avvenga che tu in detto libro con varii raggiri ti studii di - persuadere, che tu la lasci, come idecisa et espressamente - probabile. Il che pure è errore gravissimo, non potendo in modo - niuno essere probabile un’ opinione dichiarata e definita per - contraria alla Scrittura divina. - - Che perciò d’ ordine nostro fosti chiamato a questo Santo - Uffizio, nel quale con tuo giuramento esaminato riconoscesti - il libro come da to composto, e dato alle stampe. Confessasti, - che dieci o dodici anni sono in circa, dopo essersi fatto il - precetto come sopra, cominciasti a scrivere detto libro. Che - chiedesti la facoltà di stamparlo, senza, però significare a - quelli che ti diedero simile facoltà, che tu avessi precetto di - non tenere, difendere, nè insegnare in qualsivoglia modo tal - dottrina. - - Confessasti parimenti che la scrittura di detto libro è in più - luoghi distesa in tal forma, che il lettore potrebbe formar - concetto, che gli argomenti portati per la parte falsa fossero - in tal guisa pronunciati, che più tosto per la loro efficacia - fossero potenti a stringere, che facili ad esser sciolti; - scusandoti d’ esser incorso in errore tanto alieno, come - dicesti, dalla tua intenzione, per aver scritto in Dialogo, - e per la natural compiacenza, che ciascuno ha delle proprie - sottigliezze, e del mostrarsi più arguto del comune degli - uomini, in trovar, anco per le proposizioni false, ingegnosi et - apparenti discorsi di probabilità. - - Et essendoti stato assegnato termine conveniente a far le tue - difese producesti una fede scritta di mano dall’ Eminentissimo - signor Cardinale Bellarmino da te procurata come dicesti, - per difenderti dalle calunnie de tuoi nemici, da’ quali ti - veniva opposto, che avevi abiurato, e fossi stato penitenziato - dal santo Offizio. Nella qual fede si dice, che tu non avevi - abiurato nè meno eri stato penitenziato, ma che ti era solo - stata denunciata la dichiarazione fatta da Nostro Signore e - pubblicata dalla santa Congregazione dell’ Indice, nella quale - si contiene, che la dottrina del moto della terra, e della - stabilità del Sole sia contraria alle sacre Scritture, e però - non si possa difendere, nè tenere; e che perciò non si facendo - menzione in detta fede delle due particole del precetto, - cioè _docere, et quovis modo_ si deve credere che nel corso - di quattordici o sedici anni, ne avessi perso ogni memoria; - e che per questa stessa cagione avevi taciuto il precetto, - quando chiedesti licenza di poter dare il libro alle stampe. - E tutto questo dicevi non per scusar l’ errore, ma perchè sia - attribuito non a malizia, ma a vana ambizione. Ma da detta fede - prodotta da te in tua difesa restasti maggiormente aggravato, - mentre dicendosi in essa, che detta opinione è contraria - alla sacra Scrittura, hai nondimeno ardito di trattarne, di - difenderla, e persuaderla probabile; nè ti suffraga la licenza - da te artificiosamente, e callidamente estorta, non avendo - notificato il precetto che avevi. - - E parendo a noi, che non avevi detta intieramente la verità - circa la tua intenzione, giudicassimo esser necessario - venir contro di te al rigoroso esame, nel quale (senza però - pregiudizio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, e contro di - te dedotte come di sopra, circa la detta tua intenzione) - rispondesti cattolicamente. Per tanto visti, et maturamente - considerati i meriti di questa tua causa, con le suddette tue - confessioni, e scuse, e quanto di ragione si doveva vedere - e considerare, siamo venuti contro di te all’ infrascritta - difinitiva sentenza. - - Invocato dunque il Santissimo Nome di Nostro Signore Gesù - Cristo, e della sua gloriosissima Madre sempre Vergine Maria, - per questa nostra difinitiva sentenza, la quale sedendo pro - tribunali, di Conseglio e parere dei Reverendi Maestri di - sacra Teologia, et Dottori dell’ una e l’ altra legge nostri - Consultori, proferiamo in questi scritti, nella causa e cause - vertenti avanti di noi tra il Magnifico Carlo Sinceri dell’ - una e dell’ altra legge Dottore, Procuratore fiscale di - questo Santo Offizio per una parte, e te Galileo Galilei reo, - quà presente processato, e confesso come sopra dall’ altra. - Diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, che tu Galileo - suddetto per le cose dedotte in processo, e da te confessate, - come sopra, ti sei reso a questo Santo Offizio veementemente - sospetto d’ eresia, cioè d’ aver creduto, e tenuto dottrina - falsa, e contraria alle sacra, e divine Scritture, che il - Sole sia centro della terra, e che non si muova da oriente ad - occidente, e che la terra si muova, e non sia centro del mondo; - e che si possa tenere difendere per probabile una opinione - dopo d’ esser stata dichiarata, difinita per contraria alla - sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le - censure, e pene da’ Sacri Canoni, et altre Constituzioni - generali, et particolari, contro simili delinquenti imposte, e - promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti, che sii assoluto, pur - che prima con cuor sincero, et fede non finta avanti di noi - abiuri, maledichi, et detesti li suddetti errori, et eresie, e - qualunque altro errore, et eresia contraria alla cattolica et - apostolica Romana Chiesa, nel modo che da noi ti sarà dato. - - _Et acciocchè questo tuo grave, e pernicioso errore, e - transgressione non resti del tutto impunito_, e sii più cauto - nell’ avvenire; et esempio agli altri, che s’astenghino da - simili delitti. Ordiniamo che per pubblico editto sia proibito - il libro de’ _Dialoghi di Galileo Galilei_. - - Ti condanniamo al carcere formale di questo S. Offizio per - tempo ad arbitrio nostro, e per penitenze salutari t’imponiamo, - che per tre anni a venire dichi una volta la settimana li sette - Salmi Penitenziali. - - Riservando a noi facoltà di moderare, mutare, o levar in tutto - o in parte le suddette pene, e penitenze. - - E cosi diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, - ordiniamo, condenniamo, e riserviamo in questo, et in ogni - altro miglior modo, e forma, che di ragione potemo, e dovemo. - - Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinales infrascripti. - - F. Cardinalis De Asculo. - G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus. - F. Cardinalis De Cremona. - Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij. - B. Cardinalis Gypsius. - F. Cardinalis Verospius. - M. Cardinalis Ginettus. - - -_ABJURA DI GALILEO._ - - Io Galileo Galilei figlio de q. Vincenzo Galilei da Fiorenza - dell’ età mia d’ anni 70 constituito personalmente in judicio, - et inginocchio avanti di voi Eminentissimi, e Reverendissimi - Signori Cardinali in tutta la Christiana Republica contro - l’heretica pravità Generali Inquisitori havendo avanti gli - occhi miei li Sacrosanti Evangeli, quali sono con le proprie - mani, giuro che sempre ho creduto, credo adesso, e con l’aiuto - di Dio crederò per l’ avenire, tutto quello, che tiene, - predica, et insegna la Santa Cattolica, et Apostolica Romana - Chiesa. Ma perche da questo S. Officio per haverio doppo - d’ essermi stato con precetto dall’ istesso giuridicamente - intimato, che omninamente dovessi lasciare la falsa opinione, - Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la - terra non sia Centro, e che si muova, e che non potessi - tenere, difendere, ne insegnare in qual si voglia modo, - ne in voce, ne in scritto la detta falsa dottrina, e dopò - dessermi stato notificato, che detta dottrina è contraria - alla Sacra scrittura, scritto, e dato alle stampe un libro - nel quale tratto l’ istessa dottrina già dannata et apporto - ragioni con molta efficacia a favor d’essa, senza apportar - alcuna solutione, son stato giudicato vehementemente sospetto - d’heresia, cioè d’haver tenuto, e creduto, che il Solo sia - centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia centro, e - si muova. - - Per tanto volendo io levare dalle menti dell’ Eminenze Vostre, - e d’ ogni fedel Christiano, questa vehemente sospittione, - contro di me ragionevolmente conceputa, con cuor sincero, e - fede non finta, abiuro, maledico, e detesto li sudetti errori, - et heresie, e generalmente ogni e qualunque altro errore, e - setta contraria alla sudetta Santa Chiesa; E giuro che per l’ - avenire, non dirò mai più, ne asserirò in voce, ò in scritto - cose tali, per le quali si possi haver di me simil sospittione; - ma se conoscero alcuno heretico, ò che sia sospetto d’heresia - lo denuntiarò à questo Santo Officio ò vero all’ Inquisitore, - et ordinario del luogo, ove me trovero. - - Giuro anco, e promesso d’adempire, et ossevra re intieramente, - tutte le penitenze, che mi sono state, ò mi saranno da questo - Santo Officio imposte. Et contravenendo io ad alcuna delle - dette mie promesse, proteste, ò giuramenti (il che Dio non - voglia) mi sottopongo a tutte le pene, e castighi, che sono da - Sacri Canoni, et altri Constitutioni Generali, e particolari - contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate; Cosi Dio m’ - aiuti, e questi suoi santi Evangelij, che tocco con le proprie - mani. - - Io Galileo Galilei sopradetto ho abiurato, giurato, e promesso, - e mi sono obligato come sopra, et in fede del vero di propria - mia mano hò sottoscritto la presente Cedola di mia abiuratione, - e recitata di parola in parola in Roma nel Convento della - Minerva questo di 22 Giugno 1633. - - Io Galileo Galilei hò abiurato come di sopra di mano propria. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen -Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard, 1877. - -[2] The above letter is adapted from a draft of one addressed to the -Italian Translator, the letter to myself not having, unfortunately, been -sent before the Author’s death, nor found among his papers afterwards. He -had written but a few weeks before that he would send it shortly, and as -it would probably have been almost exactly similar to the above, I have -availed myself of it, the Author’s father having sent me a copy with the -necessary alterations and authorised its use.—TR. - -[3] See Appendix IV. - -[4] Riccioli, vol. i. part ii. pp. 496-500. - -[5] In the references the name only of the author is given. Albèri’s -“Opere” is designated Op. Those marked * are new for the English -translation. - -[6] This is the writing referred to when Gherardi is quoted. - -[7] Compare Nelli, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, and Opere xv. p. 384. The -strange mistake, which is without any foundation, that Galileo was an -illegitimate child, was set afloat soon after his death by Johann Victor -Rossi (Janus Nicius Erythræus) in his “Pinacotheca Illustrium Virorum,” -Cologne, Amsterdam, 1643-1648, and afterwards carelessly and sometimes -maliciously repeated. Salviati has published the marriage certificate of -5th July, 1563, of Vincenzio di Michel Angelo di Giovanni Galilei and -Giulia degli Ammanati Pescia. - -[8] Many of these essays, which have never been printed, are among the -valuable unpublished MSS. in the National Library at Florence. - -[9] Galileo had a younger brother, Michel Angelo, and three sisters, -Virginia, Elenor, and Livia. The former married a certain Benedetto -Landucci, the latter Taddeo Galetti. Galileo was very kind to his brother -and sisters all his life, assisted them in many ways, and even made great -sacrifices for their sakes. - -[10] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 26, 27. - -[11] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 330; and Op. vi. p. 18. - -[12] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 328. - -[13] The correctness of this date is indisputable, as according to Nelli, -vol. i. p. 29, it was found in the university registers. It is a pity -that Albèri, editor of the “Opere complete di Galileo Galilei,” Florence, -1842-1856, relied for the date on Viviani, who is often wrong. - -[14] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 331; also Jagemann, p. 5. - -[15] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 332; also Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 722, 723. - -[16] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 334. - -[17] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 32, 33. - -[18] That Galileo had been in Rome before 8th January, 1588, a fact -hitherto unknown to his biographers, is clear from the letter of that -date addressed from Florence to Clavius. (Op. vi. pp. 1-3.) - -[19] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 1-13.) - -[20] About £13.—[TR.] - -[21] About 7¼_d._ 100 kreuzers = the Austrian florin. - -[22] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 336; and Nelli, vol. i. p. 44. - -[23] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 336, 337; Nelli, vol. i. pp. 46, 47; Venturi, -vol. i. p. 11. - -[24] See the decree of installation of 26th Sept. (Op. xv. p. 388.) - -[25] Op. viii. p. 18; Nelli, vol. i. p. 51. - -[26] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337 and 389. - -[27] Published by Venturi, 1818, vol. i. pp. 26-74. - -[28] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 339, 340. - -[29] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337, 338. - -[30] Op. ii. pp. 1-6. - -[31] “Prodromus Dissertationum Cosmographicarum.” - -[32] Op. vi. pp. 11, 12. - -[33] Op. viii. pp. 21-24. - -[34] See Humboldt’s “Cosmos,” vol. ii. pp. 345, 346, and 497-499. - -[35] Op. xv. p. 390. His salary at first was 72 Florentine zecchini = -£18, and rose by degrees to 400 zecchini = £100. (Op. viii. p. 18, note -3.) - -[36] Some fragments of these lectures are extant, and are included by -Albèri in the Op. v. part ii. - -[37] Op. iii. (“Astronomicus Nuncius,” pp. 60, 61.) In his “Saggiatore” -also he relates the circumstance in precisely the same way, only adding -that he devised the construction of the telescope in one night, and -carried it out the next day. - -[38] Nelli, pp. 186, 187. - -[39] History has acknowledged the optician Hans Lipperhey, of Middelburg, -to be the inventor of the telescope. Compare the historical sketch in -“Das neue Buch der Erfindungen,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 217-220. (Leipzig, -1865.) The instrument received its name from Prince Cesi, who, on -the advice of the learned Greek scholar Demiscianus, called it a -“teleskopium.” - -[40] Op. vi. pp. 75-77. - -[41] See the decree of the senate, 25th Aug., 1609 (Op. xv. pp. 392-393.) - -[42] Cosmo II. showed all his life a sincere attachment to his old -teacher, Galileo. From 1605, before Cosmo was reigning prince, Galileo -had regularly given him mathematical lessons during the academical -holidays at Florence, and had thereby gained great favour at the court of -Tuscany. - -[43] Op. vi. pp. 107-111. - -[44] See the letter of Martin Hasdal from Prague, of 15th April, 1610, -to Galileo (Op. viii. pp. 58-60); also a letter from Julian de’ Medici, -Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, to Galileo, from Prague, 19th -April, 1610. (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 20.) - -[45] This reprint bore the following superscription: “Joannis Kepleri -Mathematici Cæsarei Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo nuper ad mortales -misso a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico Patavino.” Comp. Venturi, vol. i. -pp. 99-120. - -[46] Op. vi. p. 121, note 1. - -[47] Compare the letters of Martin Hasdal, Alexander Sertini, and Kepler -to Galileo in 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 60-63, 65-68, 82-85, 88, 89, 101, -113-117.) - -[48] See the letter which Kepler wrote about it to Galileo on 25th Oct. -1610. (Op. viii. pp. 113-117.) - -[49] Wedderburn’s reply was called: “Quatuor Problematum, quæ Martinius -Horky contra Nuncium Sidereum de quatuor Planetis novis proposuit”; -Roffeni’s, “Epistola apologetica contra cœcam peregrinationem cujusdam -furiosi Martini cognomine Horky editam adversus, Nuncium Sidereum.” - -[50] Op. vi. pp. 114, 115. - -[51] Op. vi. p. 127. - -[52] May 7th, 1610. (Op. vi. pp. 93-99.) - -[53] Op. vi. p. 165. - -[54] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 343. - -[55] Op. vi. p. 129. - -[56] Op. vi. pp. 116-118. Ponsard in his drama, “Galileo,” of which a -third edition appeared at Paris in 1873, in which he mostly turns history -upside down, in Act i. sc. iii. and iv. takes off capitally the proud and -silly opposition of the Aristotelians. - -[57] Comp. Op. xv. p. 397, note 11, also Venturi, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. -Jagemann (p. 52) even believes “that Gustavus Adolphus, who created an -entirely new science of warfare which set all Europe in consternation and -terror, had derived his wonderful knowledge from Galileo”! - -[58] Op. vi., 71-75. It is unfortunately unknown to whom this letter was -addressed; but, as appears from the contents, it must have been to some -one high in office at the court of Tuscany. - -[59] It is not known that these last mentioned treatises ever appeared. -As not the least trace of them is to be found, and yet numerous -particulars have come down to us of other works afterwards lost, it may -be concluded that these essays were never written. - -[60] Op. viii. pp. 63, 64. - -[61] Op. viii. pp. 73, 74. - -[62] Op. vi. p. 112. - -[63] Libri justly says, p. 38: “this mistake was the beginning of all his -misfortunes.” - -[64] In a letter from Galileo to his brother Michel Angelo, of May -11th, 1606, he describes the somewhat comical scene of the nocturnal -deportation of the Jesuits from the city of Lagunes. (Op. vi. p. 32.) - -[65] Op. viii. p. 146-150. - -[66] 11th Dec., 1610. (Op. vi. p. 128.) - -[67] Op. vi. pp. 130-133 and 134-136. - -[68] Op. vi. pp. 137, 138. - -[69] Op. vi. p. 139, 140. - -[70] Op. vi. p. 140, note 1. See also Vinta’s answer to Galileo, 20th -Jan. 1611 (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” p. 27); also the Grand Duke’s -letter to his ambassador at Rome, Giovanni Niccolini, of 27th Feb., 1611 -(Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 10). - -[71] Pieralisi has first published this letter in his work “Urban VIII. -and Galileo Galilei,” p. 41. - -[72] See, for Bellarmine’s request and the opinion, Op. viii. pp. 160-162. - -[73] Op. viii. p. 145. - -[74] Gherardi’s Collection of Documents: Doc. i. - -[75] Op. vi. p. 274. - -[76] The full title was: “Dianoja Astronomica, Optica, Physica, qua -Siderei Nuncii rumor de quatuor Planetis a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico -celeberrimo, recens perspicilli cujusdam ope conspectis, vanus redditur. -Auctore Francisco Sitio Florentino.” - -[77] Op. vi. p. 94, note 1; and xv. “Bibliografia Galileiana,” p. vi. - -[78] This letter reports the facts above mentioned. (Op. viii. p. 188.) - -[79] Op. viii. pp. 222-224. - -[80] Op. viii. pp. 241, 242. - -[81] Op. vi. pp. 194-197. - -[82] “Discorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno -alle cose che stanno in su l’aqua o che in quella si muovano.” - -[83] Op. viii. p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i. pp. 195, -196. - -[84] Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612. - -[85] “Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro -accidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da -Galileo Galilei.” - -[86] Letter of 20th April, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 262.) - -[87] Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.) - -[88] Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.) - -[89] Op. viii. pp. 290, 291. - -[90] Op. viii. pp. 291-293. - -[91] Op. ii. pp. 6-13. - -[92] Op. viii. pp. 337, 338. - -[93] Vol. i. p. 397. - -[94] Comp. Govi, p. 47. - -[95] Epinois, “La Question de Galilei,” p. 43. - -[96] Op. viii. pp. 337-343. - -[97] The title of “Eminence” was first given to cardinals by Pope Urban -VIII. in 1630. - -[98] See Lorini’s Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois -this letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which shows -it to have been of the 7th. (Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. ii.) - -[99] Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. ii. - -[100] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this -visit is described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.) - -[101] In the letter before quoted of 12th March. - -[102] Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350. - -[103] Op. viii. p. 365. - -[104] Op. viii. pp. 369, 370. - -[105] Vat. MS. fol. 341. - -[106] Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. iii. - -[107] Compare the text of Caccini’s evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353 ro.-358 -vo.) - -[108] See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371 -ro.-373 vo.) - -[109] Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. v. - -[110] Op. ii. pp. 13-17. - -[111] Op. ii. pp. 17-26. - -[112] Op. viii. pp. 350-353. - -[113] Op. viii. pp. 354-356. - -[114] As we should say, “as a working hypothesis.” [TR.] - -[115] This was the work which was condemned and absolutely prohibited by -the Congregation of the Index a year later: “Lettera del R. P. Maestro -Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de i Pittagorici e -del Copernico della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole, e il nuovo -Sisteme del Mondo.” (For Cesi’s letter, Op. viii. pp. 356-358.) - -[116] See Dini’s letter to Galileo, March 14th, 1615 (Op. viii. p. 360); -and of August 18th, 1615 (Wolynski, “Lettere Inedite,” p. 34); and -Ciampoli’s of March 21st (Op. viii. pp. 366, 367.) - -[117] Op. viii. p. 368. - -[118] Op. viii. pp. 376, 377. - -[119] Op. viii. pp. 378, 379. - -[120] See his letter to Galileo, May 16th, 1615. (Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.) - -[121] Op. ii. pp. 26-64. It did not appear in print until twenty-one -years later, in Strasburg. - -[122] See the letters of Cosmo II., November 28th, to his ambassador -Guicciardini, at Rome, to Cardinal del Monte, Paolo Giordano Orsini, and -Abbot Orsini; also to Cardinal Orsini, of December 2nd. (Wolynski: “La -Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” pp. 18-20.) - -[123] Page 69. - -[124] Compare the letters of Sagredo from Venice of 11th March and 23rd -April, 1616, to Galileo at Rome. (Op. Suppl. pp. 107-113. Also Nelli, -vol. i. p. 414.) - -[125] Op. viii. p. 383. - -[126] See his letters of 12th Dec., 1615, and 8th Jan., 1616, to the -Tuscan Secretary of State, Curzio Picchena, at Florence. (Op. vi. pp. -211, 212, 214, 215.) - -[127] Vat. MS. fol. 414 vo. - -[128] Compare also Wohlwill, p. 86, note 1. - -[129] See his letters to Picchena of 26th Dec., 1615, and 1st Jan., 1616. -(Op. vi. pp. 213, 214.) - -[130] Op. vi. pp. 215, 216. - -[131] 23rd Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 218, 219.) - -[132] Letter to Picchena, 6th Feb. (Op. vi. p. 222.) - -[133] Letter to Picchena. (Op. vi. pp. 225-227.) - -[134] Op. vi. pp. 221-223. - -[135] See the letter of Mgr. Queringhi, from Rome, of 20th January, 1616, -to Cardinal Alessandro d’Este. (Op. viii. p. 383.) - -[136] Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza im̃obile di -moto locale. - -Che la Terra non è centro del mondo, ne im̃obile, ma si move secondo se -tutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.) - -[137] Sol est centrũ mundi, et omnino im̃obilis motu locali; - -Censura: Omnes dixerunt dicta propositionẽ ẽe stultã et absurdam in -Philosophia, et formaliter hereticã, quatenus contradicit expresse -sententijs sacre scripture in multis locis. Secundũ proprietate verbor̃, -et secundũ communẽ expositionẽ, et sensũ. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor̃ -doctor. - -Terra non est centr. mundi, nec im̃obilis, sed secundũ se tota, movetur -et moto diurno. - -Censura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc propositionẽ recipẽ eandẽ censura in -Philosophia; et spectando veritatẽ Theologicã, at minus ẽe in fide -erronea. (Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.) - -[138] Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616. - -Illᵐᵘˢ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseosʳ. -et Commiss. Sᵗⁱ. Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologorũ ad -propositⁿᵉˢ. Gallilei Mathemᶜⁱ., q. Sol sit centrũ mundi, et im̃obilis -motu locali, et Terra moveatur et motu diurno; Sᵐᵘˢ. ordinavit Illᵐᵒ. -D. Cardˡⁱ. Bellarmᵒ., ut vocet corã se dᵐ. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad -deserendas dᵃᵐ. op̃onem, et si recusaverit parere, P. Comissˢ. cora Noto -(Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, ut ĩo (omnino) abstineat -huõi (huiusmodi) doctrina, et op̃onem docere, aut defendere, seu de ea -tractare, si vero nõ acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. folio 378 vo.) - -[139] Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem. - -In Palatio solite habitⁿⁱˢ: dⁱ: Illᵐⁱ: D. Cardⁱˢ: Bellarmⁱ. et in -mãsionib. Domⁿⁱˢ. sue Illᵐᵒ: Idem Illᵐᵘˢ: D. Cardˡⁱˢ: vocato supradᵗᵒ. -Galileo, ipsoq. corã D. sua Illᵐᵃ: ex̃nte (existente) in p̃ntia adm. R. -p. Fĩs Michaelis Angeli Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Com̃issarij qualis -sᵗⁱ. officij predᵐ. Galileũ monuit de errore supradᵗᵉ op̃onis, et ut -illa deserat, et successive, ac icõtinenti in mei &, et Testiũ & p̃nte -ẽt adhuc eodem Illᵐᵒ. D. Cardˡⁱ. supradᵒ. P. Com̃issˢ. predᵗᵒ. Galileo -adhuc ibidem p̃nti, et Constituto precepit, et ordinavit ... [Here the -MS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the second might be nome (nomine); -the first began with a p (proprie?) but is quite illegible.] Sᵐⁱ. D. N. -Pape et totius Congregⁿⁱˢ. sᵗⁱ. officij, ut supradᵗᵃ. oponione q. sol -sit cẽ: trum mundi, et im̃obilis, et Terra moveatur omnino relinquat, -nec eã de Cetero qᵒvis mõ teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, aut -scriptis, al̃s (alias) coñ ipsũ procedetur ĩ (in) Sᵗᵒ. offo., cui -precepto Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum -Rome ubi subra p̃ntibus ibidẽ R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia ĩ Regno -Cypri, et Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. Politianeñ -(Poletianensis) familiarib. dⁱ. Illᵐⁱ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Testibus. (Vat. MS. -folio 379 ro, 379 vo.) - -[140] Marini, p. 42. - -[141] Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141. - -[142] In the _Zeitschrift für mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen -Unterricht_, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy -between Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the _Zeitschrift für -Mathematik_, etc., 17th series. Part ii., pp. 9-31; part iii., pp. 41-45; -part v., pp. 81-98. - -[143] - - _Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616._ - -Facta relatione per Illumum. D. Cardᵉᵐ. Bellarminum quod Galilaeus -Galilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad -deserendam (prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, _disserendam_) -opinionem quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum, -et immobilis, terra autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto -Congregationis Indicis, qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et -suspensa respective scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium -cœlestium....) Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini -Carmelitæ, SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S. -Palatii hujusmodi suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi’s -Documents, Doc. vi.) - -[144] See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345. - -[145] Op. vi. pp. 231-233. - -[146] Op. Suppl. 109-112. - -[147] Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sigʳ Galileo -Galilei sia calumniato, ò imputato di havere abiurato in mano nr̃a, et -anco di essere stato perciò penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et -essendo ricercati della verità diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no -ha abiurato i mano nr̃a nè di altra qua in Roma ne meno ĩ altro luogo -che noi sappiamo alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, nè manco hà ricevuto -penitenzie salutarj, nè d’altra sorte, ma solo, ql’è stata denunziata la -dichiarazione fatta da Nr̃o Sigʳᵉ: e publicata dalla Sacra Congregⁿᵉ: -dell’indice, nella quale si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al -Copernico che la terra si muova intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel -centro del Mõdo senza muoversi da oriente ad occidente sia cõtraria -alle sacre scritture, e però nõ si possa difendere nè tenere. Et in fede -di ciò habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta la presẽte di nr̃a propria mano -questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Cardˡᵉ. -Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.) - -[148] Martin, pp. 79, 80. - -[149] Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p. -17) to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of -Galileo, published in 1873. - -[150] For the particulars, see Appendix, “Estimate of the Vat. MS.” - -[151] Pietro Guiccardini had relieved his predecessor, Giovanni -Sicculini, of his post on 14th May, 1611, when Galileo was still at Rome. -Guiccardini remained there till 27th November, 1621. - -[152] Op. vi. pp. 227-230. - -[153] See Galileo’s letter to Picchena, from Rome, of 12th March. (Op. -vi. pp. 233-235.) - -[154] Wolynski’s “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 36. - -[155] Op. vi. pp. 235-237. - -[156] Op. viii. p. 385. - -[157] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. See these despatches verbatim in Wolynski’s -“La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 22. - -[158] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. - -[159] See letter from Cesi to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 389, 390.) - -[160] Op. ii. pp. 387-406. - -[161] Op. vi. pp. 278-281. - -[162] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 350. - -[163] Nelli, vol. i. p. 432. - -[164] Op. iv. p. 16. This appears also from a letter from Galileo of 19th -June, 1619, to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, afterwards Pope Urban VIII., -accompanying the treatise. (See this letter in “Pieralisi,” pp. 63, 64; -and “Guitoloni et Gal. Galilei,” Livorno, 1872, vol. i. p. 263.) - -[165] “Libra Astronomica ac Philosophica qua Galilæi Galilæi opiniones de -cometis a Mario Guiduccio in Florentina Academia expositæ, atque in lucem -nuper editæ examinatur a Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” (Op. iv. pp. 63-121.) - -[166] See the letter of Mgr. Ciampoli of 6th December, 1619, to Galileo. -(Op. viii. pp. 430, 431.) - -[167] Compare the letters of Stelluti (27th January, 1620) to Prince -Cesi, 4th March and 18th May, 1620; and from Mgr. Ciampoli, 18th May, -1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 436-439, and 441-443.) - -[168] See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. -p. 447; Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 59.) - -[169] See Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.) - -[170] Compare Cesarini’s letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1621, and 7th -May, 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.) - -[171] See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and -16-18; and Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., p. 65.) - -[172] “Scandaglio della Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi -nella controversia delle Comete, e particolarmente delle tre ultimamente -vedute l’anno 1618, di Giovanni Battista Stelluti da Fabriano dottor di -Legge.” - -[173] “Il Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si -ponderano le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di -Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” - -[174] See Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 12th January, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. -22-24.) - -[175] Op. ix. p. 26. - -[176] See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., -p. 68.) - -[177] See Ciampoli’s Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.) - -[178] See Ranke: “Die römischen Päpste,” etc., vol. ii. p. 531, etc. - -[179] See Op. viii. pp. 173, 206, 208, 209, 262, 427; ix. p. 31. - -[180] Op. viii. p. 206. - -[181] Op. viii. p. 262. - -[182] Op. viii. p. 451. Pieralisi in his work, “Urban VIII. and Galileo -Galilei,” Rome, 1875, pp. 22, 27, gives Barberini’s ode, which is in -Latin, and consists of nineteen strophes, as well as a commentary on it, -which has not been printed by Campanella. See also pp. 65, 66, Galileo’s -reply to Barberini, in which he expresses his warm thanks and his -admiration of the poetry. This is not in Albèri’s work. - -[183] Op. iv., “Saggiatore,” p. 172. - -[184] See for these transactions the letter of Mario Guiducci, from Rome, -to Galileo, of 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.) - -[185] Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 28th October, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 43, -44.) - -[186] Rinuccini’s letters to Galileo, 3rd November and 2nd December, -1623. (Op. Suppl. p. 154; and ix. p. 50.) - -[187] Op. vi. pp. 289, 290. - -[188] Op. ix. pp. 42, 43. - -[189] Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.) - -[190] See Rinuccini’s letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and -Guiducci’s of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.) - -[191] Compare Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix. -p. 55.) - -[192] Op. ix. p. 56. - -[193] Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at -Aquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.) - -[194] Ibid. - -[195] ... “Fu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l’avea dannata, -ne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria.” Comp. Galileo’s -letter to Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.) - -[196] Page 92. - -[197] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned. - -[198] History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to -Zacharias Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop -the first microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century, -probably in 1590. - -[199] Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40. - -[200] Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64. - -[201] Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in -1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. His -daughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri. The -mother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with -whom Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which -was quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at -that period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing -to the religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo’s son did -not accept it. It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved -unworthy of it, to Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars, -but with the condition, as it was derived from two ecclesiastical -benefices, that he should adopt the tonsure, to which he consented. He -drew the pension which thus irregularly accrued to him as long as he -lived. - -[202] Op. vi. p. 295. - -[203] Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76. - -[204] This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree -of 10th March, 1619. - -[205] Op. ii. pp. 64-115. - -[206] See Guiducci’s letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op. -ix. pp. 78-80.) - -[207] Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164. - -[208] See Guiducci’s letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November, -21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp. -168-178.) - -[209] Op. ix. p. 97. - -[210] Op. iv. pp. 486, 487. - -[211] “Dialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si -discorre sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano, -proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per -l’una parte, che par l’altra.” - -[212] Comp. Galileo’s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan, 1630, to -Cesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi’s letter to Galileo, -12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71). - -[213] Op. i. (“Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc.), pp. 11, 12. - -[214] Op. i. pp. 501-503. - -[215] Martin, p. 99. - -[216] Comp. for example the essay: “Der Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo -Galilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus”; also Marini, pp. -70-73. - -[217] Op. vi. pp. 333-336. - -[218] Ibid. pp. 333 and 336. - -[219] Op. ix. p. 167. - -[220] Ibid. pp. 173-175. - -[221] This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned -by Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having -taken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal -opinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of -a charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for -appearance’s sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629, -been at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo’s most zealous -adherents, and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded -with him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is -noteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave -all other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive -question of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the -singular offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of -“the astrological medicine”! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had -been denounced by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal -Gaetani applied to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning, -to give his opinion on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In -compliance with this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for -Galileo, in which the expert theologian and mathematician brought the -system into agreement with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations -of the imprisoned philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the -Sacred Congregation. - -[222] “Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si -sarrebe fatto quel decreto.” (Op. ix. p. 176.) - -[223] Op. ix. pp. 176, 177. - -[224] “Che lei è desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella.” -(Op. ix. p. 178.) - -[225] Op. ix. p. 188. - -[226] In the narration of this most important transaction we have -followed the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of -Galileo, was handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an -authentic document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions -with Galileo’s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274-277; Suppl. pp. 233-235.) -It is inconceivable how Albèri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have -fallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received the -_imprimatur_ at all, though he himself publishes documents which prove -the contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of 16th -June, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo’s to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 (Op. -vi. pp. 374-376); a letter of Riccardi’s to the Tuscan ambassador at -Rome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally, -a letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420-423). -Martin also expresses his surprise at this error of Albèri’s (p. 102, -note 2). - -[227] Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205. - -[228] Op. vi. p. 346, note 2. - -[229] Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 35. - -[230] Op. ix. pp. 198, 199. - -[231] Ibid. pp. 201, 202. - -[232] Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the “Dialogues,” this -permission to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are -also reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in -4to). - -[233] Op. ix. pp. 205, 206. - -[234] See Caterina Niccolini’s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.) - -[235] Op. vi. p. 375. - -[236] In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent -followed Galileo’s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we -have made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary -commission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 -vo.), and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat. -MS. 413 ro.-419 ro.) - -[237] Compare the letter of Geri Bocchineri, private secretary at the -Court of Tuscany, to Galileo (Op. ix. pp. 225, 226), and the letter of -Cioli to Niccolini of 8th March, in which the latter is charged, in the -name of the Grand Duke, to support Galileo’s cause to the utmost with the -Master of the Palace. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 39.) - -[238] Op. vi. pp. 377, 378. - -[239] Op. ix. pp. 242, 243. - -[240] The Roman censorship only granted licences to works published at -Rome itself. - -[241] See this letter from Riccardi to Niccolini. (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244.) - -[242] Op. iv. pp. 382-284. - -[243] See Niccolini to Galileo, 25th May, 1631. (Wolynski, “Lettere -inedite,” etc., p. 83.) - -[244] ... “Si che non mai si conceda la verita assoluta ma solamente la -hipotetica, e senza la Scrittura, a questa opinione ...” - -[245] Vat. MS. fol. 390 ro. - -[246] Ibid. fol. 390 vo. - -[247] Letter of 19th July, 1631. (Op. ix. p. 246.) - -[248] See this important letter of Riccardi’s to the Inquisitor at -Florence. (Vat. MS. fol. 393 ro.) - -[249] See points 1 and 3 of the memorial which was handed to the Pope at -the first examination of Galileo by the preliminary commission. (Vat. MS. -fol. 388.) - -[250] Comp. p. 120. - -[251] Marini, p. 127. Pieralisi tries to convince the reader that -Ciampoli acted quite despotically in the matter; and says that when -Riccardi refers to “the Pope,” it was not Maffeo Barberini, but Mgr. -Ciampoli, “Giovanni Ciampoli non Maffeo Barberini era il Papa”! p. 113, a -statement which, considering Urban’s despotic character and the absence -of historical proof, appears very arbitrary. - -[252] _Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik._ 9th Series, Part 3, p. 184. - -[253] Marini, pp. 116, 117; Op. Suppl. pp. 324, 325. - -[254] Op. vi. p. 389. - -[255] Ibid. p. 390. - -[256] Ibid. - -[257] Op. ix. p. 271. - -[258] Ibid. p. 253. - -[259] Op. ix. pp. 270-272. - -[260] Op. Suppl. p. 319. - -[261] Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp. -163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234. - -[262] Comp. on this subject the chapters on “Die Gesellschaft Jesu” in -“Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart,” by -Fr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966. - -[263] ... “I Gesuiti lo persequiterano acerbissimamente.” (See -Magalotti’s letter to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th Aug., 1632. Op. -Suppl. p. 321) - -[264] See their letters. (Op. ix. pp. 264-267, 270-272, 276-282.) - -[265] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. ix. pp. 25, 72, 97, 166-168, -174-177, 210, 255; Suppl. p. 181.) - -[266] On the reverse side of the title page of the “Dialogues” stands:— - - “Imprimatur, si videbitur Rever. P. Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici. - A. Episcopus Bellicastensis Vices gerens. - - Imprimatur. Fr. Nicolaus Ricardus, Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister. - - Imprimatur Florentiæ; ordinibus consuetis servatis. 11 Septembris 1630. - Petrus Nicolinus Vic. Gen. Florentiæ. - - Imprimatur. Die 11 Septembris 1630. - Fra Clemens Egidius Inquisit. Gen. Florentiæ. - - Stampisi. A. di 12 di Settembre 1630. - Niccolò dell’Altella.” - -[267] It is reproduced in Venturi, vol. ii. p. 117. - -[268] See on all this the two detailed letters of Count Magalotti to -Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th August and 4th September, 1632. (Op. -Suppl. pp. 318-329.) - -[269] Scheiner had two years before published a work called “Rosa -Ursina,” in which he again fiercely attacked Galileo, and stoutly -maintained his unjustifiable claims to the first discovery of the solar -spots. Galileo did not directly answer him in his “Dialogues,” but dealt -him some side blows, and stood up for his own priority in the discovery -with weighty arguments. Castelli, in a letter to Galileo of 19th June, -1632 (Op. ix. p. 274), gives an amusing description of Scheiner’s -rage. When a priest from Siena praised the book in his presence at -a bookseller’s, and called it the most important work that had ever -appeared, Scheiner left the shop, pale as death, and trembling with -excitement in every limb. But he did not always thus curb his rage. The -natural philosopher, Torricelli, who afterwards became famous, a pupil -of Castelli’s, reported to Galileo, in a letter of 11th September, 1632 -(Op. ix. p. 287), a conversation he had had with Scheiner about the -“Dialogues.” Although he shook his head about them, he had concurred -in Torricelli’s praise, but could not help remarking that he found the -frequent digressions tedious; and no wonder, for they often referred to -himself, and he always got the worst of it. He broke off the conversation -by saying that “Galileo had behaved very badly to him, but he did not -wish to speak of it.” In a letter of 23rd February, 1633, to Gassendi -(Op. ix. p. 275), Scheiner is less reserved. Rage and fury evidently -guided his pen, and he complains bitterly that Galileo had dared in his -work to “lay violent hands” on the “Rosa Ursina.” Scheiner was doubtless -one of the most zealous in instituting the trial against Galileo, -although Targioni (vol. i. p. 113, note _a_) overshoots the mark in -making him his actual accuser. - -[270] Op. ix. pp. 420-425. - -[271] See Magalotti’s letter to Guiducci of 4th September, 1632 (Op. -Suppl. p. 324); and Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 5th September (Op. ix. -p. 422). - -[272] Op. ix. p. 271, note 1. - -[273] Comp. Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 13th March, 1633. (Op. ix. p. -437.) - -[274] Op. i. “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc., p. 502. - -[275] This point has been recently thoroughly discussed by Henri Martin. -Comp. pp. 159-168. - -[276] Pages 34-38, etc. - -[277] ... “Che fu il primo motere di tutti i miei travagli.” (Op. vii. p. -71.) - -[278] This erroneous idea is found among a large number of historians; -for instance, Biot (_Journal des Savans_, July-Oct. 1858), pp. 464, 465; -Philarète Chasles, pp. 129, 130, 208; Reumont, p. 336; and Parchappe, p. -206. Epinois (pp. 56, 57) and Martin (pp. 159-168) have merely given the -importance to this circumstance which it deserves, for it really was of -great moment in the course of the trial. - -[279] “ ... E da buona banda intendo i Padri Gesuiti aver fatto -impressione in testa principalissima che tal mio libro è piu esecrando e -piu pernicioso per Santa Chiesa, che le scritture di Lutero e di Calvino -...” (Letter from Galileo to Elia Diodati of 15th Jan., 1633, Op. vii. p. -19. Comp. also his letter to King Ladislaus of Poland, Op. vii. p. 190.) - -[280] See the letter of Magalotti to Guiducci, before mentioned, of 7th -August, 1632. (Op. Suppl. pp. 318-323.) - -[281] Op. Suppl. p. 319. - -[282] See the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 18th Sep., -1632. (Op. ix. pp. 422 and 426.) - -[283] See Campanella’s letters to Galileo of 31st August and 25th Sep., -1632. (Op. ix. pp. 284 and 294.) - -[284] Op. vii. pp. 3, 4. - -[285] Op. ix. pp. 420-423. - -[286] Il Serenissimo Padrone ha sentito le lettere di V. E. de 4 et 5, et -per questa materia del Sig. Mariano e per quella del Sig. Galileo resta -in tanta alterazione chio non so come le cose passarano; so bene che S. -Santita non havera mai cagione di dolessi de ministri ni de mali consigli -lora. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 45.) - -[287] Op. Suppl. pp. 324-330. - -[288] It never did in fact come to this; for the _supreme authority_ is -the Pope, speaking _ex cathedra_, or an Œcumenical Council. - -[289] Op. ix. pp. 423-425. - -[290] ... “Ma sopra tutte le cose dice, con la solita confidenza e -segretezza, essersi trovato ne’ libri del S. Offizio, che circa a 16 anni -sono essendosi sentito che il Signor Galilei aveva questa opinione, e -la seminara in Fiorenza, e che per questo essendo fatto venire a Roma, -gli fu proibito in nome del Papa e del S. Offizio dal Signor Cardinale -Bellarmino il poter tenere questa opinione, _e che questo solo é bastante -per rovinarlo affatto_.” - -[291] Comp. pp. 71, 72. - -[292] Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo. - -[293] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. -pp. 425-428.) - -[294] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp. -425-428.) - -[295] Vat. MS. p. 394 vo. - -[296] After Galileo’s signature follow the autograph attestations of the -notary and witnesses, of whose presence Galileo knew nothing. (Vat. MS. -fol. 398 ro.) - -[297] Op. vii. p. 6. - -[298] The address does not indicate which of the Cardinals Barberini, but -it is clear from Niccolini’s despatch of 13th November, 1632, to Cioli, -that it was to Cardinal Antonio, jun., nephew of the Pope, and not, as -Albèri assumes, to Cardinal Antonio, sen., the Pope’s brother. - -[299] There is no clue whatever as to who this personage was. From what -Galileo says, it must have been some high ecclesiastical dignitary. - -[300] On this point also a passage in a letter of Campanella’s to Galileo -of 22nd October, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 303), is worth mentioning. He says: -“They are doing all they possibly can here in Rome, by speaking and -writing, to prove that you have acted contrary to orders.” - -[301] Op. vii. pp. 7-13. - -[302] Vat. MS. fol. 403 ro. - -[303] Op. ix. pp. 304-306. - -[304] Ibid. pp. 428, 429. - -[305] Niccolini was mistaken if he thought that this tribunal was, -according to ecclesiastical notions, infallible. - -[306] Op. ix. p. 311. - -[307] See Niccolini to Cioli, 6th November. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,” -etc., p. 50.) - -[308] Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. vii. - -[309] The cup of papal wrath had by this time been emptied on Ciampoli’s -head. He had been deprived of his important office as Secretary of the -Papal Briefs, and in order to remove him from Rome he was made Governor -of Montalto, and entered on his post at the end of November. (See the -letters of Castelli to Galileo. Op. ix. pp. 306, 313-316.) - -[310] For these documents, from which the above narrative is taken, see -Op. ix. pp. 312, 313 and 429, 430. - -[311] Vat. MS. fol. 401 ro. - -[312] Gherardi’s Documents, and Vat. MS. fol. 402 vo. - -[313] Op. ix. pp. 430, 431. - -[314] Ibid. pp. 318, 319. - -[315] Vat. MS. fol. 406 ro. - -[316] Ibid. pp. 407 ro. - -[317] Op. ix. p. 431. - -[318] Ibid. pp. 319, 320. - -[319] See Castelli’s Letters to Galileo of 2nd and 16th Oct., 1632. (Op. -ix. pp. 295-298, and 299-301.) - -[320] See his letters. (Op. ix. pp. 306, 307, and 313-315.) - -[321] “30th Dec. 1632, a Nativitate. Sanctissimus mandavit Inquisitori -rescribi quod Sanctitas Sua et Sacra Congregatio nullatenus potest et -debet tolerare hujusmodi subterfugia et ad effectum verificandi an -revera in statu tali reperiatur quod non possit ad urbem absque vitae -periculo accedere. Sanctissimus et Sacra Congregatio transmittet illuc -commissarium una cum medicum qui illum visitent ut certam et sinceram -relationem faciant de statu in quo reperitur, et si erit in statu tali -ut venire possit illum carceratum et ligatum cum ferris transmittat. Si -vero causa sanitatas et ob periculum vitae transmissio erit differenda, -statim postquam convaluerit et cessante periculo carceratus et ligatus -ac cum ferris transmittat. Commissiarius autem et medici transmittantur -ejus sumptibus et expensis quid se in tali statu et temporibus constituit -et tempore oportuno ut ei fuerat preceptum venire et facere contempsit.” -(Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. x.; and Vat. MS. fol. 409 vo.) - -[322] Op. ix. pp. 322, 323. This last observation of the Grand Duke’s, -only meaning that he reckoned on a speedy release for Galileo, afterwards -gave Cioli occasion, as we shall see by-and-by, for a most mean act -towards Galileo. - -[323] It is incomprehensible how many of Galileo’s biographers, even -Parchappe (p. 216) and H. Martin (p. 120), who had Albèri’s work at -command, fix the 15th as the date. And yet we have a letter of Galileo’s -to the Cardinal de Medici of the 15th Jan. (Op. vii. pp. 15, 16), asking -if he had any commissions, in which he expressly mentions “the 20th -instant” as the day of his departure. - -[324] “Famosi et antiqui problematis de telluris motu vel quiete hactenus -optata solutio: ad Em. Card. Richelium Ducem et Franciæ Parem. A. Jo. -Bapt. Morino apud Gallos et Bellajocensibus Francopolitano Doct. Med. -atque Paris. Mathematum professore. Terra stat in æternum; Sol oritur et -occidit. Eccles. Cap. I. Parisiis apud tuctorem juxta Pontem novum 1631, -in 40.” - -[325] “Liberti Fromondi in Acad. Lovaniensi S. Theolog. Doctoris et -Professoris ordinarii. Ant.-Aristarchus, sive orbis terræ immobilis. -Liber unicus, in quo decretum S. Congreg. S. R. E. Cardinalium anno -1616, adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur. Antverpiæ ex -officina Plantiniana 1631, in 40.” - -[326] The letter to the Grand Duchess Christine. - -[327] Op. vii. pp. 16-20. - -[328] The Inquisitor informed the Holy Office, two days later, that -Galileo had left Florence on the 20th. (Vat. MS. fol. 411 ro.; and -Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xii.) - -[329] Comp. Niccolini’s letter to Galileo of 5th Feb., 1633. (Op. ix. p. -327.) - -[330] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 14th Feb. (Op. ix. p. 432.) - -[331] See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 16th and 19th Feb. (Op. ix. -pp. 432, 433.) - -[332] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb. - -[333] See Galileo’s letter to Cioli of 19th Feb. (Op. vii. pp. 20-22.) - -[334] Ibid. - -[335] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Geri Bocchineri of 25th Feb. (Op. vii. p. -23.) - -[336] Op. vii. pp. 20-22. - -[337] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb. - -[338] Op. vii. p. 22. - -[339] Op. ix. 434. - -[340] In the account of this conversation we have followed Niccolini’s -despatch to Cioli of 27th Feb. (Op. ix. pp. 434-436.) - -[341] Comp. pp. 171, 172. - -[342] Op. ix. pp. 434-436. - -[343] Ibid. pp. 330-332. - -[344] Op. vii. p. 27; and ix. p. 436; also Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,” -etc., p. 57. - -[345] Op. ix. pp. 436-438. - -[346] Op. ix. p. 438; and vii. p. 228. - -[347] See Geri Bocchineri’s Letters to Galileo and Cioli, both of 26th -March, 1633: the former, Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 89; the -latter, Op. ix. p. 336. - -[348] Op. ix. p. 441. - -[349] Op. ix. p. 338. - -[350] See Galileo’s letters to G. Bocchineri of 5th and 12th, and to -Cioli of 12th and 19th March. (Op. vii. pp. 24-28.) - -[351] Op. ix. pp. 438, 439. - -[352] Vat. MS. fol. 413 vo. 419 ro. - -[353] We have before stated that Copernicus did not at all consider his -doctrine a hypothesis, but was convinced of its actual truth. It was -Osiander’s politic introduction which had given rise to the error which -was then generally held. - -[354] Prof. Berti has first published this interesting letter in full in -his “Copernico e le vicende Sistema Copernicano in Italia,” pp. 121-125. - -[355] Vat. MS. fol. 423 ro. - -[356] No explanation is to be found anywhere of this mysterious -notification. The protocols of the trial show that none took place before -the Inquisitor. These “particulars,” therefore, as they are not mentioned -again in the course of the trial, and play no part in it, may have been -chiefly of a private nature. - -[357] These are the precise words of this ominous passage in the -annotation of 26th February, 1616, which appear to have been considered -absolutely decisive by the Inquisitor. - -[358] Op. vii. p. 29. The rest of the letter is about family affairs. - -[359] Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 16th April. (Op. ix. pp. -440, 441.) During our stay in Rome in the spring of 1877, Leone Vincenzo -Sallua, the Father Commissary-General of the Holy Office, was kind -enough to show us the apartments occupied by Galileo in the Palace of -the Inquisition. The rooms are all large, light, and cheerful, and on -one side you enjoy the prospect of the majestic dome of St. Peter’s, -and on the other of the beautiful gardens of the Vatican. It is worthy -of note that all the rooms assigned to Galileo and his servant are -entirely shut off by a single door, so that but one key was required -to make the inmates of these handsome apartments prisoners. With all -its consideration for Galileo’s person, the Inquisition never forgot -a certain prudence which had perhaps become a second nature to it. We -prefix a little ground plan of the rooms, made by ourselves on the spot. - -[360] See despatch of 23rd April. (Op. ix. p. 441.) - -[361] See Op. ix. pp. 334, 339, 345, 346, 354, 355. Pieralisi tries to -palliate even this act, but without much success. (Comp. pp. 134, 135.) - -[362] Thanks to the kindness of Prof. Riccardi, of Modena, in whose -valuable library there is, among other treasures, a copy of Galileo’s -“Dialogues” of 1632, I was enabled to compare Inchofer’s quotations with -a copy of the very edition which was in the hands of the consultators of -the Holy Office. I am able to state that Inchofer quotes them verbatim, -or makes faithful extracts without altering the sense. The last quotation -only, 25, is a little confused. (Vat. MS. fol. 439 vo.) - -[363] Pasqualigus seldom cites verbatim, but makes short quotations; and -in comparing them with Galileo’s works, I have found the sense given -correctly. - -[364] See all these opinions and the arguments, Vat. MS. fol. 429 ro. 447 -ro. - -[365] There is a passage in a letter of Galileo’s to Geri Bocchineri -of 25th February, 1633, in which he says: “The cessation of all bodily -exercise which, as you know I am accustomed to take for the benefit of -my health, and of which I have now been deprived for nearly forty days, -begins to tell upon me, and particularly to interfere with digestion, -so that the mucus accumulates; and for three days violent pains in the -limbs have occasioned great suffering, and deprived me of sleep. I hope -strict diet will get rid of them.” (Op. vii. p. 23.) Since this time two -months had elapsed without Galileo’s having been in the open air. Even -the Inquisitors saw, as we shall find, that a change must be made in the -regulations, if they did not wish to endanger his life. - -[366] Op. vii. p. 30. - -[367] Pages 197, 198. - -[368] Niccolini’s. - -[369] Vat. MS. fol. 419 ro. 420 vo. - -[370] Vat. MS. fol. 420 vo. 421 ro. - -[371] Vat. MS. fol. 421 vo. - -[372] Op. ix. pp. 441, 442. - -[373] Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 61. - -[374] See Niccolini to Cioli, 15th May, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 442.) - -[375] Galileo’s letters between 23rd April and 23rd July, just the most -interesting time, are entirely wanting, which can scarcely be altogether -accidental. - -[376] Op. ix. p. 353. - -[377] See the protocol of the hearing of 10th May, 1633. (Vat. MS. fol. -422 ro.) - -[378] At his first hearing Galileo had only been able to show a copy of -this certificate, but now produced the original. - -[379] Vat. MS. fol. 425 vo. - -[380] Comp. Marini, pp. 98-100. - -[381] Op. ix. p. 357. - -[382] See their letters (Op. ix. pp. 355-364; and Suppl. pp. 350, 351). - -[383] See his letters to Galileo (Op. Suppl. pp. 248-250). - -[384] Op. ix. p. 359. - -[385] Ibid. p. 365. - -[386] See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 29th May. (Op. ix. p. 443.) - -[387] Op. ix. pp. 442, 443. - -[388] - - “Feria V. Die XVI. Junii 1633. - -Galilaei de Galileis Florentini in hoc S. Off. carcerati et ob ejus -adversam valetudinem ac senectutem cum praecepto de non discedendo -de domo electae habitationis in urbe, ac de se repraesentando toties -quoties sub poenis arbitrio Sacrae Congregationis habilitati proposita -causa relato processu et auditis notis, S.ᵐᵘˢ decrevit ipsum Galilaeum -interrogandum esse super intentione et comminata ei tortura, et si -sustinuerit, previa abjuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S. -Off. condemnandum ad carcerem arbitrio Sac. Congregationis, Injunctum ei -ne de cetero scripto vel verbo tractet ampluis gnovis modo de mobilitate -terræ, nec de stabilitate solis et e contra sub poena relapsus. Librum -vero ab eo conscriptum cuititutus est Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo -(publice cremandum fore (_sic_) ma cassato) prohibendum fore. Praeterea -ut haec omnibus innotescant exemplaria Sententiae Decretumque perinde -transmitti jussit ad omnes nuntios apostolicos, et ad omnes haereticae -pravitatis Inquisitores, ac praecipue ad Inquisitorem Florentiae qui eam -sententiam in ejus plena Congregatione, Consultoribus accersitis, etiam -et coram plerisque Mathematicae Artis Professoribus publice legatur.” -(Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xiii.; and Vat. MS. fol. 451 vo.) - -It was then apparently at first determined publicly to burn Galileo’s -book, and it was not till after the decree had been committed to writing -that it was altered. At whose instigation this was done, whether at that -of the Pope, or in consequence of the remonstrances of some more lenient -members of the Congregation, such as the Cardinals Barberini, Borgia, and -Zacchia, cannot be decided. - -[389] Op. ix. pp. 443, 444, from which the above account is taken. - -[390] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, -445.) - -[391] Et cu nihil aliud posset haberi in executione decreti habita eius -subscriptione remissus fuit ad locum suum. (Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.) - -[392] “Cioè al palazzo del Ministro di Toscana,” says Marini, p. 62. - -[393] The passage in Niccolini’s despatch is as follows: “Il Signor -Galilei fu chiamato lunedi (20) sera al S. Uffizio, ove si trasferi -martedi (21) mattina conforme all’ ordine, per sentire qual che potessero -desiderare da lui, ed essendo ritenuto, fu condotto mercoledi (22) alla -Minerva avanti alli Sig. Cardinali e Prelati della Congregazione, dove -non solamente gli fu letta la sentenza, ma fatto anche abiurare la sua -opinione, ... la qual condannazione gli ful subito permutata da S. B. in -una relegazione o confine al giardino della Trinita de’ Monti, dore io lo -condussi venerdi (24) sera....” (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.) - -[394] Galileo’s letter to Castelli of 21st December, 1613. - -[395] Appendix VI. - -[396] It is very remarkable that Jagemann, in his book on Galileo, which -appeared in 1784 (New Ed. 1787, pp. 86, 95), doubts the fact of such a -special prohibition. Of course he is acquainted only with the sentence -published by Riccioli, and surmises that he invented the passage in which -the special prohibition is mentioned, “in order to justify the harsh -proceedings of the Court of Rome under Urban VIII.” So that ninety years -ago, without anything to go by but the wording of the sentence, Jagemann -suspected that this strict prohibition was never issued to Galileo, and -says,—“Neither does this decree agree with the information given above on -all points,” _i.e._, in letters of Galileo and Guiccardini of 1616. - -[397] Compare the excellent essay: “La Condemnation de Galilée. Lapsus -des écrivains qui l’opposent a la doctrine de l’infallibilité du Pape,” -von Abbé Bouix. Also Pieralisi, pp. 121-131; and Gilbert’s “La Procés -de Galilée,” pp. 19-30. We may remark here, that according to these -principles the doctrine of Copernicus was not made heretical by the -sentence of the Inquisition, because the decree never received the Pope’s -official ratification. To confirm this statement we subjoin some remarks -by theological authorities. Gassendi remarks in his great work, “De motu -impresso a motore translato” (Epist. ii. t. iii. p. 519), published nine -years after the condemnation of Galileo, on the absence of the papal -ratification in the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, and that therefore -_the negation of the Copernican theory was not an article of faith_. -As a good priest he recognises the high authority of a decision of the -Congregation, and subjects his personal opinions to it. Father Riccioli, -in his comprehensive work, “Almagestum novum,” published nine years after -Gassendi’s, reproduces Gassendi’s statement word for word (t. i., pars. -2, p. 489), and entirely concurs in it, even in the book which was meant -to refute the Copernican theory at all points (pp. 495, 496, and 500). -Father Fabri, a French Jesuit, afterwards Grand Penitentiary at Rome, -says in a dissertation published there in 1661 against the “Systema -Saturnium,” of Huyghens (p. 49), that as no valid evidence can be adduced -for the truth of the new system, the authorities of the Church are quite -right in interpreting the passages of Holy Scripture relating to the -system of the universe literally; “but,” he adds, “if ever any conclusive -reasons are discovered (which I do not expect), _I do not doubt that -the Church will say that they are to be taken figuratively_,” a remark -which no priest would have made about a doctrine pronounced heretical by -infallible authority. Caramuel, a Spanish Benedictine, who also discussed -the future of the Copernican theory, defines the position still more -clearly than Fabri. In his “Theologia fundamentalis,” published at Lyons -in 1676 (t. i., pp. 104-110), after defending the decree and sentence of -the Congregation, he discusses the attitude which the Church will take -in case the system should prove indisputably true. In the first place -he believes this will never happen, and if it does, _it could never be -said that the Church of Rome had been in error, as the doctrine of the -double motion of the earth had never been condemned by an Œcumenical -Council, nor by the Pope speaking ex cathedra, but only by the tribunal -of cardinals_. - -It is interesting to find that Descartes, Galileo’s contemporary, put -the same construction on the matter. He wrote on 10th January, 1634, -to Father Mersenne: “_As I do not see that this censure has been -confirmed either by a Council or the Pope, but proceeds solely from the -congregation of the cardinals_, I do not give up hope that it will not -happen to the Copernican theory as it did to that about the antipodes, -which was formerly condemned in the same way.” (Panthéon littéraire, -Œuvres philosophiques de Descartes, p. 545.) - -[398] Page 141. - -[399] Page 60. - -[400] Abbé Bouix, p. 229. - -[401] _Zeitschrift für Math. und Physik._ 9th series. Part 3, pp. 194, -195. - -[402] “I Cardinale Inquisitori componenti la Congregazione, in cui nome -la sentenza è fatta, erano in numero di dieci. Nell’ ultima Congregazione -se ne trovarono presenti solo sette; quindi sette solo sono sottoscritti. -Da cio non può in nessuna maniera desumersi che i tre mancanti fossero di -parere contrario.” (“Processo originale,” etc., p. 149, note 1.) - -[403] “Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei,” pp. 218-224. - -[404] Appendix VI. - -[405] Vol. vii. of the “Historisch-politischen Blätter für das -Catholische Deutschland.” Munich, 1841. - -[406] Ibid. p. 578. - -[407] The reproach which the apologists of the Inquisition are fond of -bringing against Galileo, that he knew nothing about the specific gravity -of the air, is incorrect, as appears from his letter to Baliani of 12th -March, 1613 (published for the first time in 1864 by Signor Giuseppe -Sacchi, director of the library at Brera, where the autograph letter is -to be seen), in which Galileo describes a method he had invented for -determining the specific gravity of the air. - -[408] See the essay before mentioned, p. 583. - -[409] Ibid. pp. 580, 581. - -[410] Ibid. pp. 581, 582. - -[411] It carefully refutes the assertion made by Father Olivieri, that -the Holy Office had prohibited the Copernican doctrine from being -demonstrated as true, and condemned its famous advocate, Galileo, because -it could not then be satisfactorily proved scientifically, and Galileo -had supported it with arguments scientifically incorrect. If we can -believe the ex-general of the Dominicans, the Inquisition in 1616 and -1633 was only the careful guardian of science! - -[412] _Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, Beilage_, No. 93, 2nd Aug, 1876. - -[413] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xv. - -[414] Compare p. 228, note 3. - -[415] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd July, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 445.) - -[416] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro. - -[417] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 3rd July. - -[418] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro. and 454 vo. - -[419] Ibid. fol. 453 vo. - -[420] Op. ix. p. 447. - -[421] Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum.” Pisa, 1778, vol. i. p. 144. - -[422] Heis, “Das Unhistorische des dem Galilei in dem Munde gelegten: ‘E -pur si muove.’” Munich, 1868. - -[423] “Der Galileischen Process auf Grund der neuesten Actenpublicationen -historisch und juristisch geprütf.” Von Prof. H. Grisar, S. J. -_Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie._ 2nd series. Innsbrück, 1878. - -[424] Ferry, author of the article “Galilée” in “Dictionnaire de -Conversation,” Paris, 1859, undoubtedly believes the story. But the -man who makes Galileo be born at Florence, study at Venice, and become -Professor at Padua directly afterwards, thinks that Galileo did nothing -more for science after his condemnation, and, that (in 1859) his works -were still on the Index, can hardly be reckoned among historians. - -[425] Louis Combes’s “Gal. et L’Inquisition Romaine,” Paris, 1876, is a -pamphlet of no scientific value whatever, distinguished by astounding -ignorance of the Galileo literature. The author complains that the -original documents relating to the trial are buried among the secret -papal archives, and that nothing more is known of them than what Mgr. -Marini has thought fit to communicate! The publication, then, of the most -important documents of the Vat. MS., by Epinois, 1867, seems to have -escaped the notice of M. Louis Combes! - -[426] Nelli, vol. ii. p. 562, note 2. - -[427] Page 69, note 2. - -[428] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 182; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 537. - -[429] See Appendix: History of the Vat. MS. - -[430] See Dr. Emil Wohlwill’s “Ist Galileo gefoltert worden.” Leipzig, -1877. - -[431] “Elogio del Galilei.” Livorno, 1775. - -[432] In Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum,” i. - -[433] “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fosiche in Toscana.” i. -Firenze, 1780. - -[434] “Lettere inedite di uomini illustri.” Firenze, 1773-75. - -[435] _Journal des Savans_: July, Aug., Sep., Oct., 1858. - -[436] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 25th April. (Op. ix. p. 441.) - -[437] Niccolini to Cioli, 3rd May. (Op. ix. p. 442.) - -[438] Niccolini to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.) - -[439] Niccolini to Cioli, 10th July. (Ibid. p. 447.) - -[440] Even Wohlwill allows, p. 29, that the opinion that “Catholic -answer” means answer under torture is not tenable. - -[441] “Il Reo, che solamente condotto al luogo della tortura ò quivi -spogliato, ò pur anco legato senza però esser alzato, confessa dicesi -haver confessato ne’ tormenti, e nell’ esamina rigorosa.” (“Sacro -Arsenale overo Prattica dell’ Officio della Santa Inquisitione.” Bologna, -1865, Mesini’s ed. p. 412.) - -[442] Page 25. - -[443] “Gradus torturae olim adhiberi soliti fuerunt quinque, qui certo -ordine fuerunt inflicte, quos describit Julius Clarus ‘in pract crim.’ -§ Fin. qu. 64, versic. ‘Nunc de gradibus,’ ubi ita ait, ‘Scias igitur, -quod quinque sunt gradus torturae; scilicet Primo, minae de torquendo. -Secundo: conductio ad locum tormentorum. Tertio, spoliato et ligatura. -Quarto, elevation in eculeo. Quinto, squassatio.” (Philippi a Limborch -S.S. Theologiae inter Remonstrantes Professoris, Historia Inquisitionis. -Amstelodami apud Henricum, Westenium, 1692, p. 322.) - -[444] Prof. P. Grisar also remarks in his critique of Wohlwill’s last -work (_Zeitschrift für Kath. Theol._ ii. Jahrgang, p. 188), that in the -language of the old writers on criminal law, the _territio verbalis_ was -often included in the expression torture, and appeals to Julius Clarus, -Sentent. crimin. lib. 5, § Fin. qu. 84, nr 31; Francof. 1706, p. 318; -Sigism. Scaccia, de judiciis, lib. 2. c. 8. nr 276; Francof. 1669, p. 269. - -[445] “Sacro Arsenale,” p. 155. - -[446] Ibid. pp. 157, 161, 165. - -[447] Ibid. p. 157; Salleles, “De materiis tribunalium S. Inquisitionis,” -reg. 361, nos. 110, 117. - -[448] Ibid. p. 410; Limborch, p. 325. - -[449] In his brochure, “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” - -[450] “Il Processo di Galileo Galilei e la Moderna Critica Tedesca,” III. -_Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc. ii., 1878. - -[451] Page 214. - -[452] “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 62, 64. - -[453] The passage in the decree is: “Sᵐᵘˢ. decrevit ipsum (Galileo) -interrogandum esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura et si -sustenuerit, previa abiuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.O. -condemnandum ad carcerem,” etc. (Vat. MS. Fol. 451 vo.) Wohlwill says -that the first part of this decree has had about as many interpretations -as authors who have quoted it. This may in no small degree be due to the -fact that it was not known whether the original reading was _et_ or _ac_ -sustinuerit. As it is now decided in favour of _et_, perhaps an agreement -may be come to, and the more so as several students of Galileo’s trial -have adopted a translation which agrees as to the meaning, to which -we ourselves, now that the _et_ is unquestionable, adhere. H. Martin, -Pro. Reusch, Dr. Scartazzini, Pro. P. Grisar, Epinois in his latest -work, and the present writer, translate: “His Holiness ordained that -he (Galileo) was to be examined as to his intention, to be threatened -with torture, and if he kept firm (to his previous depositions) after -_abjuration de vehementi_, he was to be sentenced to imprisonment by the -whole Congregation of the Holy Office,” etc. Whatever may be thought of -the translation, one thing is certain, that by this decree the threat of -torture was ordained, but assuredly not its execution. - -[454] “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc. -ii. p. 232, 1878. - -[455] Op. ix. pp. 444, 445. - -[456] “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc. -ii., 16th January, 1878, p. 233. - -[457] Ibid. p. 247. - -[458] “Galileo Galilei; dessen Leben,” etc., Basle, 1858, p. 16. - -[459] Vat. MS. fol. 407. - -[460] “Farinacci, de indiciis et tortura,” a. 41. - -[461] Th. del Bene, “De officio S. Inquisitionis,” vol. i. p. 574. - -[462] “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 171, 172. - -[463] Page 197. - -[464] Op. ix. p. 372. - -[465] Op. vii. pp. 31, 32. - -[466] Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th -July. (Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.) - -[467] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 7th August. (Op. ix. p. 447.) - -[468] Op. ix. pp. 383, 384. - -[469] Vat. MS. fol. 476 vo. and 493 ro.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. -xviii. - -[470] Page 68. - -[471] Op. ix. pp. 390-392. - -[472] Vat. MS. fol. 544. - -[473] Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363. - -[474] Henri Martin (pp. 386-388) gives an interesting list of works -published against the Copernican system between 1631 and 1638, up -therefore to the time of Newton. - -[475] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 127. - -[476] Op. ix. pp. 447, 448. - -[477] Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd Dec. (Op. ix. p. 448.) - -[478] Vat. MS. fol. 534 ro. - -[479] Vat. MS., fol. without paging after 534; also Gherardi’s Documents, -Doc. xx. - -[480] Op. ix. pp. 407, 408. - -[481] At the close of this year two documents were published which have -often been used as historical sources for the story of Galileo’s trial; -namely, (1) a narration by Francesco Buonamici of the famous trial; and -(2) an assumed letter of Galileo’s to his friend and correspondent, -Father Vincenzo Renieri, intended to give a concise history of the -trial. The first has been pronounced by historical research to be quite -worthless, even if not, as H. Martin (p. 185) thinks, a forgery; the -second as decidedly apocryphal, so that neither are mentioned here. -(Comp. Op. ix. pp. 449-452; vii. pp. 40-43; and the valuable treatise by -G. Guasti: “Le relazioni di Galileo con alcuni Pratesi a proposito del -Falso Buonamici scopalto del Signor H. Martin.” Archivo Storico Italiano. -Firenze, 1873, vol. xvii.) - -[482] See Galileo’s letter to Barberini, 17th December, 1633. (Vat. MS. -fol. 541 ro.) - -[483] Op. x. pp. 2 and 11. - -[484] Vat. MS. fol. 547. - -[485] Vat. MS. fol. 549. - -[486] Vat. MS. fol. 550 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxii. - -[487] Vat. MS. fol. 551 ro. - -[488] Op. vii. p. 44. - -[489] Op. vii. pp. 46-51. - -[490] Op. x. pp. 66-69; 71-74; vii. pp. 56, 57. - -[491] Op. vii. pp. 52-58; x. 41-134; Suppl. pp. 271-278. - -[492] Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 2nd Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 64.) - -[493] Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 65.) - -[494] Comp. Peiresc’s letters to Galileo, 26th Jan., 1634 (Op. x. pp. -8-11), and to Card. Barberini, 5th Dec., 1635 (Op. x. p. 94). - -[495] Op. x. pp. 94-96. In Albèri the date of this letter is wrongly -given as 1635; Pieralisi has found the original of it in the Barberiana, -with date 5th Dec., 1634. (Pieralisi, pp. 304-310.) - -[496] Op. x. pp. 96-98. In Albèri this letter is dated 1636 instead of -1635. - -[497] Op. x. pp. 98, 99. Date wrongly given in Albèri as 13th instead of -31st Jan. See Pieralisi, pp. 313-317. - -[498] These words were written in a truly prophetic spirit; for such a -parallel was actually drawn by Voltaire in (vol. iv. p. 145) his “Essai -sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations, et sur les principaux faits de -l’histoire, depuis Charlemagne jusquà Louis XIII.” - -[499] Op. Suppl. pp. 361-363. - -[500] Op. x. pp. 25-33; vii. pp. 52, 53, and 128. - -[501] Op. x. pp. 29-33; vii. p. 140. - -[502] Op. vii. pp. 65, 66, and 67, 68; also Galileo’s letter to -Bernegger, 15th July, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 69, 70.) - -[503] Page 222. - -[504] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Giovanni Buonamici, 16th August, 1636. -(Op. vii. pp. 139, 140.) - -[505] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo of 2nd June, 1635, in which he -says that “he had at last been again permitted to kiss his Holiness’s -toe.” (Op. x. pp. 100.) - -[506] Comp. the letters of Castelli and the Count de Noailles to Galileo -of 19th April and 6th May, 1636. (Op. x. pp. 149, 150, and 153.) - -[507] Op. x. pp. 159, 160. - -[508] Op. x. pp. 161 and 163. - -[509] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th August. (Op. x. pp. 163, 164.) - -[510] Ibid. - -[511] Op. Suppl. p. 280. - -[512] Op. x. p. 172. - -[513] Comp. Galileo’s letters to Micanzio at Venice of 21st and 28th June -1636. (Op. vii. pp. 63-66.) - -[514] Op. x. pp. 88, 89, 104, 105, 116-118, 191, 192; vii. pp. 132, 154, -155. - -[515] Op. x. pp. 157, 158, 165, 170, 171, 213; vii. 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, -138, 253. - -[516] Op. x. pp. 66-69, 108-111, 127-130. - -[517] Pieroni to Galileo, 9th July, 1637. (Op. x. pp. 222-226.) - -[518] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 138, 139, 152, 153; x. pp. 167 and 184. - -[519] Comp. Op. vi. pp. 238-276, 338-346. - -[520] Op. vii. pp. 73-93, and 136, 137. - -[521] Op. iii. pp. 176-183. - -[522] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 4th July, 1637. (Op. vii. p. -180.) - -[523] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 163-174, 190-204; x. pp. 215-218, 228-248; -Suppl. pp. 282-284. - -[524] Op. vii. p. 193. - -[525] Op. x. pp. 231, 232. - -[526] ... “Here I found and called upon the celebrated Galileo, now -become old and a prisoner of the Inquisition,” says Milton. Unfortunately -we know nothing more of this interesting meeting. (Comp. Reumont, p. 405.) - -[527] Op. vii. p. 207. See on Galileo’s total blindness, “Sull’epoca vera -e la durata della cecità del Galileo,” Nota del Angelo Secchi: (Estratta -dal Giornale Arcadico, Tomo liv nuova serie); and “Sull’ nella epoca -della completa cecità del Galileo,” Risposta di Paolo Volpicelli al -chiaris e R. P. A. Secchi, Roma, 1868. - -[528] Op. x. p. 232. - -[529] Op. x. pp. 248, 249. - -[530] Comp. p. 275, note 1. - -[531] Galileo’s letter to Guerrini, an official at the Tuscan Court, 19th -December. (Op. vii. pp. 204, 205.) - -[532] Guerrini to Galileo, 20th December. (Op. x. pp. 249, 250.) - -[533] Op. x. pp. 254, 255. - -[534] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiii. - -[535] This passage directly contradicts the remark on this subject in -the report of Fra Clemente, the Inquisitor, of 1st April, 1634; his -successor, Fra Fanano, seems to have been more favourable to Galileo. - -[536] Op. x. pp. 280, 281. - -[537] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiv. - -[538] Op. x. p. 286. - -[539] Fanano’s letter to Cardinal F. Barberini of 10th March, 1638. (Op. -x. p. 287.) - -[540] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxv. - -[541] Letter of the Vicar of the Holy Office at Florence to Galileo, of -28th March, 1638. (Op. x. p. 292.) - -[542] Op. vii. pp. 211-216. - -[543] See letters from Hortensius and Realius to Galileo of 26th Jan. and -3rd Mar. 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 95-99, 100-102); letter from Const. Huyghens -to Diodati, 13th April, 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 111-113). - -[544] Op. vii. pp. 163-174. - -[545] Op. vii. pp. 181-189. - -[546] Vat. MS. fol. 554 ro. - -[547] Vat. MS; fol. 555 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvi. - -[548] On all this see Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 7th Aug., 1638. (Op. -vii. pp. 214-216.) - -[549] Comp. Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679, and Venturi, vol. ii. p. 285. - -[550] Vat. MS. fol. 553 ro.; and Op. x. 304, 305, where it is dated 23rd -instead of 25th July. - -[551] Vat. MS. fol. 556 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvii. - -[552] Op. vii. p. 215. - -[553] Op. vii. pp. 216-218. - -[554] Op. xv. p. 401; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 838. - -[555] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 371. - -[556] Comp. Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th May and 30 July, 1638. -(Op. x. pp. 300, 310-313.) - -[557] Cioli’s despatch to Niccolini of 9th Sept., 1638. (Op. x. pp. 313, -314.) - -[558] Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 15th and 25th Sept. (Wolynski, -“La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., pp. 68, 69.) - -[559] Fanano’s letter to Card. Barberini of 4th Oct. (Op. x. p. 314.) - -[560] See Castelli’s letters to Card. F. Barberini of 2nd, 9th, and 16th -Oct., in Pieralisi, pp. 291-296; and another of 23rd Oct., 1638, on an -unnumbered page between fols. 552 and 553 of the Vat. MS. p. 175. - -[561] See Card. Barberini’s letters to Castelli of 16th and 30th Oct. -(Pieralisi, pp. 294, 295, and 298.) - -[562] Vat. MS. fol. 557 vo. - -[563] “Discorsi e Dimostrazione Matematiche intorno a due Scienze -attenenti alla Meccanica e ai Movimenti Locali. Con una Appendice del -Centro di gravita di alcuni Solidi.” - -[564] See Galileo’s letter to the Count de Noailles of 6th March, 1638, -and his answer of 20th July. (Op. vii. pp. 209-211, and x. pp. 308-310.) - -[565] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 44, 46, 57, 70. - -[566] Op. vii. pp. 218-226; x. pp. 316, 317, 320, 321. - -[567] “Dalla Villa Arcètri, mio continuato carcere ed esilio dalla -città.” (Letter from Galileo to Cassiano dal Pozzo in Rome, of 20th Jan., -1641, Op. vii. p. 351) - -[568] Op. vii. pp. 364, 365. - -[569] Pieralisi thinks (“Urbano VIII. and Galileo Galilei,” p. 264) that -it was left to Galileo’s option during the last few years to reside -either at Arcetri or Florence, and that his preference for his villa led -him to choose the former; a statement for which Pieralisi has no proof to -offer, and which is strongly opposed to what we have mentioned above. - -[570] Gherardi’s Documents, Docs. xxviii. and xxix. - -[571] Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th Jan., 12th Feb., 1639. (Op. -x. pp. 325, 326, and 328, 329.) - -[572] Op. x. pp. 340-348, 356, 357, 363-365, 367, 368, 385-387, 392-394, -396, 397, 407, 408; Suppl. pp. 287-290. - -[573] Op. x. pp. 280 and 308. - -[574] Comp. his letters to Castelli of 8th and 19th Aug., 1st and 3rd -Sep., 3rd and 18th Dec., 1639. (Op. vii. pp. 232-236, 238, 239, and 242, -243.) - -[575] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 360. - -[576] Op. vii. pp. 238, 239; xiii. pp. 267-332; xv. pp. 358-360. - -[577] See his letters to Galileo in 1639 and 1640. (Op. x. pp. 336, 339, -340, 350, 351, 362, 363, 382, 383, 402, 419, 420; also xv. (Viviani), pp. -356, 357.) - -[578] Op. vii. pp. 240, 241. - -[579] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 243-254. In 1648 Renieri was intending to bring -out Galileo’s calculations about the satellites of Jupiter, and their -application to navigation, which he had completed by long years of -labour, when his death occurred after a short illness. The papers were -then lost, but were afterwards discovered by Albèri, who arranged them -and incorporated them in the “Opere di Galileo Galilei,” v. - -[580] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Daniele Spinola of 19th Man, 1640. (Op. -vii. pp. 256-258.) - -[581] Letter from Prince Leopold de’ Medici to Galileo, 11th Mar., 1640. -(Op. vii. p. 254.) - -[582] Op. vii. pp. 261-310; iii. pp. 190-237. - -[583] See this correspondence. (Op. vii. pp. 317-333, 336-350, 352-358.) -Liceti published a large book in 1642, in reply to Galileo’s letter to -Prince Leopold de’ Medici. The latter, in which Galileo had made some -alterations, was, with his consent, printed with Liceti’s reply. - -[584] Op. vii p. 360. - -[585] Op. vii. pp. 361-363. - -[586] Page 419. - -[587] This is precisely the same argument, only in other words, brought -forward by Simplicius at the end of the “Dialogues on the Two Chief -Systems.” (Comp. p. 160.) - -[588] This passage calls the passage in “Il Saggiatore” to mind, where -Galileo speaks of Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Tycho. - -[589] See “Allgemeine Weltgeschichte,” by Cesare Cantu. Freely rendered -for Catholic Germany, from the 7th edition, by Dr. J. A. M. Brühl, p. 540. - -[590] Comp. Renieri’s letter to Galileo of 6th March, 1641. (Op. x. pp. -408, 409.) - -[591] See his letter of 20th August, 1659, to Prince Leopold de’ Medici. -(Op. xiv. pp. 339-356.) - -[592] Seven years after Galileo’s death, Vincenzo was occupied in -constructing the first pendulum clock after these drawings and models, -when he suddenly fell ill and died. For all this see Albèri’s excellent -essay: “Dell’orologio a pendolo di Galileo Galilei e di due recenti -divinazioni del meccanismo da lui imaginato.” (Op. Suppl. pp. 333-358; -Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 688-738.) - -[593] Comp. Torricelli’s letters to Galileo of 15th March, 27th April, -1st and 29th June, 17th August, and 28th September, 1641. (Op. x. pp. -412, 413, 417, 418, 420, 421, 423-426, 432, 433.) Also Galileo’s letter -to Torricelli of 27th September, 1641. (Op. vii. pp. 365-367.) - -[594] See Rinuccini’s letter to Prince Leopold de’ Medici, 15th November, -1641. (Op. x. 436, 437.) - -[595] For this and the preceding, see Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 360, 361; -and Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 839, 840. - -[596] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxx. - -[597] Niccolini’s despatch to the Tuscan Secretary of State of 25th -January, 1642. (Op. xv. pp. 403, 404.) - -[598] Despatch of the Tuscan Secretary Condi to Niccolini of 29th -January, 1642 (Op. xv. p. 404.) - -[599] Op. xv. p. 405. - -[600] See for more on the subject, Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 850-867. - -[601] Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 874-876. - -[602] Letter of the Inquisitor Fra Paolo Ambr. of 8th June, 1734, to the -College of Cardinals at Rome. (See Vat. MS. fol. 558 ro.) - -[603] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo. - -[604] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxxii. - -[605] Canto iv., stanza liv. - -[606] See the document about the exhumation. (Op. xv. pp. 407-409.) - -[607] For instance, Dr. Carl Schöffer, in his _brochure_: “Die Bewegungen -der Himmelskörper. Neue and unbewegliche Beweise, dass unsere Erde im -Mittelpunkte des Weltalls steht, und die Sonne, Mond und Sterne sich um -dieselbe bewegen.” Brunswick, 1854. (“The Motions of the Heavenly Bodies. -New and indisputable proofs that our Earth is the centre of the Universe, -and that Sun, Moon, and Stars, revolve round it”). - -[608] Habito verbo cum Sanctissimo, omittatur decretum, quo prohibentur -omnes libri docentes immobilitatem solis, et mobilitatem terræ. -(Olivieri, p. 94, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 585.) - -[609] “Opere di Galileo Galilei divise in quattro Tomi, in questa nuova -edizione accresciute di molte cose inedite.” In Padova, 1744. “Nella -stamperia del Seminario appresso Gio. Manfrè,” Tomi iv. in 4ᵒ. - -[610] Comp. Olivieri, p. 96, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 587, and Op. -xv. Bibliografia Galileiana, pp. xxvi., xxvii. - -[611] “Traité d’astronomie” Paris, 1792, p. 421. - -[612] “Se possa difendersi ed insegnore, non come semplice ipotesi ma -come verissima, e come tesi, la mobilità della terra e la stabilità -del sole da chi ha fatta la professione di fede di Pio IV. quaestione -teologico-morale.” - -[613] “Dichiarono permessa in Roma la stampa e la publicazione operum -tractantium de mobilitate terrae et immobilitate solis, juxta communem -modernorum astronomorum opinionem.” (Olivieri, p. 97, or “Hist.-polit. -Blätter,” p. 588.) - -[614] Somewhat abridged, as are also the Description and Estimate of the -Vat. MS.—[TR.] - -[615] See for this and what immediately follows, “Le Manuscrit Original -du Procès de Galilée,” par L. Sandret. _Revue des Questions historiques_, -1 Oct., 1877, pp. 551-559. - -[616] Marini, p. 144. - -[617] Ibid. pp. 144, 145. - -[618] See Sandret’s Essays before cited, p. 553. - -[619] Ibid. pp. 553, 554. - -[620] Sandret, p. 554. - -[621] Marini, pp. 145, 146. - -[622] Marini, p. 146, 147; Sandret, pp. 554. - -[623] Marini, p. 147; Sandret, p. 555. - -[624] Marini, p. 147. - -[625] Marini, p. 147. - -[626] Ibid. p. 148. - -[627] Ibid. p. 148. - -[628] Ibid. p. 151. - -[629] Sandret, p. 556, note 1. - -[630] Denina was at Paris from 1805 till his death in 1813, and may -therefore have seen the Acts, which were in Paris from 1811, as well as -the translation which was begun. - -[631] Sandret, pp. 556, 557. - -[632] _Revue des questions historiques_, Paris, July, 1867. - -[633] ... “e avemmo fra le mani il desiderato volume nella stanza -del padre Theiner testè rapito dolorosamente ai vivi.” (“Il Processo -Originale,” etc., p. x.) - -[634] “Egli è adunque per la prima volta che i due processi Galeleiani -sono publicati nella loro integrità.” Page xii. - -[635] See “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei proposte -dall’ autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazioni sopra il Processo Originale -di Galileo Galilei publicato da Domenico Berti.” Roma, 30 Settembre, -1876, pp. 9-16. - -[636] “Quando si havra a terminare qualche causa al S. Off. appartenente -converra, che prima ai formi il caso in cui brevemente si ristringano -ineriti della causa e tutti i punti substantiale del processo, etc.... -Poscia mandatalo a ciascuno de Sig Consultori entrera con esso loro -opportunamente nella Congregatione,” etc. (“Sacro Arsenale,” etc. -Bologna, 1665. Masini’s ed., pp. 345, 346). - -[637] “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876, p. 138, -note 1. - -[638] “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876, -pp. 44-46. - -[639] “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc., p. v. - -[640] The Denunciation of Lorini. The signature, however, obviously once -existed, but being on the edge of the paper has been effaced in the -course of time. - -[641] “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Von Emil Wohlwill. Leipzig, 1877. - -[642] “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Gegenbetrachtungen von K. v. -Gebler. Die Gegenwart. - -[643] Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro. - -[644] This decree is given in a printed copy in the volume containing the -Vat. MS. We give it on a reduced scale. - -[645] Misprint for _Dubliniensi_. - -[646] Abridged. [TR.] - -[647] Cæsar Carena: “De officio Sanctissime Inquisitionis et modo -procedendi in causis fidei.” Cremona, 1641, p. 416. - - - - -INDEX. - - - Accadémia dei Lincei, 36, 106, 136. - Dissolution of, 138. - - Alciato, Cardinal, 176. - - Anagram on Ring of Saturn, 24. - On Crescent form of Venus, 33. - - Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70. - - Aristotle, 6, 10. - - Astronomical and Philosophical Scales, the, 102. - - - Barberini, Antonio, 132. - Cardinal, 35, 192, 199, 241, 242. - Maffeo, 44. - As Urban VIII., 108-113. - - Bellarmine, Cardinal, 35, 61, 62, 77, 78. - His Certificate to Galileo, 88, 205, 219. - - Boccabella, 191. - - Bocchineri, Geri, Galileo’s Letters to, 209, 212. - Letter to Niccolini, 218. - - Bonciani, 55, 56. - - Borgia, Caspar, 241, 242. - - Boscaglia, 45. - - Bruno Giordano, 216. - - - Caccini, 51-53, 57, 58, 73, 74, 202. - - Campanella, Thomas, 133, 164, 171, 180. - - Capra, Balthazar, 12, 17. - - Castelli, 33, 43-46, 55, 132-134, 138, 185, 186, 210, 282, 296. - - Cesi, Prince, 41, 52, 53, 62, 63, 114, 132, 136. - Death of, 138. - - Cioli, 140, 141, 144, 169, 193, 194, 217. - - Clavius, 22, 33, 35. - - Colombo, Lodovico delle, 43. - - Comets of 1618, 101. - Galileo’s opinion on, 101. - - Conti, Cardinal, 40. - - Copernicus, 13. - His “Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” 14, 75. - Osiander’s Introduction to, 15. - - Copernican System, 12-14, 37, 40. - Refutations of, 270, 271. - Galileo’s last Discussion of, 303. - - Corressio, Giorgio, 43. - - Cosmo II., de’ Medici, 20, 21, 30, 93. - Death of, 105. - - Cremonini, 36, 37. - - - Decree of 5th March, 1616, 84. Appendix, 345. - - “De Motu Gravium,” 9. - - Dialogues on the Two Systems, 127-131. - Imprimatur for, 135-150, 156. - Introduction to, 147, 148. - - Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze, 284, 297. - - “Dianoja Astronomica,” 39. - - Dini, 59-64. - - Diodati, Elia, Galileo’s Letters to, 188, 276, 294. - - Dominis, Marc’ Antonio de, 216. - - - Ferdinand II., de’ Medici, 145. - Letter to the Pope, 164, 165. - Good Offices for Galileo, 196-198. - Visits him at Arcetri, 273. - At Florence, 295. - - Firenzuola, Maccolani da, 201, 217, 218, 248. - Letter to Card. Barberini, 213-215. - - Foscarini on the Copernican System, 61, 63. - - - GALILEO GALILEI. - Birth at Pisa, 3. - Early years, 4. - Goes to University of Pisa, 5. - Studies Medicine, 5. - Discovery of Isochronism of Pendulum, 6. - First study of Mathematics, 7. - Professor at Pisa, 9. - Resigns, 11. - Professor at Padua, 11, 16, 19. - Writes Treatises, 11. - Inventions, 12. - Makes a Telescope, 17. - Exhibits it at Venice, 18. - Telescopic Discoveries, 19, 20. - Magini’s attack, 22, 23. - Letter to Kepler, 26. - Galileo’s Pupils, 27. - Letter to Vinta, 29. - Removal to Florence, 31. - First Visit to Rome, 35, 36. - First Notice by Inquisition, 36. - Treatise on Floating Bodies, 42. - Letter to Castelli, 46-50. - Denounced to Inquisition, 53. - Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70. - Visit to Rome in 1616, 70-75. - Admonished to renounce the Copernican System, 77. - Assumed special Prohibition to treat of it, 77-84. - Lingers at Rome, 91-97. - Goes to Bellosguardo, 98. - Work on Tides, 99, 100. - His opinion of Comets, 101. - Grassi’s attack, 102. - “Il Saggiatore,” 106, 107, 111-113. - Visit to Rome in 1624, 114, 115. - Attempts to get Decree of 1616 repealed, 115-117. - Galileo’s Children, 118. - Reply to Ingoli, 120. - Dialogues on Two Systems, 127-135. - Negotiations about the Imprimatur, 139-150. - Publication of the Dialogues, 151, 152. - Accusations, 157, 174. - Summons to Rome, 175. - Letter to Antonio Barberini, 178-180. - Threat to bring him in chains to Rome, 186. - Arrival at Rome, 191. - The Trial, 201-229. - Confession, 214-216. - Defence, 219, 220. - Sentence, 230-234. - Recantation, 243, 244. - Sent to Trinita de’ Monti, 247. - Goes to Siena, 248. - Current Myths, 249-263. - His Eyes not put out, 250. - “E pur si muove,” 250, 251. - The Hair Shirt, 251. - Imprisonment, 252. - Torture Refuted, 253-263. - Life at Siena, 267-273. - Goes to Arcetri, 272, 273. - His daughters, 273. - Anonymous denunciation, 264. - Petition to go to Florence refused, 274, 275. - Death of his daughter, 275. - Letter to Diodati, 276. - His works translated into Latin, 280, 281. - Labours at Arcetri, 284, 285. - Method of taking Longitudes, 285, 286. - Becomes blind, 287. - Goes to Florence, 290. - Strict Surveillance, 290, 291. - Return to Arcetri, 298. - Last Years, 299-315. - Letter to Rinuccini, 304, 305. - Last illness and death, 307. - Persecutions after death, 308. - Private Funeral, 309. - Remains removed to Santa Croce, 310. - His Works on the Index till 1835, 315. - - Galilei, Julia, 3. - - Galilei, Vincenzo, 3, 4, 11. - - Galilei, Vincenzo, son of Galileo, 191, 306. - - Gherardi, Silvestro, 82, 83, 90. - - Govi Gilberto, his work on Galileo, 246. - - Grassi, 121, 122, 123. - His Lecture on Comets, 102. - - Grazia, Vincenzo di, 43. - - Gregory XV., 105. - Death of, 107. - - Griemberger, 35, 59. - - Guiccardini, 91, 92, 93, 95. - - Guiducci, 121, 122. - His Treatise on Comets, 102. - - - Henry IV. of France, 20. - - - “Il Saggiatore,” 106, 107, 111, 113. - - Ingoli on the Copernican System, 120. - - Inquisition first notices Galileo, 36. - - - Jesuits, the, and Galileo, 153-155, 277. - - - Kepler, 13, 21, 23, 24, 120. - - Kuppler, Jacob, 117. - - - “La Bilancetta,” 8. - - Landini, 157, 163, 166. - - Lembo, 35. - - Leopold of Austria, Archduke, 99, 101. - - L’Epinois, Henri de, 81. Appendix, 325, 326, 328. - - Libri, Julius, 25. - - Liceti, Fortunio, 301, 302. - - Longitudes at Sea, method of taking, 285, 286, 292, 295, 301. - - Lorini, 41, 53-55, 202. - - “Lothario Sarsi Sigensano,” 102. - - - Magalotti, Count, 152, 155, 157, 163, 169. - - Magini, 22, 23. - - Malcotio, 35. - - Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome, 176. - - Maraffi, 51, 52. - - Marini Marino, 80, 81. - - Marsili, 151. - - Medicean Stars, 20. - - Medici, Julian de’, 24, 33. - John de’, 10, 39. - Cosmo II. de’, _see_ Cosmo. - Ferdinand II. de’, _see_ Ferdinand. - - Mellini, 55, 56. - - Michael Angelo, 3. - The younger, 35, 181. - - Microscope, the, 117, 118. - - Monte, Cardinal del, 9, 11, 36, 96. - - Myths about Galileo refuted, 249-263. - - - Newton 244, 311. - - Niccolini, 136, 140, 142, 145, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, - 200, 209, 217, 218, 225, 248. - Intercession for Galileo, 166-168. - Attempts to avert the Trial, 175, 176, 182, 183. - Asks for Galileo’s Pardon, 272. - Accusations against, 261, 262. - - Noailles, Count de, 278, 282, 283. - - Note of 25th February, 1616, 77. - Of 26th February, 1616, 78. - - - Olivieri Benedetto’s work on Galileo, 246. - - Opinion of the Holy Office on Galileo’s Propositions, 76. - - Orsini, 92, 99. - - Osiander, Andreas, 15. - - - Padua, University of, 11, 16, 19. - - Palmerini, 43. - - Paul III., 15. - - Paul V., 35, 94, 95, 104, 239. - Death of, 105. - - Peiresc, Fabri de, 278. - Letter from Galileo to, 279. - - Pendulum Clocks, 306. - - Picchena, 72, 73, 74, 93, 94, 96. - Letter to, 86, 87. - - Piccolomini, Ascanio, 248, 267, 268, 274. - - Pieralisi, 161, 162, 213, 242. - - Pisa, Experiments from Leaning Tower of, 10. - University of, 5. - - Pius VII., 314. - - Plan of Galileo’s rooms in Palace of Inquisition, 209. - - Prohibition, Special, to Treat of Copernican System, 78, 89, 90, 113. - Discovery of, 163, 171, 172. - - Protocol of 3rd March, 1616, 82. - - - Querenghi, 71, 75. - - - Recantation, 243, 244. - Publication of, 268. - Letter ordering it, 269. - - Riccardi, 117, 132, 135, 139, 143, 145, 146, 148, 157, 171, 172, 268. - - Ricci, Ostilio, 7. - - Ring of Saturn, 24. - - Rinuccini’s Inquiries of Galileo, 303. - Galileo’s reply to, 304, 305. - - - “Sacro Arsenale,” 255, 258. - - Sarpi, Paolo, 32. - - Sagredo, Francesco, 32. - - Salviati, 44. - - Scartazzini, Dr., 259-262. - - Scheiner, 43. - His “Rosa Ursina,” 158. - - Sentence on Galileo, 230-234. - Analysis of, 234-242. - - Serristori, 192. - - Settele’s Astronomy, 313. - - “Sidereus Nuncius,” 17, 21, 24. - - “Simplicius,” did he personate Urban VIII.? 159-162. - - Sincero, Carlo, 201. - - Sizy, 39. - - Solar Spots, 34. - Work on, 44, 58. - - Special Commission on Galileo’s cause, 164. - Its Memorial to the Pope, 172-174. - - Stelluti’s reply to Lothario Sarsi Sigensano, 106. - - Stephani, 141, 142, 145. - - - Telescope, the, 16-25. - Inventor of, 18. - - Thermoscope, the, 12. - - Trial of Galileo, 201-229. - - Torricelli, 306. - - Torture, question of, 253-263. - - - Urban VIII., 107, 183, 225, 239, 248. - Character of, 108, 109. - Friendship for Galileo, 109-111. - Favours to him, 118, 119. - Change of tone, 159. - - - Vatican MS., History of, Appendix, 319. - Description of, 330. - Estimate of, 334. - - Venice, Republic of, 31, 32. - Exhibition of Telescope at, 18. - - Venus, Crescent form of, 32, 33. - - Vinta, Belisario, 24, 34. - - Viviani, 300, 310. - - - Wedderburn, 23. - - Welser, 22, 43. - - Wohlwill, Emil, 81, 88, 90, 257, 259. - - - Zacchia, Cardinal, 241, 242. - - Zuñiga, Diego di, 41, 84, 312. - - - - -RECENT BIOGRAPHIES. - - -_2 Vols., large post 8vo, price 24s._ - -NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI AND HIS TIMES. - -By PROFESSOR VILLARI, Author of “Life of Savonarola,” etc. - -_TRANSLATED BY LINDA VILLARI._ - - “The whole work promises to be one of the most permanently - valuable contributions to the history of the Renaissance - in Italy, and English students may be congratulated on the - appearance of the translation by the hand of Madame Villari, - herself an English author.”—_Academy._ - - “Professor Villari prefaces his Life of Machiavelli with - an elaborate historical introduction.... As a sketch of - the Renaissance it is admirable. It is a masterpiece of - condensation; the arrangement of the mass of materials leaves - little to desire, and its style is singularly lucid.”—_Pall - Mall Gazette._ - - * * * * * - -_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 14s._ - -WILLIAM HARVEY: - -_A HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD._ - -By the late R. WILLIS, M.D., Author of “Servetus and Calvin.” - -WITH PORTRAIT OF HARVEY, AFTER FAITHORNE. - - “His (Dr. Willis’s) book will doubtless find numerous - readers, and we trust that some at least may be led by it - to study the much praised and little read works of William - Harvey.”—_Saturday Review._ - - * * * * * - -_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 16s._ - -SERVETUS AND CALVIN: - -_A STUDY OF AN IMPORTANT EPOCH IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION._ - -By the late R. WILLIS, M.D. - - “Dr. Willis has collected in this monograph a good store of - interesting matter which is not accessible to most readers - without considerable trouble, and has come so near making - it a good book that one would be glad to escape the duty of - criticism.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._ - - * * * * * - -_Second Edition, crown 8vo, price 8s. 6d._ - -LIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES HINTON. - -Edited by ELLICE HOPKINS. - -WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SIR W. W. GULL, BART.; AND PORTRAIT ENGRAVED ON -STEEL BY C. H. JEENS. - - “‘The Life of James Hinton,’ the first aural surgeon of - his time, presents a striking study of character, and will - be instructive in its simpler outlines to readers who are - unable to follow the deeper and somewhat mystic course of - philosophical thought traced in his ‘Letters.’”—_Saturday - Review._ - - “Miss Hopkins has executed a difficult task with great tact. - She shows a hearty appreciation of her subject, and her work is - well done.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._ - - * * * * * - -C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. - - - - -RECENT PUBLICATIONS. - - -_2 vols., Second Edition, post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._ - -THE HISTORY OF CREATION. - -By PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL. - -_TRANSLATION REVISED BY PROFESSOR E. RAY LANKESTER, M.A., F.R.S._ - -WITH COLOURED PLATES AND GENEALOGICAL TREES OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF BOTH -PLANTS AND ANIMALS. - - “The Author has discharged a most difficult task with - conscientious skill and marvellous ability.”—_Science Gossip._ - - “A rich mine of facts for all biological students.”—_Examiner._ - - * * * * * - -_2 vols., large post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._ - -THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. - -_A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF HUMAN ONTOGENY AND -PHYLOGENY._ - -By PROF. ERNST HAECKEL, Author of “The History of Creation,” etc. - -WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS. - - * * * * * - -_Crown 8vo, cloth._ - -FREEDOM IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING. - -_A REPLY TO PROFESSOR VIRCHOW ON THE FREEDOM OF SCIENCE IN THE MODERN -STATE._ - -By PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL. - -Authorised Translation, with Introduction by Professor HUXLEY, F.R.S. - - * * * * * - -_Square 8vo, cloth, price 15s._ - -MANUAL OF THE GEOLOGY OF IRELAND. - -By G. HENRY KINAHAN, M.R.I.A., Etc., of Her Majesty’s Geological Survey. - -_With 8 Plates, 26 Woodcuts, and a Map of Ireland, Geologically Coloured._ - - “His volume is, unquestionably, a distinct gain to our - geological literature—the work of a man who possesses great - knowledge of his subject, and is capable of imparting his - knowledge with clearness and force.”—_Academy._ - - “Whether considered upon its scientific or upon its literary - merits, the work must be pronounced admirably done.”—_Land and - Water._ - - * * * * * - -_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._ - -FLOWERS AND THEIR UNBIDDEN GUESTS. - -By DR. A. KERNER, Prof. of Botany in the University of Innsbruck. - -_TRANSLATION EDITED BY W. OGLE, M.D._ - -And a Prefatory Letter by CHARLES DARWIN, F.R.S. - -WITH ILLUSTRATIONS. - - “In the description accompanying the admirable plates at the - end of his book, Dr. Kerner explains succinctly and clearly - the contrivances of nature in the instances named, and in - innumerable others scarcely less marked or interesting, for - compassing an end so essential to the perpetuation of vegetable - life.”—_Saturday Review._ - - * * * * * - -_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._ - -ETNA: A HISTORY OF THE MOUNTAIN AND ITS ERUPTIONS. - -By G. F. RODWELL, F.R.A.S., F.C.S. - -WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. - - “Mr. Rodwell’s ‘Etna’ is a pleasantly written and well - illustrated volume, sufficiently technical to be useful to the - scientific student, yet for the most part sufficiently popular - to be read with relish by the most unscientific.”—_Academy._ - - * * * * * - -C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, by -Karl von Gebler - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO GALILEI *** - -***** This file should be named 60215-0.txt or 60215-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/2/1/60215/ - -Produced by ellinora and the Online Distributed Proofreading -Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from -images generously made available by The Internet -Archive/American Libraries.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/60215-0.zip b/old/60215-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3036df2..0000000 --- a/old/60215-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/60215-h.zip b/old/60215-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 503b213..0000000 --- a/old/60215-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/60215-h/60215-h.htm b/old/60215-h/60215-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index ec854d5..0000000 --- a/old/60215-h/60215-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,19336 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, by Karl von Gebler. - </title> - - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - -<style type="text/css"> - -a { - text-decoration: none; -} - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -h1,h2,h3,h4 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; -} - -hr { - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - clear: both; - width: 65%; - margin-left: 17.5%; - margin-right: 17.5%; -} - -ul { - list-style-type: none; -} - -li, li.indx { - margin-top: .5em; - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 2em; - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -li.isub1 { - padding-left: 4em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -p { - margin-top: 0.5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: 0.5em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -p.dropcap { - text-indent: 0em; -} - -p.dropcap:first-letter { - float: left; - margin: 0.1em 0.1em 0em 0em; - font-size: 250%; - line-height: 0.85em; -} - -table { - margin: 1em auto 1em auto; - max-width: 40em; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -td { - padding-left: 2.25em; - padding-right: 0.25em; - vertical-align: top; - text-indent: -2em; - text-align: justify; -} - -.tdc { - padding-left: 0.25em; - text-indent: 0em; - text-align: center; - padding-top: 1.5em; - padding-bottom: 0.5em; -} - -.tdr { - text-align: right; -} - -.tdpg { - vertical-align: bottom; - text-align: right; -} - -.ad { - padding: 0.5em; - margin: auto; - max-width: 30em; -} - -.bbox { - border: thin solid black; - padding: 0.5em; - margin: auto; - max-width: 25em; -} - -.bibliography p, .chapter p { - padding-left: 3em; - text-indent: -3em; -} - -.bibliography p.ditto { - padding-left: 3em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.blockquote, .chapter { - margin: 1.5em 10%; -} - -.chapter p { - font-size: 90%; -} - -.center { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em; -} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; -} - -.footnotes { - margin-top: 1em; - border: dashed 1px; -} - -.footnote { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 0.9em; -} - -.footnote .label { - position: absolute; - right: 84%; - text-align: right; -} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: none; -} - -.hanging { - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -.larger { - font-size: 150%; -} - -.noindent { - text-indent: 0em; -} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 4%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; -} - -.poetry-container { - text-align: center; - margin: 1em; -} - -.poetry { - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; -} - -.poetry .verse { - text-indent: -3em; - padding-left: 3em; -} - -.right { - text-align: right; -} - -.smaller { - font-size: 80%; -} - -.smcap { - font-variant: small-caps; - font-style: normal; -} - -.spacer { - padding-left: 5em; -} - -.titlepage { - text-align: center; - margin-top: 3em; - text-indent: 0em; -} - -@media handheld { - -img { - max-width: 100%; - width: auto; - height: auto; -} - -.poetry { - display: block; - margin-left: 1.5em; -} - -.blockquote, .chapter { - margin: 1.5em 5%; -} - -p.dropcap:first-letter { - float: left; - margin: 0.1em 0.1em 0em 0em; - font-size: 250%; - line-height: 0.85em; -} -} - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -Project Gutenberg's Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, by Karl von Gebler - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia - -Author: Karl von Gebler - -Translator: Jane (Mrs. George) Sturge - -Release Date: September 1, 2019 [EBook #60215] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO GALILEI *** - - - - -Produced by ellinora and the Online Distributed Proofreading -Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from -images generously made available by The Internet -Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[i]</a></span></p> - -<h1>GALILEO GALILEI.</h1> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[ii]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="bbox"> - -<p class="center"><i>2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 32s.</i></p> - -<p class="dropcap">THE RENAISSANCE OF ART IN FRANCE. By -Mrs. <span class="smcap">Mark Pattison</span>. With Nineteen Steel Engravings.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 24s.</i></p> - -<p class="dropcap">THE CIVILIZATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE -RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. By <span class="smcap">Jacob Burckhardt</span>. Authorized -Translation by <span class="smcap">S. G. C. Middlemore</span>.</p> - -<p class="smaller">“The whole of the first part of Dr Burckhardt’s work deals with what may be called -the Political Preparation for the Renaissance. It is impossible here to do more than express -a high opinion of the compact way in which the facts are put before the reader.... -The second volume of Dr. Burckhardt’s work is, we think, more full and complete -in itself, more rich in original thought, than the first. His account of the causes -which prevented the rise of a great Italian drama is very clear and satisfying.”—<i>Saturday -Review.</i></p> - -<p class="center">LONDON: C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.</p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[iii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="titlepage"><span class="larger">GALILEO GALILEI</span><br /> -<i>AND THE ROMAN CURIA</i>.</p> - -<p class="titlepage"><i>FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES.</i></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smaller">BY</span><br /> -KARL VON GEBLER.</p> - -<p class="titlepage smaller"><i>TRANSLATED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY<br /> -MRS. GEORGE STURGE.</i></p> - -<div class="figcenter titlepage" style="width: 115px;"> -<img src="images/tree.jpg" width="115" height="125" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="titlepage">LONDON:<br /> -C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.<br /> -<span class="smaller">1879.</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[iv]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span></p> - -<h2>LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR.</h2> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Madam</span>,—</p> - -<p>It is the desire of every author, every prosecutor -of research, that the products of his labours, the results of -his studies, should be widely circulated. This desire arises, -especially in the case of one who has devoted himself to research, -not only from a certain egotism which clings to us all, -but from the wish that the laborious researches of years, often -believed to refute old and generally-received errors, should -become the common property of as many as possible.</p> - -<p>The author of the present work is no exception to these -general rules; and it therefore gives him great pleasure, and -fills him with gratitude, that you, Madam, should have taken -the trouble to translate the small results of his studies into -the language of Newton, and thus have rendered them more -accessible to the English nation.</p> - -<p>But little more than two years have elapsed since the book -first appeared in Germany, but this period has been a most -important one for researches into the literature relating to -Galileo.</p> - -<p>In the year 1869 Professor Domenico Berti obtained permission -to inspect and turn to account the Acts of Galileo’s -Trial carefully preserved in the Vatican, and in 1876 he -published a portion of these important documents, which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span> -essentially tended to complete the very partial publication -of them by Henri de L’Epinois, in 1867. In 1877 M. de -L’Epinois and the present writer were permitted to resuscitate -the famous volume, which again lay buried among the -secret papal archives; that is, to inspect it at leisure and to -publish the contents in full. It was, however, not only of the -greatest importance to become acquainted with the Vatican -MS. as a whole, and by an exact publication of it to make -it the common property of historical research; it was at -least of equal moment to make a most careful examination -of the material form and external appearance of the Acts. -For the threefold system of paging had led some historians -to make the boldest conjectures, and respecting one document -in particular,—the famous note of 26th February, 1616,—there -was an apparently well-founded suspicion that there -had been a later falsification of the papers.</p> - -<p>While, on the one hand, the knowledge gained of the -entire contents of the Vatican MS., for the purpose of my -own publication of it,<a name="FNanchor_1" id="FNanchor_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> only confirmed, in many respects, my -previous opinions on the memorable trial; on the other hand, -a minute and repeated examination of the material evidence -afforded by the suspicious document, which, up to that time, -had been considered by myself and many other authors to be -a forgery of a later date, convinced me, contrary to all expectation, -that it indisputably originated in 1616.</p> - -<p>This newly acquired experience, and the appearance of -many valuable critical writings on the trial of Galileo since -the year 1876, rendered therefore a partial revision and correction -of the German edition of this work, for the English -and an Italian translation, absolutely necessary. All the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span> -needful emendations have accordingly been made, with constant -reference to the literature relating to the subject published -between the spring of 1876 and the spring of 1878. I -have also consulted several older works which had escaped -my attention when the book was first written.</p> - -<p>May the work then, in its to some extent new form, make -its way in the British Isles, and meet with as friendly a reception -there as the German edition has met with in Austria -and Germany.</p> - -<p>To you, Madam, I offer my warm thanks for the care -with which you have executed the difficult and laborious -task of translation.</p> - -<p>Accept, Madam, the assurance of my sincere esteem.</p> - -<p class="right">KARL VON GEBLER.<a name="FNanchor_2" id="FNanchor_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p class="smaller"><span class="smcap">Meran</span>, <i>1st April, 1878</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span></p> - -<h2>NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.</h2> - -<p>The Vatican Manuscript alluded to in the foregoing letter, -and constantly referred to in the text, was published by the -author in the autumn of 1877, under the title of “Die Acten -des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen Handschrift, -von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard. This, with -some introductory chapters, was intended to supersede the -Appendix to the original work, and to form a second volume, -when a new German edition should be called for. It did not, -however, appear to me that any purpose would be served by -reprinting all the Latin and Italian documents of the Vatican -MS. in this country, as students who wish to consult them -can easily procure them as published in the original languages -in Germany, and I hope for a wider circle of readers than -that composed exclusively of students. I therefore proposed -to Herr von Gebler to give the History, Description, and -Estimate of the Vat. MS., etc., in an Appendix, together with -a few of the more important documents; to this, with some -suggestions, as for instance, that some of the shorter documents -should be given as notes to the text, he fully agreed, -with the remark that I must know best what would suit -my countrymen. The Appendix, therefore, differs somewhat -both from the original Appendix and from the introductory<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span> -portions of the new volume, for these also were revised for -the Translation.</p> - -<p>The translations from Latin and Italian documents have -been made from the originals by a competent scholar, and -all the more important letters and extracts from letters of -Galileo have been compared with the Italian. The Table of -Contents, headings to and titles of the chapters, and Index, -none of which exist in the original, have been added by -myself.</p> - -<p class="right">JANE STURGE.</p> - -<p class="smaller"><span class="smcap">Sydenham</span>, <i>November, 1878</i>.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></p> - -<h2>BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE -AUTHOR.</h2> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Abridged from the “Augsburger Allgemeine -Zeitung” of 6th December, 1878.</span></p> - -<p>The author of this work died at Gratz on the 7th of -September, 1878. In devoting a few lines to his memory we -have not a long and distinguished career to describe, for a -brief span of life was all that was granted him, but to the -last moment he sought to turn it to the best account.</p> - -<p>The present work has enjoyed a wide circulation in Germany, -but few of its readers could have known anything of the -author but his name. The protracted studies which form the -basis of it, the skilful handling of documentary material which -seemed to betray the practised historian, must have suggested -a man of ripe years, whose life had been passed in study, -as the author; no one certainly would have sought him -among the young officers of a cavalry regiment, whose tastes -generally lie in any direction rather than that of historical -research.</p> - -<p>Karl von Gebler was the son of Field-marshal Wilhelm -von Gebler, and was born at Vienna in 1850. Although -early destined for the military career, he laid the foundations -of a superior education in the grammar schools. Having -passed through the gymnasium, in 1869 he joined the 7th -regiment of the line as a private, and before long attained the -rank of lieutenant in the 4th regiment of Dragoons. Being<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[xii]</a></span> -an excellent draftsman and skilled in military surveying, he -was often employed on the general’s staff in drawing maps. -In addition to his extensive knowledge of military affairs, he -had many of the accomplishments befitting his calling; he -was an excellent shot and a bold rider. But the duties of a -cavalry officer were soon too limited for his active mind and -intellectual tastes, and he sought also to win his spurs on the -fields of literature. He occupied his leisure in translating the -work of a French staff officer, “Success in War,” to which he -made some additions. He also published “The True Portrait -of a Royal Hero of the 18th Century,” in a newspaper; and -finally, “Historic Sayings.”</p> - -<p>A night ride, undertaken in the performance of his official -duties, from which he returned at daybreak to exercise at the -riding school, brought on severe hemorrhage and inflammation -of the lungs. The two physicians who attended him gave him -up; in a consultation at his bedside, prudently held in Latin, -they gave him twenty-four hours to live. One of them having -taken leave, the other returned to the patient, who, with quiet -humour, greeted him with the classic words, “Morituri te -salutant!” The worthy doctor found, to his horror, that the -patient had understood all that had passed, and had no easy -task to persuade him that his case was not so bad after all. -He had, however, in consequence of some local circumstances, -already ordered the coffin.</p> - -<p>Gebler’s constitution surmounted the danger; by the spring -he was able to join his parents at Gratz. But his health had -sustained so severe a shock that he was compelled to abandon -the military career. His parents removed to Gries, near -Botzen, for the sake of a milder climate on his account. Here -he revived wonderfully; he seemed to have taken a new lease -of life, and devoted himself altogether to literary pursuits. -The critical studies before mentioned of the assumed historic -sayings of great men, and among them of Galileo’s famous -dictum, “E pur si muove,” brought him into closer acquaintance -with this hero of science. He accumulated so large a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span> -material for a biographical sketch of the great Italian, that the -limits of an essay seemed too narrow, and he resolved to undertake -a more comprehensive work on the subject, which he -thought would fill up a gap in German literature. In the -autumn of 1875 the work, which had occupied him four years, -was completed. It was not a little gratifying to the young -author that one of the first publishers in Germany, Cotta, of -Stuttgard, undertook the publication on very favourable -terms, and brought it out in 1876. It met with great approval, -and brought him into association with many eminent literary -men in Italy and Germany. Galileo’s own country was foremost -in recognition of his services. The academies of Padua -and Pisa, and the Accadémia dei Lincei sent him special -acknowledgments, and King Victor Emmanuel rewarded him -with the order of the Crown of Italy.</p> - -<p>Before this work was finished he had removed with his -father, having in the meanwhile lost his mother, to Meran, -and during the first year of his residence there his health -improved so much that he was able to take part in social -life, and to enlarge the sphere of his labours and influence. -Society in this little town owed much in many ways to -the intellectual and amiable young officer. Whenever a -good and noble cause required support, his co-operation -might be reckoned on. In common with many other lovers -of art and antiquity, he took a lively interest in the preservation -and restoration of the Maultasch-Burg, which promises -to be one of the chief sights of Meran. Unhappily -he did not live to see the completion of the work.</p> - -<p>With increase of health his zest for work increased also, and -he addressed himself to a great historical task. The subject he -selected was the Maid of Orleans. The preliminary studies -were difficult in a place destitute of all aids to learning. His -researches were not confined to the collection of all the printed -material; in 1876 he had planned to search out the documentary -sources wherever they were to be found, but before this -he made close studies in the field of psychology and mental<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span> -pathology. The work of Ruf on the subject, the learned -chaplain of a lunatic asylum, attracted his attention, and he -entered into communication with the author. Ruf’s great -experience and philosophical acquirements were of great -service to Gebler in his preliminary studies on Joan of Arc. -But the project was not to be carried out. Just as he was -about to write the second chapter, an essay of Berti’s at -Rome occasioned him to enter on fresh studies on Galileo.</p> - -<p>Domenico Berti, who had examined the original Acts of -Galileo’s trial, though, as his work shows, very superficially, -spoke contemptuously of the German <i>savans</i>, comparing them -with blind men judging of colours, as none of them had seen the -original Acts in the Vatican. This had special reference to the -document of 26th February, 1616, which the German writers -on the subject, and Gebler among them, declared to be a -forgery. Being a man of the strictest love of truth, this reproach -induced him, in spite of his health, which had again -failed, in May, 1877, to go to Rome, where he obtained access -to the Vatican. For ten weeks, in spite of the oppressive heat, -he daily spent fourteen hours in the Papal Archives, studying -and copying with diplomatic precision the original Acts of -Galileo’s trial. As the result of his labours, he felt constrained -to declare the document in question to be genuine. Actuated -only by the desire that truth should prevail, in the second -part of his work, written at Rome, he without hesitation withdrew -the opinion he had previously advocated as an error.</p> - -<p>His first work had made a flattering commotion in the -literary world, but the additional publication called forth a -still more animated discussion of the whole question, which -the readers of this journal will not have forgotten. Gebler -took part in it himself, and, then suffering from illness, wrote -his reply from a sick bed.</p> - -<p>His sojourn in Rome had sadly pulled him down. On his -return home, in July, 1877, he had lost his voice and was -greatly reduced. But in October of the same year he once -more roused himself for a journey to Italy. The object of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[xv]</a></span> -previous one was to follow his hero in yellow and faded -historic papers, but this time the task he had set himself was -to pursue the tracks of Galileo in all the cities and places in -any way connected with his memory. The result of these -travels was an article in the <i>Deutsche Rundschau</i>, No. 7, -1878, “On the Tracks of Galileo.” In this paper Gebler again -dispels some clouds in which Galileo’s previous biographers -had enveloped him. We in these less romantic days are quite -willing to dispense with the shudder at the stories of the -dungeon, etc., and are glad to know that Galileo was permitted -to enjoy a degree of comfort during his detention not -often granted to those who come into collision with the world.</p> - -<p>“On the Tracks of Galileo” was Gebler’s last literary work. -His strength of will and mental powers at length succumbed -to his incurable malady. The mineral waters of Gleichenberg, -which he had been recommended to try, did him more harm -than good. He wrote thence to a friend, “I am in a pitiable -condition, and have given up all hope of improvement.” -Unfortunately he was right. He had overtasked his strength. -His zeal for science had hastened his end, and he may -well be called one of her victims.</p> - -<p>His last days were spent at Gratz, where his boyhood had -been passed, and he rests beside his only brother. Both were -the pride and joy of their father, now left alone.</p> - -<p>In appearance Karl von Gebler was distinguished and -attractive looking. No one could escape the charm of the -freshness and originality of his mind, in spite of constant ill -health. The refined young student, with the manners of a -man of the world, was a phenomenon to his fellow-workers -in the learned world. We have heard some of them say that -they could not understand how Gebler could have acquired -the historian’s craft, the technical art of prosecuting research, -without having had any special critical schooling.</p> - -<p>The writer of these lines will never forget the hours spent -with this amiable and, in spite of his success, truly modest -young man in his snug study. The walls lined with books,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[xvi]</a></span> -or adorned with weapons, betrayed at a glance the character -and tastes of the occupant, while a pendulum clock dating -from the time of Galileo recalled his work on the first observer -of the vibrations of the pendulum to mind. He always liked -to wind up the venerable timepiece himself, and took a pleasure -in its sonorous tones. When I once more entered the study -after his death, the clock had run down, the pendulum had -ceased to vibrate, it told the hour no more.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">[xvii]</a></span></p> - -<h2>PREFACE -TO THE GERMAN EDITION.</h2> - -<p>While Italy and France possess an ample literature relating -to Galileo, his oft-discussed fate and memorable achievements, -very little has been written in Germany on this hero -of science; and it would almost seem as if Copernicus and -Kepler had cast the founder of mechanical physics into the -shade. German literature does not possess one exhaustive -work on Galileo. This is a great want, and to supply it would -be a magnificent and thankworthy enterprise. It could only, -however, be carried out by a comprehensive biography of the -famous astronomer, which, together with a complete narrative -of his life, should comprise a detailed description and -estimate of his writings, inventions, and discoveries. We do -not feel ourselves either called upon or competent to undertake -so difficult a task. Our desire has been merely to fill -up a portion of the gap in German literature by this contribution -to the Life of Galileo, with a hope that it may be an -incentive to some man of learning, whose studies qualify him -for the task, to give our nation a complete description of the -life and works of this great pioneer of the ideas of Copernicus.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">[xviii]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have also set ourselves another task; namely, to throw -as much light as possible, by means of authentic documents, -on the attitude Galileo assumed towards the Roman curia, -and the history of the persecutions which resulted from it. -To this end, however, it appeared absolutely necessary to -give, at any rate in broad outline, a sketch of his aims and -achievements as a whole. For his conflict with the ecclesiastical -power was but the inevitable consequence of his subversive -telescopic discoveries and scientific reforms. It was -necessary to make the intimate connection between these -causes and their historical results perfectly intelligible.</p> - -<p>In the narration of historical events we have relied, as far -as possible, upon authentic sources only. Among these are -the following:—</p> - -<p>1. Galileo’s correspondence, and the correspondence relating -to him between third persons. (Albèri’s “Opere di -Galileo Galilei.” Vols. ii., iii., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xv., and -Suppl., in all 1,564 letters.)</p> - -<p>2. The constant reports of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador -at Rome, to his Government at Florence, during and -after Galileo’s trial. (Thirty-one despatches, from August -15th, 1632, to December 3rd, 1633.)</p> - -<p>3. The Acts of the Trial, from the MS. originals in the -Vatican.</p> - -<p>4. The collection of documents published, in 1870, by -Professor Silvestro Gherardi. Thirty-two extracts from the -original protocols of the sittings and decrees of the Congregation -of the Holy Office.<a name="FNanchor_3" id="FNanchor_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> - -<p>5. Some important documents published by the Jesuit -Father Riccioli, in his “Almagestum novum, Bononiæ, 1651.”<a name="FNanchor_4" id="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p>We have also been careful to acquaint ourselves with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xix" id="Page_xix">[xix]</a></span> -numerous French and Italian Lives of Galileo, from the -oldest, that of his contemporary, Gherardini, to the most -recent and complete, that of Henri Martin, 1869; when admissible, -we have cautiously used them, constantly comparing -them with authentic sources. As the part of the story of -Galileo of which we have treated is that which has been -most frequently discussed in literature, and from the most -widely differing points of view, it could not fail to be of great -interest to us to collect and examine, as far as it lay in our -power, the views, opinions, and criticisms to be found in -various treatises on the subject. We offer our warm thanks -to all the possessors of private, and custodians of public -libraries, who have most liberally and obligingly aided us -in our project.</p> - -<p>One more remark remains to be made. Party interests and -passions have, to a great extent, and with but few exceptions, -guided the pens of those who have written on this chapter of -Galileo’s life. The one side has lauded him as an admirable -martyr of science, and ascribed more cruelty to the Inquisition -than it really inflicted on him; the other has thought -proper to enter the lists as defender of the Inquisition, and -to wash it white at Galileo’s expense. Historical truth contradicts -both.</p> - -<p>Whatever may be the judgment passed on the present -work, to one acknowledgment we think we may, with a good -conscience, lay claim: that, standing in the service of truth -alone, we have anxiously endeavoured to pursue none other -than her sublime interests.</p> - -<p class="right">KARL VON GEBLER.</p> - -<p class="smaller"><span class="smcap">Meran</span>, <i>November, 1875</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xx" id="Page_xx">[xx]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxi" id="Page_xxi">[xxi]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> - -<table summary="Contents"> - <tr> - <td colspan="2"></td> - <td class="tdpg smaller">PAGE</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><a href="#PART_I">PART I.</a><br /> - <i>GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND - FIRST CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN CURIA.</i></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Early Years and First Discoveries.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on Music.—Galileo - destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins - to study Medicine.—Goes to the University of - Pisa.—Discovery of the Synchronism of the Pendulum.—Stolen - Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic Scales.—Professorship - at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves - Pisa.—Professorship at Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The - Thermoscope.—Letter to Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De - Revolutionibus orbium Cœlestium”</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_I">3</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Telescope and its Revelations.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New - Star.—The Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice - to exhibit it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request - of Henry IV.—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s - attack on Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition - of the Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_II">16</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxii" id="Page_xxii">[xxii]</a></span>CHAPTER III.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Removal To Florence.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic - Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This - change the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases - of Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant - Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo - II.—The Inquisition.—Introduction of Theology into the Scientific - Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_III">27</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER IV.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Astronomy and Theology.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about the - Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s Work on the subject - at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess Christine.—The - Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s - Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini denounces the - Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop Bonciani’s attempts to get - the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the Inquisition on it.—Caccini - summoned to give evidence.—Absurd accusations.—Testimony - of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s favour</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_IV">42</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER V.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Hopes and Fears.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s Work.—Blindness - of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the Grand - Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to Rome.—Erroneous - opinion that he was cited to appear.—Caccini begs - pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican System at Rome.—His - mistake in so doing</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_V">59</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER VI.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Inquisition and the Copernican System, and the Assumed - Prohibition to Galileo.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Adverse “Opinion” of the Inquisition on Galileo’s Propositions.—Admonition - by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute Prohibition to - treat of the Copernican Doctrines.—Discrepancy between Notes - of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s Documents.—Epinois’s Work - on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts - confirmed by Gherardi’s Documents.—Decree of 5th March, - 1616, on the Copernican System.—Attitude of the Church.—Was - the Absolute Prohibition ever issued to Galileo?—Testimony of - Bellarmine in his favour.—Conclusions</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_VI">76</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxiii" id="Page_xxiii">[xxiii]</a></span>CHAPTER VII.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Evil Report and Good Report.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect his Recall.—Erroneous - idea that he was trying to get the Decree repealed.—Intrigues - against him.—Audience of Pope Paul V.—His friendly - assurances.—His Character.—Galileo’s return to Florence</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_VII">91</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Controversy on Comets.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work of - Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke Leopold of - Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The three Comets - of 1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s - Treatise on them, inspired by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical - and Philosophical Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His - Death.—Death of Cosmo II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” - finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” on it.—Death of Gregory XV.—Urban - VIII.</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_VIII">98</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER IX.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Maffeo Barberini as Urban VIII.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when - Cardinal.—Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication - of “Il Saggiatore” with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the - Work.—The Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed - Prohibition</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_IX">108</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER X.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Papal Favour.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his Accession.—Favourable - reception.—Scientific discussions with the Pope.—Urban - refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The - Microscope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Urban’s favours to - Galileo on leaving Rome.—Galileo’s reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine - hopes.—Grassi’s hypocrisy.—Spinola’s harangue against the Copernican - System.—Lothario Sarsi’s reply to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo - writes his “Dialogues”</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#I_CHAPTER_X">114</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxiv" id="Page_xxiv">[xxiv]</a></span><a href="#PART_II">PART II.</a><br /> - <i>PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO - PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND - CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.</i></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The “Dialogues” on the Two Systems.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their popular style.—Significance of the - name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the Copernican System.—Attitude - of Rome towards Science.—Thomas Campanella.—Urban - VIII.’s duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. to Rome.—Riccardi’s - corrections.—He gives the <i>Imprimatur</i> on certain conditions.—Galileo - returns to Florence to complete the Work</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_I">127</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Imprimatur for the “Dialogues.”</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei Lincei.—Galileo - advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and delays.—His - impatience.—Authorship of the Introduction.—The <i>Imprimatur</i> - granted for Florence.—Absurd accusation from the style of the - Type of the Introduction</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_II">138</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER III.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The “Dialogues” and the Jesuits.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s friends and - the learned world.—The hostile party.—The Jesuits as leaders of - learning.—Deprived of their monopoly by Galileo.—They become - his bitter foes.—Having the <i>Imprimatur</i> for Rome and Florence, - Galileo thought himself doubly safe.—The three dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did - “Simplicius” personate the Pope?—Conclusive arguments - against it.—Effect of the accusation.—Urban’s motives in - instituting the Trial</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_III">151</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxv" id="Page_xxv">[xxv]</a></span>CHAPTER IV.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Discovery of the Absolute Prohibition of 1616.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Symptoms of the coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade - of forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional - Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview - with the Pope and unfavourable reception.—Report of it to Cioli.—Magalotti’s - Letters.—Real object of the Special Commission to - find a pretext for the Trial.—Its discovery in the assumed Prohibition - of 1616.—Report of the Commission, and charges against - Galileo</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_IV">163</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER V.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Summons to Rome.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Niccolini’s attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s Parable.—The - Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His grief and consternation.—His - Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed order to - come to Rome.—Niccolini’s fruitless efforts to save him.—Medical - Certificate that he was unfit to travel.—Castelli’s hopeful view of - the case.—Threat to bring him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand - Duke advises him to go.—His powerlessness to protect his servant.—Galileo’s - mistake in leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_V">175</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER VI.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Galileo’s Arrival at Rome.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan Embassy.—No - notice at first taken of his coming.—Visits of Serristori.—Galileo’s - hopefulness.—His Letter to Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s - audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the Grand Duke and Niccolini - on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that he must appear before the Holy - Office.—His dejection at the news.—Niccolini’s advice not to - defend himself</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_VI">191</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER VII.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Trial before the Inquisition.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">The first hearing.—Galileo’s submissive attitude.—The events of - February, 1616.—Galileo denies knowledge of a special Prohibition.—Produces - Bellarmine’s certificate.—Either the Prohibition was - not issued, or Galileo’s ignorance was feigned.—His conduct since - 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The Inquisitor assumes that it - was issued.—“Opinions” of Oregius, Inchofer and Pasqualigus.—Galileo - has Apartments in the Palace of the Holy Office assigned to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxvi" id="Page_xxvi">[xxvi]</a></span> - him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri Bocchineri.—Change of tone at - second hearing hitherto an enigma.—Now explained by letter - from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His - Weakness and Subserviency</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_VII">201</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Trial Continued.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His hopefulness.—Third - hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement of it with previous - events.—Confident hopes of his friends.—Niccolini’s fears.—Decision - to examine Galileo under threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s - audience of the Pope.—Informed that the Trial was over, that - Galileo would soon be Sentenced, and would be Imprisoned.—Final - Examination.—Sent back to “<i>locum suum</i>.”—No evidence that he - suffered Torture, or was placed in a prison cell</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_VIII">217</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER IX.<br /> - <span class="smcap">The Sentence and Recantation.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican System had - not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible” authority.—The - special Prohibition assumed as fact.—The Sentence illegal according - to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office exceeded its powers in - calling upon Galileo to recant.—The Sentence not unanimous.—This - escaped notice for two hundred and thirty-one Years.—The - Recantation.—Futile attempts to show that Galileo had really - altered his opinion.—After the Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged - for Banishment to Trinita de’ Monti.—Petition for leave to go to - Florence.—Allowed to go to Siena</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_IX">230</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER X.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Current Myths.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si Muove.”—The - Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only detained twenty-two - Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—Refuted in 18th Century.—Torture - based on the words “<i>examen rigorosum</i>.”—This shown - to be untenable.—Assertion that the Acts have been falsified refuted.—False - Imputation on Niccolini.—Conclusive Evidence - against Torture.—Galileo not truly a “Martyr of Science”</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#II_CHAPTER_X">249</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxvii" id="Page_xxvii">[xxvii]</a></span><a href="#PART_III">PART III.</a><br /> - <i>GALILEO’S LAST YEARS.</i></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Galileo at Siena and Arcetri.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany to ask for - his release.—Postponed on the advice of Niccolini.—Endeavours - at Rome to stifle the Copernican System.—Sentence and Recantation - sent to all the Inquisitors of Italy.—Letter to the Inquisitor of - Venice.—Mandate against the publication of any new Work of - Galileo’s, or new Edition.—Curious Arguments in favour of the old - System.—Niccolini asks for Galileo’s release.—Refusal, but permission - given to go to Arcetri.—Anonymous accusations.—Death - of his Daughter.—Request for permission to go to Florence.—Harsh - refusal and threat.—Letter to Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention - of the Count de Noailles on Galileo’s behalf.—Prediction that he - will be compared to Socrates.—Letter to Peiresc.—Publication of - Galileo’s Works in Holland.—Continued efforts of Noailles.—Urban’s - fair speeches</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#III_CHAPTER_I">267</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Failing Health and Loss of Sight.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle - nuove Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method of - taking Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered to - Holland.—Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the Moon.—Visit - from Milton.—Becomes blind.—Letter to Diodati.—On a - hint from Castelli, petitions for his Liberty.—The Inquisitor to - visit him and report to Rome.—Permitted to live at Florence under - restrictions.—The States-General appoint a Delegate to see him on - the Longitude question.—The Inquisitor sends word of it to Rome.—Galileo - not to receive a Heretic.—Presents from the States-General - refused from fear of Rome.—Letter to Diodati.—Galileo - supposed to be near his end.—Request that Castelli might come - to him.—Permitted under restrictions.—The new “Dialoghi” - appear at Leyden, 1638.—They founded Mechanical Physics.—Attract - much notice.—Improvement of health.—In 1639 goes to - Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#III_CHAPTER_II">284</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxviii" id="Page_xxviii">[xxviii]</a></span>CHAPTER III.<br /> - <span class="smcap">Last Years and Death.</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td colspan="2">Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious Resignation.—Continues - his scientific Researches.—His pupil Viviani.—Failure - of attempt to renew Negotiations about Longitudes.—Reply to Liceti - and Correspondence with him.—Last discussion of the Copernican - System in reply to Rinuccini.—Sketch of its contents.—Pendulum - Clocks.—Priority of the discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from - Castelli.—Torricelli joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his - Deathbed.—Death, 8th Jan., 1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian - Burial.—Monument objected to by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. - fears to offend him.—Buried quietly.—No Inscription till thirty-two - years later.—First Public Monument erected by Viviani in 1693.—Viviani - directs his heirs to erect one in Santa Croce.—Erected in - 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican System.—In 1757 - Benedict XIV. permits the clause in Decree forbidding books - which teach the new System to be expunged.—In 1820 permission - given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s work and others not expunged - from the Index till 1835</td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#III_CHAPTER_III">299</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><a href="#APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</a></td> - <td class="tdpg"></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">I.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">History of the Vatican Manuscript</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_I">319</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">II.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Description of the Vatican Manuscript</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_II">330</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">III.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Estimate of the Vatican Manuscript</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_III">334</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">IV.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Gherardi’s Collection of Documents</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_IV">341</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">V.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Decree of 5th March, 1616</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_V">345</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">VI.</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Remarks on the Sentence and Recantation</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#APPENDIX_VI">347</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxix" id="Page_xxix">[xxix]</a></span></p> - -<div class="bibliography"> - -<h2>WORKS CONSULTED.<a name="FNanchor_5" id="FNanchor_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></h2> - -<p><span class="smcap">Albèri</span> (Eugenio): “Le opere di Galileo Galilei.” Prima edizione completa -condotta sugli autentici manoscritti Palatini. Firenze, 1842-1856.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Sul Processo di Galileo. Due Lettere in risposta al giornale -S’opinione.” Firenze, 1864.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Anonym</span>: “Der heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei und das astronomische -System des Copernicus.” Historisch-politische Blätter für -das katholische Deutschland; herausgegeben von G. Phillips und G. -Görres. Siebenter Band. München, 1841.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Galileo Galilei. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung für die Entwickelung -der Naturwissenschaft.” Die Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft -in biographischen Bildern. Drittes Heft. Berlin, 1856.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Galileo Galilei.” Die Grenzboten. XXIV. Jahrgang. I. -Semester. Nr. 24. 1865.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Arduini</span> (Carlo): “La Primogenita di Galileo Galilei rivelata dalle sue -lettere.” Florence, 1864.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Barbier</span> (Antoine Alexandre): “Examen critique et complément des -dictionnaires historiques les plus répandus.” Paris, 1820. Article -Galilée.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Berti</span> (Prof. Domenico): “La venuta di Galileo Galilei a Padova. -Studii. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, dal -Novembre 1870 all’ ottobre 1871.” Tomo decimosesto, seria terza, -dispensa quinta, ottava, nono e decima. Venezia, 1870, 1871.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Copernico e le vicende del Sistema Copernicano in Italia nella -seconda metà del secolo XVI. e nella prima del secolo XVII.” -Roma, 1876.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei, pubblicato per la prima -volta.” Roma, 1876.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“La Critica moderna e il Processo contro Galileo Galilei.” (Nuova -Antologia, Gennajo, 1877 Firenze.)</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Bouix</span> (L’Abbé): “La condamnation de Galilée. Lapsus des écrivains, -qui l’opposent à la doctrine de l’infaillibilité du Pape.”—Revue des -Sciences ecclésiastiques. Arras-Paris, février et mars, 1866.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxx" id="Page_xxx">[xxx]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Cantor</span> (Professor Dr. Moritz): “Galileo Galilei.” <i>Zeitschrift für Mathematik -und Physik.</i> 9. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. Leipzig, 1864.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Recensionen über die 1870 erschienenen Schriften Wohlwill’s und -Gherardi’s über den Galilei’schen Process.” <i>Zeitschrift für Mathematik -und Physik.</i> 16. Jahrgang. 1. Heft. 1871.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Caspar</span> (Dr. R.): “Galileo Galilei. Zusammenstellung der Forschungen -und Entdeckungen Galilei’s auf dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft, -als Beitrag zur Geschichte der neueren Physik.” Stuttgart, 1854.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Chasles</span> (Prof. Philarète): “Galileo Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses -contemporains d’après les documents originaux.” Paris, 1862.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Combes</span> (Louis): “Galilée et L’Inquisition Romaine.” Paris, 1876.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Delambre</span> (Jean Baptiste Joseph): “Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne.” -Paris, 1821.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Eckert</span> (Professor Dr.): “Galileo Galilei, dessen Leben und Verdienste -um die Wissenschaften.” Als Einladung zur Promotionsfeier des -Pädagogiums. Basel, 1858.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Epinois</span> (Henri de L’): “Galilée, son procès, sa condamnation d’après -des documents inédits.” Extrait de la Revue des questions historiques. -Paris, 1867.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Les Pièces du Procès de Galilée, précédées d’un avant-propos.” -Rome, Paris, 1877 v. Palmé société Générale de Librairie Catholique.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“La Question de Galilée, les faits et leurs conséquences.” Paris -Palmé, 1878.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Figuier</span> (Louis): “Galilée.” Vies des savants illustres du dix-septième -siècle. Paris, 1869.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Friedlein</span> (Rector): “Zum Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.” -<i>Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik.</i> 17. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. -1872.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Gherardi</span> (Prof. Silvestro): “Il Processo Galileo riveduto sopra documenti -di nuova fonte.” <i>Rivista Europea.</i> Anno 1. Vol. III. Firenze, -1870.<a name="FNanchor_6" id="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -<p class="ditto">“Sulla Dissertazione del dott. Emilio Wohlwill. Il processo di -Galileo Galilei.” Estratto della <i>Rivista Europea</i>. Firenze, 1872.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Gilbert</span> (Prof. Ph.): “Le Procès de Galilée d’après les Documents -contemporains.” Extrait de la Revue Catholique tomes I., II. -Louvains, 1869.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Govi</span> (Gilberto): “Intorno a certi manuscritti apocrifi di Galileo.” -Torino, 1869. Estr. dagli Atti della Accadémia delle Scienze di Torino -Vol. V. Adunanza del 21 Nov. 1869.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Intorno a tre lettere di Galileo Galilei tratte dall’ archivio dei -Gonzaga.” Bollettino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematiche -e fisiche pubblicato da B. Boncompagni. Tomo III. Roma, -1870.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxi" id="Page_xxxi">[xxxi]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Govi</span> (Gilberto): “Il S. Offizio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di -un opuscolo postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento.” Torino, -1872.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Grisar</span> (Prof. H. S. J.): “Der Galilei’sche Process auf der neuesten -Actenpublicationen historisch und juristisch geprüft.” <i>Zeitschrift -für Kath. Theol.</i> II. Jahrgang, pp. 65-128. Innsbruck.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Jagemann</span>: “Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Galileo -Galilei.” Neue Auflage. Leipzig, 1787.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Libri</span>: “Galileo Galilei, sein Leben und seine Werke.” Aus dem -Französischen mit Anmerkungen von F. W. Carové. Siegen und -Wiesbaden, 1842.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Marini</span> (Mgr. Marino): “Galileo e l’inquisizione.” Memorie storico-critiche. -Roma, 1850.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Martin</span> (Henri Th.): “Galilée, les droits de la science et la méthode -des sciences physiques.” Paris, 1868.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Nelli</span> (Gio. Batista Clemente de): “Vita e commercio letterario di -Galileo Galilei.” Losanna (Firenze), 1793.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Olivieri</span> (P. Maurizio-Benedetto Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario -della S. Rom. ed Univer. Inquisizione): “Di Copernico e -di Galileo scritto postumo ora per la prima volta messo in luce sull’ -autografo per cura d’un religioso dello stesso istituto.” Bologna, -1872.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Parchappe</span> (Dr. Max): “Galilée, sa vie, ses découvertes et ses travaux.” -Paris, 1866.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Pieralisi</span> (Sante, Sacerdote e Bibliotecario della Barberiniana): “Urbano -VIII. e Galileo Galilei: Memorie Storiche.” Roma, 1875. -Tipografia poliglotta della L. P. di Propaganda Fide.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. Galileo Galilei proposte dall’ -autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazione sopra il processo originale di -Galileo Galilei pubblicato da Domenico Berti.” Settembre, 1876.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Reitlinger</span> (Prof. Edmund): “Galileo Galilei.” Freie Blicke. Populärwissenschaftliche -Aufsätze. Berlin, 1875.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Reumont</span> (Alfred von): “Galilei und Rom.” Beiträge zur italienischen -Geschichte. 1 Bd. Berlin, 1853.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Reusch</span> (Professor Dr. F. H.): “Der Galilei’sche Procesz.” Ein Vortrag. -Historische Zeitschrift; herausgegeben von Prof. Heinrich von -Sybel. 17. Jahrgang. 1875. 3. Heft.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Rezzi</span> (M. Domenica): “Sulla invenzione del microscopio, giuntavi una -notizia delle Considerazioni al Tasso attribuite a Galileo Galilei.” -Roma, 1852.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Riccardi</span> (Prof. Cav. Pietro): “Di alcune recenti memorie sul processo -e sulla condanna del Galilei. Nota e Documenti aggiunti alla bibliografia -Galileiana.” Modena, 1873.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Riccioli</span> (P. Jo. Bapt.): “Almagestum novum.” Bonioniae, 1651.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Rosini</span> (M. Giovanni): “Per l’inaugurazione solenne della statua di -Galileo.” Orazione. Pisa, 1839 (2 Oct).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxii" id="Page_xxxii">[xxxii]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Rossi</span> (Prof. Giuseppe): “Del Metodo Galileiano.” Bologna, 1877.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Scartazzini</span> (Dr. T. A.): “Der Process des Galileo Galilei.” <i>Unsere -Zeit.</i> Jahrgang 13. Heft 7 and 18.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Il processo di Galileo Galilei e la moderna critica tedesca.” -<i>Revista Europea</i>, Vol. IV. Part V., Vol. V. Parts I and II., 1 and 16 -Jan. 1878.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Schneemann</span> (P. S. J.): “Galileo Galilei und der Römische Stuhl.” -Stimmen aus Maria Laach. Kath. Blättern. Nos. 2, 3, 4, Feb. Mar. -April, 1878.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Snell</span> (Dr. Carl): “Ueber Galilei als Begründer der mechanischen -Physik und über die Methode derselben.” Jena, 1864.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Targioni Tozzetti</span>: “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche -in Toscana.” Firenze, 1780. (Contains in Vol. ii.: “Vita di Galileo -scritta da Nic. Gherardini.”)</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Venturi</span> (Cav. Giambattista): “Memorie e lettere inedite finora o disperse -di Galileo Galilei.” Modena, 1818-1821.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Viviani</span>: “Raconto istorico della vita di Galileo Galilei.” (Enthalten -im XV. Bande der Opere di Galileo Galilei. Prima edizione completa. -Firenze, 1856.)</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Vosen</span> (Dr. Christian Hermann): “Galileo Galilei und die Römische -Berurtheilung des Copernicanischen Systems.” Broschürenverein -Nr. 5. Frankfurt am M. 1865.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Wohlwill</span> (Dr. Emil): “Der Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei. -Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der -Römischen Inquisition.” Berlin, 1870.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Ist Galilei gefoltert worden? Eine kritische Studie.” Leipzig, -1877.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“Zum Inquisitionsprocesz des Galileo Galilei.” <i>Zeitschrift für -Mathematik und Physik.</i> 17. Jahrgang. 2. Heft. 1872.</p> - -<p>*<span class="smcap">Wolynski</span> (Dott. Arturio): “Lettere inedite a Galileo Galilei.” -Firenze, 1872.</p> - -<p class="ditto">*“Relazione di Galileo Galilei colla Polonia esposte secondo i -documenti per la maggior parte non pubblicati.” Firenze, 1873.</p> - -<p class="ditto">“La Diplomazia Toscana e Galileo Galilei.” Firenze, 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="PART_I">PART I.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS -IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST CONFLICT -WITH THE ROMAN CURIA.</i></span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on Music.—Galileo -destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins -to study Medicine.—Goes to the University of Pisa.—Discovery -of the Isochronism of the Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in -Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor -Pay.—The Laws of Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship -at Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter -to Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus -Orbium Cœlestium.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The same memorable day is marked by the setting of one -of the most brilliant stars in the firmament of art and the -rising of another in the sphere of science, which was to enlighten -the world with beams of equal splendour. On the -18th February, 1564, Michael Angelo Buonarotti closed his -eyes at Rome, and Galileo Galilei first saw the light at Pisa.</p> - -<p>He was the son of the Florentine nobleman, Vincenzo Galilei, -and of Julia, one of the ancient family of the Ammanati of -Pescia, and was born in wedlock, as the documents of the -church clearly attest.<a name="FNanchor_7" id="FNanchor_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> His earliest years were spent at Pisa, -but his parents soon returned to Florence, which was their -settled home. Here he received his early education. His -father had distinguished himself by his writings on the theory<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span> -of music, particularly the mathematical part of it.<a name="FNanchor_8" id="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> They -were not merely above mediocrity, but aimed at innovation, -and if they did not achieve reform, it was to be attributed to -the conservative spirit then reigning in Italy, which asserted -itself in every department of life, and especially in the spheres -of art and science.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s father had no property. His income was but -scanty, and the fates had endowed him with a numerous -family instead of with fortune.<a name="FNanchor_9" id="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Under these untoward circumstances -he at first destined the little Galileo, as is related -by Gherardini, his earliest biographer, to a career by no means -distinguished, though advantageous in a material point of -view, and one that conferred much of their wealth on the -Florentines, so that it was held in high esteem—he was to be -a cloth dealer. But the young noble first received the education -befitting his station, that is, a very mediocre teacher -instructed him in the Humanities.<a name="FNanchor_10" id="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> Fortunately for the clever -young scholar, he was handed over to the pious brethren of -the convent of Vallombrosa for further education. Here he -at once made rapid progress. He acquired great facility in -the classics. His thorough study of the masterpieces of -antiquity was of the greatest advantage to him. He doubtless -thereby laid the foundation of the admirable style to -which he afterwards, in some measure, owed his brilliant -successes.</p> - -<p>Galileo had a great variety of talent. Besides ardent -pursuit of the solid branches of learning, he had considerable -skill in drawing and music, in which he afterwards attained so -much perfection that his judgment was highly esteemed, even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span> -by great artists.<a name="FNanchor_11" id="FNanchor_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> He played the lute himself with the skill -of a master. He also highly appreciated poetry. His later -essays on Dante, Orlando Furioso, and Gerusalemme Liberata, -as well as the fragment of a play, bear witness to his lively -interest in <i>belles lettres</i>. But from his earliest youth he -showed the greatest preference for mechanics. He made -little machines with an ingenuity and skill which evinced a -really unusual talent for such things.<a name="FNanchor_12" id="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> - -<p>With these abilities his father must soon have arrived at the -conclusion that his son was born for something better than -for distributing wool among the people, and resolved to devote -him to science; only it was necessary that the branch of it to -which he turned his attention should offer a prospect of profit. -Medicine was decided on as the most likely to be lucrative, -although it may not seem the one most suited to his abilities.</p> - -<p>On 5th November, 1581, Galileo, then just seventeen, -entered the University of Pisa.<a name="FNanchor_13" id="FNanchor_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> Even here the young medical -student’s independent ideas and aims made way for themselves. -At that time any original ideas and philosophical -views not derived from the dogmas of Aristotle were unheard -of. All the theories of natural science and philosophy had -hitherto been referred to theology. It had been held to be -the Alpha and Omega of all human knowledge. But now the -period was far advanced in which it was felt to be necessary -to cast off the narrow garments fashioned by religion, though -at first the will to do so exceeded the power. A stir and -ferment agitated men’s minds. A period of storm and stress -had begun for the study of nature and the philosophical -speculation so closely connected with it. Men did not as -yet possess energy and ability for direct advance, so they -turned with real fanaticism to ancient learning, which, being<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span> -independent, and not based on religious notions, afforded -them satisfaction. Under these circumstances recurrence to -the past was real progress.</p> - -<p>Unconditional surrender to the ideas of others, entire adoption -of opinions, some of which were not too well verified, -might suit mediocrity, but it could not suffice for the powerful -mind of Galileo, who was striving to find out the truth -for himself. The genius of the young student rebelled fiercely -against rigid adherence to an antiquated standpoint. To the -horror of the followers of Aristotle, who were quite taken -aback at such unheard-of audacity, he resolutely attacked -in public disputations many oracular dicta of their great -master hitherto unquestioned, and this even then made him -many enemies, and acquired for him the epithet of “the -Wrangler.”<a name="FNanchor_14" id="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> - -<p>Two circumstances occur during Galileo’s student years, -which, in their main features, are not without historical -foundation, although in detail they bear an anecdotal impress. -One, which is characteristic of Galileo’s observant eye, shows -us the student of nineteen devoutly praying in the Cathedral -at Pisa; but he seems to have soon wearied of this occupation, -for he dreamily fixed his eye on the Maestro Possenti’s -beautiful lamp, hanging from an arch, which, in order to -light it more readily, had been moved out of its vertical -position and then left to itself. The oscillations were at first -considerable, became gradually less and less, but notwithstanding -the varying distances, they were all performed in -the same time, as the young medical student discovered to a -nicety by feeling his pulse. The isochronism of the vibrations -of the pendulum was discovered!<a name="FNanchor_15" id="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p> - -<p>The other story refers to Galileo’s first mathematical -studies. Gherardini relates that he was scarcely acquainted -with the elements of mathematics up to his twentieth year, -which, by the by, seems almost incredible. But while he was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span> -diligently studying medicine at Pisa, the court of Tuscany -came there for some months. Among the suite was Ostilio -Ricci, governor of the pages, a distinguished mathematician -and an old friend of the Galilei family; Galileo, therefore, -often visited him. One morning when he was there, Ricci -was teaching the pages. Galileo stood shyly at the door of -the schoolroom, listening attentively to the lesson; his interest -grew greater and greater; he followed the demonstration of -the mathematical propositions with bated breath. Strongly -attracted by the science almost unknown to him before, as -well as by Ricci’s method of instruction, he often returned, -but always unobserved, and, Euclid in hand, drank deeply, -from his uncomfortable concealment, of the streams of fresh -knowledge. Mathematics also occupied the greater part of -his time in the solitude of his study. But all this did not -satisfy his thirst for knowledge. He longed to be himself -taught by Ricci. At last he took courage, and, hesitatingly -confessing his sins of curiosity to the astonished tutor, he -besought him to unveil to him the further mysteries of mathematics, -to which Ricci at once consented.</p> - -<p>When Galileo’s father learnt that his son was devoting -himself to Euclid at the expense of Hippocrates and Galen, -he did his utmost to divert him from this new, and as it -seemed to him, unprofitable study. The science of mathematics -was not then held in much esteem, as it led to nothing -practical. Its use, as applied to the laws of nature, had -scarcely begun to be recognised. But the world-wide mission -for which Galileo’s genius destined him had been too imperiously -marked out by fate for him to be held back by the -mere will of any man. Old Vincenzo had to learn the -unconquerable power of genius in young Galileo, and to -submit to it. The son pursued the studies marked out for -him by nature more zealously than ever, and at length obtained -leave from his father to bid adieu to medicine and to -devote himself exclusively to mathematics and physics.<a name="FNanchor_16" id="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p> - -<p>The unexpected successes won by the young philosopher -in a very short time in the realm of science, soon showed that -his course had now been turned into the proper channel. -Galileo’s father, who, almost crushed with the burden of his -family, could with difficulty bear the expense of his son’s residence -at the University, turned in his perplexity to the beneficence -of the reigning Grand Duke, Ferdinand de’ Medici, -with the request that, in consideration of the distinguished -talents and scientific attainments of Galileo, he would grant -him one of the forty free places founded for poor students at -the University. But even then there were many who were -envious of Galileo in consequence of his unusual abilities -and his rejection of the traditional authority of Aristotle. -They succeeded in inducing the Grand Duke to refuse poor -Vincenzo’s petition, in consequence of which the young student -had to leave the University, after four years’ residence, -without taking the doctor’s degree.<a name="FNanchor_17" id="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> - -<p>In spite of these disappointments, Galileo was not deterred, -on his return home, from continuing his independent researches -into natural phenomena. The most important -invention of those times, to which he was led by the works -of Archimedes, too little regarded during the Middle Ages, -was his hydrostatic scales, about the construction and use -of which he wrote a treatise, called “La Bilancetta.” This, -though afterwards circulated in manuscript copies among his -followers and pupils, was not printed until after his death, -in 1655.</p> - -<p>Galileo now began to be everywhere spoken of in Italy. -The discovery of the movement of the pendulum as a -measurement of time, the importance of which was increasingly -recognised, combined with his novel and intellectual -treatment of physics, by which the phenomena of nature were -submitted, as far as possible, to direct proof instead of to the -<i>a priori</i> reasoning of the Aristotelians, excited much attention -in all scientific circles. Distinguished men of learning, like<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span> -Clavius at Rome, with whom he had become acquainted on -his first visit there in 1587,<a name="FNanchor_18" id="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> Michael Coignet at Antwerp, -Riccoboni, the Marquis Guidubaldo del Monte, etc., entered -into correspondence with him.<a name="FNanchor_19" id="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> Intercourse with the latter, -a distinguished mathematician, who took the warmest interest -in Galileo’s fate, became of the utmost importance to him. -It was not merely that to his encouragement he owed the -origin of his excellent treatise on the doctrine of centres of -gravity, which materially contributed to establish his fame, -and even gained for him from Del Monte the name of an -“Archimedes of his time,” but he first helped him to secure -a settled and honourable position in life. By his opportune -recommendation in 1589, the professorship of mathematics -at the University of Pisa, just become vacant, was conferred -on Galileo, with an income of sixty scudi.<a name="FNanchor_20" id="FNanchor_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> It is indicative -of the standing of the sciences in those days that, while -the professor of medicine had a salary of two thousand scudi, -the professor of mathematics had not quite thirty kreuzers<a name="FNanchor_21" id="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> -a day. Even for the sixteenth century it was very poor -pay. Moreover, in accordance with the usage at the Italian -Universities, he was only installed for three years; but in -Galileo’s needy circumstances, even this little help was -very desirable, and his office enabled him to earn a considerable -additional income by giving private lessons.</p> - -<p>During the time of his professorship at Pisa he made his -grand researches into the laws of gravitation, now known -under the name of “Galileo’s Laws,” and wrote as the result -of them his great treatise “De Motu Gravium.” It -then had but a limited circulation in copies, and did not -appear in print until two hundred years after his death, in -Albèri’s “Opere complete di Galileo Galilei.” Aristotle,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> -nearly two thousand years before, had raised the statement -to the rank of a proposition, that the rate at which a body -falls depends on its weight. Up to Galileo’s time this doctrine -had been generally accepted as true, on the mere word -of the old hero of science, although individual physicists, like -Varchi in 1544, and Benedetti in 1563, had disputed it, maintaining -that bodies of similar density and different weight -fall from the same height in an equal space of time. They -sought to prove the correctness of this statement by the most -acute reasoning, but the idea of experiment did not occur to -any one. Galileo, well aware that the touchstone of experiment -would discover the vulnerable spot in Aristotelian infallibility, -climbed the leaning tower of Pisa, in order thence to -prove by experiment, to the discomfiture of the Peripatetic -school, the truth of the axiom that the velocity with which a -body falls does not depend on its weight but on its density.<a name="FNanchor_22" id="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p> - -<p>It might have been thought that his opponents would strike -sail after this decisive argument. Aristotle, the master, would -certainly have yielded to it—but his disciples had attained -no such humility. They followed the bold experiments of -the young professor with eyes askance and miserable sophistries, -and, being unable to meet him with his own weapons -of scientific research, they eagerly sought an opportunity of -showing the impious and dangerous innovator the door of -the <i>aula</i>.</p> - -<p>An unforeseen circumstance came all at once to their aid -in these designs. An illegitimate son of the half-brother of -the reigning Grand Duke,—the relationship was somewhat -farfetched, but none the less ominous for Galileo—John de’ -Medici, took an innocent pleasure in inventing machines, and -considered himself a very skilful artificer. This ingenious -semi-prince had constructed a monster machine for cleaning -the harbour of Leghorn, and proposed that it should be -brought into use. But Galileo, who had been commissioned -to examine the marvel, declared it to be useless, and, unfortunately,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span> -experiment fully confirmed the verdict. Ominous -head-shakings were seen among the suite of the deeply -mortified inventor. They entered into alliance with the -Peripatetic philosophers against their common enemy. There -were cabals at court. Galileo, perceiving that his position -at Pisa was untenable, voluntarily resigned his professorship -before the three years had expired, and migrated for the -second time home to Florence.<a name="FNanchor_23" id="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p> - -<p>His situation was now worse than before, for about this -time, 2nd July, 1591, his father died after a short illness, -leaving his family in very narrow circumstances. In this -distress the Marquis del Monte again appeared as a friend in -need. Thanks to his warm recommendation to the Senate of -the Republic of Venice, in the autumn of 1592 the professorship -of mathematics at the University of Padua, which had -become vacant, was bestowed on Galileo for six years.<a name="FNanchor_24" id="FNanchor_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> On -7th December, 1592, he entered on his office with a brilliant -opening address, which won the greatest admiration, not only -for its profound scientific knowledge, but for its entrancing -eloquence.<a name="FNanchor_25" id="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> His lectures soon acquired further fame, and -the number of his admirers and the audience who eagerly -listened to his, in many respects, novel demonstrations, daily -increased.</p> - -<p>During his residence at Padua, Galileo displayed an extraordinary -and versatile activity. He constructed various -machines for the service of the republic, and wrote a number -of excellent treatises, intended chiefly for his pupils.<a name="FNanchor_26" id="FNanchor_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Among -the larger works may be mentioned his writings on the laws -of motion, on fortification, gnomonics (the making of sun-dials), -mechanics, and on the celestial globe, which attained a -wide circulation even in copies, and were some of them printed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span> -long afterwards—the one on fortification not until the present -century;<a name="FNanchor_27" id="FNanchor_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> others, including the one on gnomonics, are unfortunately -lost. On the wide field of inventions two may be -specially mentioned, one of which was not fully developed -until much later. The first was his proportional circle, which, -though it had no special importance as illustrative of any -principle, had a wide circulation from its various practical -uses. Ten years later, in 1606, Galileo published an excellent -didactic work on this subject, dedicated to Cosmo de’ Medici, -and in 1607 a polemical one against Balthasar Capra, of -Milan, who, in a treatise published in 1607, which was nothing -but a plagiarism of Galileo’s work disfigured by blunders, -gave himself out as the inventor of the instrument. Galileo’s -reply, in which he first exhibited the polemical dexterity -afterwards so much dreaded, excited great attention even in -lay circles from its masterly satire.<a name="FNanchor_28" id="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> The other invention was -a contrivance by which heat could be more exactly indicated. -Over zealous biographers have therefore hastened to claim for -their hero the invention of the thermometer, which, however, -is not correct, as the instrument, which was not intended to -measure the temperature, could not be logically called a thermometer, -but a thermoscope, heat indicator. Undoubtedly it -prepared the way by which improvers of the thermoscope -arrived at the thermometer.<a name="FNanchor_29" id="FNanchor_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> - -<p>Before proceeding further with Galileo’s researches and discoveries, -so far as they fall within our province, it seems -important to acquaint ourselves with his views about the -Copernican system. From a letter of his to Mazzoni, of 30th -May, 1597,<a name="FNanchor_30" id="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> it is clear that he considered the opinions of -Pythagoras and Copernicus on the position and motion of -the earth to be far more correct than those of Aristotle and -Ptolemy. In another letter of 4th August of the same year<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span> -to Kepler, he thanks him for his work, which he had sent -him, on the Mysteries of the Universe,<a name="FNanchor_31" id="FNanchor_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> and writes as follows -about the Copernican system:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I count myself happy, in the search after truth, to have so great an -ally as yourself, and one who is so great a friend of the truth itself. It is -really pitiful that there are so few who seek truth, and who do not pursue a -perverse method of philosophising. But this is not the place to mourn over -the miseries of our times, but to congratulate you on your splendid discoveries -in confirmation of truth. I shall read your book to the end, sure -of finding much that is excellent in it. I shall do so with the more pleasure, -because <i>I have been for many years an adherent of the Copernican -system</i>, and it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances of -nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly accepted hypothesis. -<i>I have collected many arguments for the purpose of refuting the -latter</i>; but I do not venture to bring them to the light of publicity, for fear -of sharing the fate of our master, Copernicus, who, although he has -earned immortal fame with some, yet with very many (so great is the -number of fools) has become an object of ridicule and scorn. I should -certainly venture to publish my speculations if there were more people -like you. But this not being the case, I refrain from such an undertaking.”<a name="FNanchor_32" id="FNanchor_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>In an answer from Grätz, of 13th October of the same year, -Kepler urgently begs him to publish his researches into the -Copernican system, advising him to bring them out in Germany -if he does not receive permission to do so in Italy.<a name="FNanchor_33" id="FNanchor_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> In -spite of this pressing request of his eminent friend, however, -Galileo was not to be induced to bring his convictions to the -light yet, a hesitation which may not appear very commendable. -But if we consider the existing state of science, which -condemned the Copernican system as an unheard of and fantastic -hypothesis, and the religious incubus which weighed -down all knowledge of nature irrespective of religious belief, -and if, besides all this, we remember the entire revolution in the -sphere both of religion and science involved in the reception -of the Copernican system, we shall be more ready to admit -that Galileo had good reason to be cautious. The Copernican<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span> -cause could not be served by mere partisanship, but only -by independent fresh researches to prove its correctness, -indeed its irrefragability. Nothing but the fulfilment of these -conditions formed a justification, either in a scientific or -moral point of view, for taking part in overturning the previous -views of the universe.</p> - -<p>Before the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question -it, our earth was held to be the centre of the universe, -and about it all the rest of the heavenly bodies revolved. -There was but one “world,” and that was our earth; the -whole firmament, infinity, was the fitting frame to the picture, -upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position -which was truly sublime. It was an elevating thought that you -were on the centre, the only fixed point amidst countless revolving -orbs! The narrations in the Bible, and the character of -the Christian religion as a whole, fitted this conception exceedingly -well; or, more properly speaking, were made to fit it. -The creation of man, his fall, the flood, and our second venerable -ancestor, Noah, with his ark in which the continuation -of races was provided for, the foundation of the Christian -religion, the work of redemption;—all this could only lay -claim to universal importance so long as the earth was the -centre of the universe, the only world. Then all at once a -learned man makes the annihilating assertion that our world -was not the centre of the universe, but revolved itself, was -but an insignificant part of the vast, immeasurable system -of worlds. What had become of the favoured status of -the earth? And this indefinite number of bodies, equally -favoured by nature, were they also the abodes of men? The -bare possibility of a number of inhabited worlds could but -imperil the first principles of Christian philosophy.</p> - -<p>The system of the great Copernicus, however, thanks to the -anonymous preface to his famous work, “De Revolutionibus -Orbium Cœlestium,” had not, up to this time, assumed to be a -correct theory, but only a hypothesis, which need not be considered -even probable, as it was only intended to facilitate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span> -astronomical calculations. We know now that this was a -gigantic mistake, that the immortal astronomer had aimed at -rectifying the Ptolemaic confusion, and was fully convinced of -the correctness of his system; we know that this unprincipled -Introduction is by no means to be attributed to Copernicus, -but to Andreas Osiander, who took part in publishing this -book, which formed so great an epoch in science, and whose -anxious soul thereby desired to appease the anticipated wrath -of the theologians and philosophers. And we know further -that the founder of our present system of the universe, -although he handled the first finished copy of his imperishable -work when he was dying, was unable to look into it, -being already struck by paralysis, and thus never knew of -Osiander’s weak-minded Introduction, which had prudently -not been submitted to him.<a name="FNanchor_34" id="FNanchor_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p> - -<p>A few days after receiving a copy of the great work of -his genius, Copernicus died, on 24th May, 1543; and his -system, for which he had been labouring and striving all his -life, was, in consequence of Osiander’s sacrilegious act, reduced -to a simple hypothesis intended to simplify astronomical calculations! -As such it did not in the least endanger the faith -of the Church. Even Pope Paul III., to whom Copernicus -had dedicated his work, received it “with pleasure.” In 1566 -a second edition appeared at Basle, and still it did not excite -any opposition from the Church. It was not till 1616, when -it had met with wide acceptance among the learned, when its -correctness had been confirmed by fresh facts, and it had -begun to be looked upon as true, that the Roman curia felt -moved to condemn the work of Copernicus until it had been -corrected (<i>donec corrigantur</i>).</p> - -<p>Having thus rapidly glanced at the opposition between the -Copernican system and the Ptolemaic, which forms the prelude -to Galileo’s subsequent relations with Rome, we are at -liberty to fulfil the task we have set ourselves, namely, to -portray “Galileo and the Roman Curia.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New Star.—The -Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice to exhibit -it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request of Henry IV.—“Sidereus -Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s attack on -Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition of the -Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler.</p> - -</div> - -<p>The first six years of Galileo’s professorship at Padua had -passed away, but the senate were eager to retain so bright a -light for their University, and prolonged the appointment of -the professor, whose renown was now great, for another six -years, with a considerable increase of salary.<a name="FNanchor_35" id="FNanchor_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> - -<p>As we have seen, he had for a long time renounced the prevailing -views about the universe; but up to this time he had -discussed only physical mathematical questions with the Peripatetic -school, the subject of astronomy had not been mooted. -But the sudden appearance of a new star in the constellation -of Serpentarius, in October, 1604, which, after exhibiting -various colours for a year and a half, as suddenly -disappeared, induced him openly to attack one of the Aristotelian -doctrines hitherto held most sacred, that of the unchangeableness -of the heavens. Galileo demonstrated, in three -lectures to a numerous audience, that this star was neither a -mere meteor, nor yet a heavenly body which had before existed -but had only now been observed, but a body which had -recently appeared and had again vanished.<a name="FNanchor_36" id="FNanchor_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> The subject,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span> -though not immediately connected with the Copernican -question, was an important step taken on the dangerous and -rarely trodden path of knowledge of nature, uninfluenced by -dogmatism or petrified professorial wisdom. This inviolability -of the vault of heaven was also conditioned by the -prevailing views of the universe. What wonder then that -most of the professors who had grown grey in the Aristotelian -doctrine (Cremonio for instance, Coressio, Lodovico delle -Colombo, and Balthasar Capra) were incensed at these opinions -of Galileo, so opposed to all their scientific prepossessions, -and vehemently controverted them.</p> - -<p>The spark, however, which was to set fire to the abundant -inflammable material, and to turn the scientific and religious -world, in which doubt had before been glimmering, into a -veritable volcano, the spark which kindled Galileo’s genius -and made him for a long time the centre of that period of -storm and stress, was the discovery of the telescope.</p> - -<p>We will not claim for Galileo, as many of his biographers -have erroneously done, priority in the construction of the -telescope. We rely far more on Galileo’s own statements -than on those of his eulogists, who aim at effect. Galileo -relates with perfect simplicity at the beginning of the “Sidereus -Nuncius,” published at Venice in 1610, that he had heard -about ten months ago that an instrument had been made by -a Dutchman, by means of which distant objects were brought -nearer and could be seen very plainly. The confirmation of -the report by one of his former pupils, a French nobleman, -Jean Badovere of Paris, had induced him to reflect upon the -means by which such an effect could be produced. By the -laws of refraction he soon attained his end. With two glasses -fixed at the ends of a leaden tube, both having one side flat -and the other side of the one being concave and of the other -convex, his primitive telescope, which made objects appear -three times nearer and nine times larger, was constructed. But -now, having “spared neither expense nor labour,” he had got -so far as to construct an instrument which magnified an object<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span> -nearly a thousand times, and brought it more than thirty -times nearer.<a name="FNanchor_37" id="FNanchor_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> Although, therefore, it is clear from this that -the first idea of the telescope does not belong to Galileo, it -is equally clear that he found out how to construct it from -his own reflection and experiments. Undoubtedly also the -merit of having made great improvements in it belongs to -him, which is shown by the fact that at that time, and long -afterwards, his telescopes were the most sought after, and -that he received numerous orders for them from learned men, -princes and governments in distant lands, Holland, the birthplace -of the telescope, not excepted.<a name="FNanchor_38" id="FNanchor_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> But the idea which -first gave to the instrument its scientific importance, the -application of it to astronomical observations, belongs not to -the original inventor but to the genius of Galileo. This -alone would have made his name immortal.<a name="FNanchor_39" id="FNanchor_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> - -<p>A few days after he had constructed his instrument, imperfect -as it doubtless was, he hastened with it to Venice, -having received an invitation, to exhibit it to the doge and -senate, for he at once recognised its importance, if not to -the full extent. We will now let Galileo speak for himself in -a letter which he wrote from Venice to his brother-in-law, -Benedetto Landucci:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“You must know then that about two months ago a report was spread -here that in Flanders a spy-glass had been presented to Prince Maurice, so -ingeniously constructed that it made the most distant objects appear quite -near, so that a man could be seen quite plainly at a distance of two -<i>miglia</i>. This result seemed to me so extraordinary that it set me thinking;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span> -and as it appeared to me that it depended upon the theory of perspective, -I reflected on the manner of constructing it, in which I was at length so -entirely successful that I made a spy-glass which far surpasses the report -of the Flanders one. As the news had reached Venice that I had made -such an instrument, six days ago I was summoned before their highnesses -the signoria, and exhibited it to them, to the astonishment of the -whole senate. Many noblemen and senators, although of a great age, -mounted the steps of the highest church towers at Venice, in order to see -sails and shipping that were so far off that it was two hours before they -were seen steering full sail into the harbour without my spy-glass, for -the effect of my instrument is such that it makes an object fifty <i>miglia</i> off -appear as large and near as if it were only five.”<a name="FNanchor_40" id="FNanchor_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo further relates in the same letter that he had -presented one of his instruments to the senate, in return for -which his professorship at Padua had been conferred on him -for life, with an increase of salary to one thousand florins.<a name="FNanchor_41" id="FNanchor_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> - -<p>On his return to Padua he became eagerly engrossed in -telescopic observation of the heavens. The astonishing and -sublime discoveries which were disclosed to him must in any -case have possessed the deepest interest for the philosopher -who was continually seeking to solve nature’s problems, and -were all the more so, since they contributed materially to -confirm the Copernican theory.</p> - -<p>His observations were first directed to the moon, and he -discovered that its surface was mountainous, which showed at -all events that the earth’s satellite was something like the -earth itself, and therefore by no means restored it to the -aristocratic position in the universe from which it had been -displaced by Copernicus. The milky way, as seen through -the telescope, revealed an immense number of small stars. -In Orion, instead of the seven heavenly bodies already known, -five hundred new stars were seen; the number of the Pleiades, -which had been fixed at seven, rose to thirty-six; the planets -showed themselves as disks, while the fixed stars appeared as -before, as mere bright specks in the firmament.</p> - -<p>But the indefatigable observer’s far most important discovery,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> -in its bearing on the Copernican theory, was that of -the moons of Jupiter, in January 1610. As they exhibited -motions precisely similar to those which Copernicus had -assumed for the whole solar system, they strongly fortified -his theory. It was placed beyond all doubt that our planet -was not the centre of all the heavenly bodies, since Jupiter’s -moons revolved round him. The latter was brought, so to -speak, by the discovery of his attendants, into relations with -the earth which, considering the prevailing views, were humiliating -enough, and the more so since Jupiter had four satellites -while the earth had only one. There remained, however, -the consoling assurance that he and they revolved round our -abode!</p> - -<p>In honour of the reigning house of his native country, and -as an acknowledgment of favours received from it (for since -the accession of Cosmo II.<a name="FNanchor_42" id="FNanchor_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> Galileo had been in high favour), -he called Jupiter’s moons “Medicean stars.” The urgent -solicitude of the French court to gain, by Galileo’s aid, a -permanent place on the chart of the heavens, is very amusing. -Thus, on 20th April, 1610, he received a pressing request, -“in case he discovered any other fine star, to call it after the -great star of France, Henry IV., then reigning, the most -brilliant in the whole universe, and to give it his proper name -of Henry rather than that of the family name of Bourbon.” -Galileo communicated this flattering request, as he seems -to have considered it, with much satisfaction to the secretary -of the Tuscan court, Vincenzo Giugni, in a letter from Padua, -on 25th June, 1610,<a name="FNanchor_43" id="FNanchor_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> as an evidence of the great importance -attached to his telescopic discoveries. He added that he did -not expect to find any more planets, as he had already made -many very close observations.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p> - -<p>Galileo published by degrees all the discoveries he had -made at Padua, of which we have only noticed the most -important, in the work before mentioned, the “Sidereus -Nuncius”; it was dedicated to the Grand Duke, Cosmo II., -and the first edition appeared at Venice, in March, 1610.</p> - -<p>Although the unexpected discoveries which Galileo had -made with his telescope had confirmed his opinion that the -system of Copernicus was the only one consistent with the -facts of nature, had indeed made it his absolute conviction, -he had not yet ventured to defend it in his works. He contented -himself with stating bare facts, without showing their -relation to the ideas of Copernicus, leaving this to the learning -and insight of the reader. Moreover, the logical inferences -from Jupiter’s moons must surely stare every thoughtful -man in the face, and so indeed they did in a way very -unwelcome to the scientific conservatives.</p> - -<p>The storm raised by Galileo’s latest announcements was -tremendous. People heard with amazement the extraordinary -things which the new invention had brought to light, and -paid a just tribute of admiration to the man to whose labours -it was due. But these discoveries were so directly opposed -to the traditional natural philosophy, still regarded as the -highest wisdom, that the “Sidereus Nuncius” had met with -many opponents. It must however be borne in mind that -at the time of its first publication very few of the learned -were in a position to convince themselves with their own -eyes of the correctness of the appearances seen with the -telescope, simply because they had not the instrument at -hand. From this cause, even Kepler did not see the satellites -of Jupiter till 30th August, 1610. But men so free from -jealousy and prejudice as Kepler (who, on reading the -“Sidereus Nuncius,” at once recognised the truth of the -discoveries, and said with enthusiasm that “Galileo had in -this book given evidence of the divinity of his genius”<a name="FNanchor_44" id="FNanchor_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a>), -have at all times been rare.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span></p> - -<p>At first, therefore, the majority of the learned world shook -their heads incredulously about the phenomena announced -by the “Nuncius,” especially in Italy, where envy lent its -aid to bring an armed opposition into the field. Little did -it at first avail that Kepler, renowned as the first astronomer -in Germany, was on the side of the “Sidereus Nuncius”; for -in May of the same year he had a reprint of the work issued -at Prague, with an introduction in which he expressed his -entire conviction of the truth of the telescopic discoveries -made known by it, and answered all objections.<a name="FNanchor_45" id="FNanchor_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> In vain. -These new discoveries were too revolutionary to be believed. -Even upright and estimable scientific men, like Welser in -Augsburg, and Clavius at Rome, did not give credit to -Galileo’s statements until they learnt better by their own -observations. The latter, who was the first mathematician -in Rome in his day, even said “he laughed at the pretended -satellites of Jupiter; you must construct a telescope which would -first make them and then show them.” Let Galileo -hold his own opinions, and he (Clavius) would hold his.<a name="FNanchor_46" id="FNanchor_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p> - -<p>But the leader of an unworthy agitation in Italy against -Galileo was a man who assumed this attitude from very -different motives from the sacred service of science. This -was the well-known Professor Magini, astronomer at the -university of Bologna, who, next to Galileo, enjoyed the -highest reputation for learning in Italy. He could not brook -that his famous countryman should all at once obtain the -highest fame with seven-league boots, leaving a pigmy like -himself far behind, by means of the discoveries made known -in his “Sidereus Nuncius.” He must not only be refuted,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> -the refutation must be circulated as widely as possible. But -the most repulsive feature in Magini’s conduct towards -Galileo is his double-facedness. He never openly ventured -with any work into the arena himself, but incited others all -the more from behind concealment.<a name="FNanchor_47" id="FNanchor_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> Even if we do not, -with Martin Hasdal and Alexander Sertini, accuse him of -being exactly the instigator of the famous libel “Peregrinatio -contra Nuncium Sidereum,” published by his assistant, Martin -Horky, against Galileo in 1610, which excited the indignation -of all the right-minded learned world, we cannot acquit him -of complicity with him, and of having had a hand, more or -less, in that pamphlet. The suspicion is strongly confirmed -by the ostentation with which Magini, when told of the -publication of the “Peregrinatio,” drove the author, with -disgust and ridicule, out of his house, and took occasion to -assert on all hands that he had nothing whatever to do with -the shameful act of his famulus, an assertion in strange contradiction -with the excuse afterwards made by Horky to -Kepler.<a name="FNanchor_48" id="FNanchor_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> By Kepler’s advice Galileo did not do him the -honour of answering. The task was undertaken by Wedderburn, -a Scotchman, formerly a pupil of Galileo’s, and Antonio -Roffeni, professor of philosophy at the university of Bologna; -the former at Padua during the same year, the latter at -Bologna in 1611.<a name="FNanchor_49" id="FNanchor_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile, in July, 1610, Galileo had observed a new -appearance in the heavens by means of his telescope, the -ring of Saturn. In consequence, however, of the imperfection<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span> -of the instrument, it did not appear like a ring, but -Saturn looked like a triple star. Galileo, who on the one -hand did not wish to make the new discovery public until -he had sufficiently observed it, yet feared on the other that -some one might claim priority, at once communicated it in a -letter from Padua, 30th July, 1610,<a name="FNanchor_50" id="FNanchor_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> to his influential friend -Belisario Vinta, chief secretary of state to Cosmo II., but -urgently begged him to keep it a secret. But even this did -not seem sufficient to secure his right to the first observation -of Saturn, so he announced it to his friends in the following -absurd anagram:—</p> - -<p class="center">SMAJSMRMJLMEPOETALEVNJPVNENVGTTAVJRAS.</p> - -<p>Kepler puzzled for a long time over this enigma, and at -last only made out the barbaric line, “Salve umbistineum -geminatum Martia proles,” which he incorrectly applied to the -planet Mars. At length, after repeated requests, and after -Julian de’ Medici, Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, -had been charged by the Emperor to ask for a solution, he -complied with the illustrious wish, and in a letter to Julian of -13th November, 1610,<a name="FNanchor_51" id="FNanchor_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> gave the following startling explanation:—</p> - -<p class="center">Altissimum Planetam tergeminum observavi.</p> - -<p>The learned and semi-learned world of Italy had not yet -had time to become reconciled to the surprising discoveries -announced in the “Sidereus Nuncius” of March in the same -year, when the asserted triple nature of Saturn contravened -the prevailing idea that there was nothing new to be discovered -in the heavens. The recognition of Galileo’s telescopic -discoveries made way very slowly. From the first he -spared no pains in popularising them. He did this repeatedly -in public lectures, and with so much success that he -could write to Vinta: “even the most exalted personages, -who have been most vehement in attacking my doctrines, at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> -length gave up the game for lost, and acknowledged, <i>coram -populo</i>, that they were not only convinced but ready to defend -them against those philosophers and mathematicians who -ventured to attack them.”<a name="FNanchor_52" id="FNanchor_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p> - -<p>But it was only at the University of Padua that Galileo could -report such rapid progress; and until the Maginis, Clavios, and -others were convinced by their own eyes, and confirmed to -their own party the truth of Galileo’s disclosures, he had to -sustain a hard struggle with incredulity, malice, and peripatetic -fanaticism. Some rabid Aristotelians went so far as to say -that Galileo’s telescope was so constructed as to show things -that did not exist! Nor did it mend the matter much when -he offered 10,000 scudi to any one who should construct so -cunning an instrument.<a name="FNanchor_53" id="FNanchor_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> Others resolutely refused even to -look through the telescope, giving it as their firm conviction -that they would not be able to see appearances which Aristotle -had not said a word about in all his books! The answer -that Aristotle was not acquainted with the telescope, and -could not have known anything of telescopic appearances, -rebounded without effect from the petrified infallibility of -Aristotelian wisdom. Nor must it be supposed that these -short-sighted conservatives only numbered a few would-be -<i>savans</i> of the Peripatetic school; on the contrary, celebrities -like Cesare Cremonino da Cento, and Julius Libri, denied -Galileo’s discoveries <i>a priori</i>.<a name="FNanchor_54" id="FNanchor_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> When Libri died in December, -1610, without having been willing to look through a -telescope, and protesting against Galileo’s “absurdities,” -Galileo wrote in a letter of 17th December that this rigid -opponent of his “absurdities,” as he was never willing to look -at them from earth, might perhaps see them on his way to -heaven!<a name="FNanchor_55" id="FNanchor_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> - -<p>Some passages from a letter of Galileo’s to Kepler, of 19th -August, 1610, will best show how some of these men of -science turned away with a righteous awe from the inconvenient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> -recognition of the truth. Galileo writes among other -things:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“You are the first and almost the only person who, even after but a -cursory investigation, has, such is your openness of mind and lofty genius, -given entire credit to my statements.... We will not trouble ourselves -about the abuse of the multitude, for against Jupiter even giants, -to say nothing of pigmies, fight in vain. Let Jupiter stand in the heavens, -and let the sycophants bark at him as they will.... In Pisa, -Florence, Bologna, Venice, and Padua many have seen the planets; but -all are silent on the subject and undecided, for the greater number recognise -neither Jupiter nor Mars and scarcely the moon as planets. At -Venice one man spoke against me, boasting that he knew for certain -that my satellites of Jupiter, which he had several times observed, were -not planets because they were always to be seen with Jupiter, and either -all or some of them, now followed and now preceded him. What is to be -done? Shall we side with Democritus or Heraclitus? I think, my -Kepler, we will laugh at the extraordinary stupidity of the multitude. -What do you say to the leading philosophers of the faculty here, to whom -I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to show my studies, -but who with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent who has eaten his fill have -never consented to look at planets, nor moon, nor telescope? Verily, just -as serpents close their ears, so do these men close their eyes to the light -of truth. These are great matters; yet they do not occasion me any -surprise. People of this sort think that philosophy is a kind of book like -the Æneid or the Odyssey, and that the truth is to be sought, not in the -universe, not in nature, but (I use their own words) <i>by comparing texts</i>! -How you would laugh if you heard what things the first philosopher of -the faculty at Pisa brought against me in the presence of the Grand Duke, -for he tried, now with logical arguments, now with magical adjurations, to -tear down and argue the new planets out of heaven.”<a name="FNanchor_56" id="FNanchor_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>REMOVAL TO FLORENCE.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic Duties.—Projected -Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change the source -of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of Venus and -Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant Reception.—Letter -from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The Inquisition.—Introduction -of Theology into the Scientific Controversy.—“Dianoja -Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo’s fame, especially through his telescopic discoveries, -and partly also through the exertions of his noisy opponents, had -long extended beyond the narrow bounds of Italy, and the eyes -of all central Europe were directed to the great astronomer. -Numbers of pupils flocked to him from all countries, so that -no lecture room in Padua was large enough to hold them. -There were some distinguished personages among them, such -as the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Landgrave Philip -of Hesse, the princes of Alsace, Mantua, etc., who mostly -came to attend the lectures of the versatile master on fortification. -It is, however, another fable of over zealous biographers -to state that even Gustavus Adolphus, the hero of the -thirty years’ war, went to school for some months to Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_57" id="FNanchor_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p> - -<p>This close occupation, with lectures and private lessons of -all kinds, took him too much away from his own studies, and -after twenty years’ professorship Galileo longed for a post in -which he could prosecute his own researches, and devote himself -to the completion of his works, free from academic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> -duties. A letter from Padua, even in the spring of 1609,<a name="FNanchor_58" id="FNanchor_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> -shows his longing for this salaried leisure. But he is aware -that the republic can never offer him such a post, “for it -would not be suitable to receive a salary from a free state, -however generous and magnanimous, without serving the -public for it; because if you derive benefit from the public, -you have the public to please, and not a mere private person.” -He also mentions that he can only hope for such a favour -from some absolute sovereign; but it must not be supposed -that he wishes for an income without doing anything for it; -he was in possession of various inventions, was almost daily -making new ones, and should make more if he had the -necessary leisure. Galileo adds that it has always been his -intention “to offer them to his own sovereign and natural -lord before any other, that he may dispose of them and the -inventor according to his pleasure; and if it seemed good to -his serene highness to accept it, to present him not only with -the jewel but with the casket also.”</p> - -<p>This first attempt of Galileo’s, however, to gain a footing at -the court of Tuscany seems to have been unsuccessful. At -any rate in the extant correspondence of this period there is -not a word more on the subject; and a few months later, after -the construction of the telescope, he thankfully accepted the -chair of mathematics at Padua offered to him for life by the -republic. But this invention and the consequent discoveries -had meanwhile acquired such vast importance, and had, as we -have seen, raised such a storm in the whole educated world, -that it now appeared very desirable to the court of Tuscany -to attach to itself for ever the man on whom the eyes of -scientific Europe were fixed.</p> - -<p>The first steps towards this end were taken when Galileo -went to Florence in the Easter recess of 1610 to show his -telescopic discoveries to Cosmo II., especially the stars which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> -bore the name of the reigning house. We afterwards find -Galileo entering eagerly into the negotiations which followed. -In the letter to Vinta before mentioned, of May 7th, 1610, -he presses for a decision, for, he says, observing that day -after day goes by, he was determined to set a definite purpose -before him in the ordering of the life that may be left -to him, and to devote all his powers to perfect the fruits of -his previous efforts and studies, from which he might look -for some fame. He then mentions the conditions on which -he at present serves the republic, perhaps in order that they -might be guided by it at Florence; but what he lays most -stress on is that it is of the utmost moment to him that -leisure should be assured him for the completion of his -labours, by his being freed from the obligation to give public -lectures; but it will always confer on him the highest honour -to give lectures to his sovereign, to whom also he will dedicate -all his writings.</p> - -<p>The same letter is also of the highest interest as giving us -an insight into the scientific projects he was then cherishing. -He communicates to the Tuscan secretary of state the -works the completion of which lies so near his heart. He -says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The works which I have to finish are chiefly two books <i>de systemate, -seu constitutione universi</i>, a vast project full of philosophy, -astronomy, and geometry; three books <i>de motu locali</i>, an entirely new -science, for no other inquirer, ancient or modern, has discovered any -of the wonderful phenomena which I show to be present in natural and -induced motion; I may therefore with perfect justice call it a new -science discovered by me from its first principles; three books on -mechanics, two relating to the demonstration of the principles and -fundamental propositions, one containing the problems; although others -have treated of the same subject, what has been hitherto written upon it -is neither as to extent nor in other respects a fourth part of what I am -writing. I have also various smaller works in view on matters connected -with nature, such as <i>de sono et voce</i>, <i>de visu et coloribus</i>, <i>de maris -æstu</i>, <i>de compositione continui</i>, <i>de animalium motibus</i>, and others. -I am also thinking of writing some books for the soldier, not only to -cultivate his mind, but to teach him by select instruction all those things -connected with mathematics which it would be an advantage to him to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> -know, as, for instance, castrametation, military tactics, fortification, sieges, -surveying, estimate of distances, artillery, the use of various instruments, -etc.”<a name="FNanchor_59" id="FNanchor_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>We regard with astonishment the wonderful versatility -which we find displayed in Galileo’s works. And amongst -them are not only all the larger ones announced in the above -letter; his important telescopic discoveries and his ceaselessly -active mind led him far to surpass the bounds he had -set himself, for he was the first to infuse conscious life into -the slumbering idea of the Copernican system.</p> - -<p>This memorable letter of Galileo’s soon brought the court -of Tuscany to a decision. Fourteen days later, 22nd May, -Vinta wrote to him, as a preliminary, that the Grand Duke -seemed well disposed to recall him to his native country and -to grant all his wishes.<a name="FNanchor_60" id="FNanchor_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> He promised to inform Galileo as -soon as it was all settled. On 5th June he wrote that -Cosmo II. was willing to nominate him as first philosopher -and mathematician of the University of Pisa, with an annual -stipend of 1000 Florentine scudi, without any obligation to -live at Pisa or to give lectures. Vinta requested Galileo to -let him know whether he agreed to these conditions, in order -that he might have the necessary application drawn up in -Galileo’s name, as well as the decree and rescript; the time -of their publication shall be left to Galileo, and meanwhile -all shall be kept secret.<a name="FNanchor_61" id="FNanchor_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> Galileo wished particularly that -nothing should be known at Venice of these negotiations, -which did not place his gratitude to the republic which had -shown him so much favour in the best light, until all was -decided and therefore irrevocable.</p> - -<p>Having declared himself entirely satisfied with the proposed -conditions, in a letter to the secretary of state, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> -only alteration being that he should like not only to be first -mathematician at Pisa, but also first mathematician and philosopher -to the Grand Duke himself,<a name="FNanchor_62" id="FNanchor_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> the decree summoning -him to the court of Tuscany in this twofold capacity was -issued on 12th July, 1610.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding all the great advantages which this new -post secured to him, it was a very bad exchange for Galileo -from the free republican soil to the doubtful protection -of a princely house which, although very well disposed -towards him, could never offer so decided an opposition -to the Roman curia as the republic of Venice. It was -indeed the first step which precipitated Galileo’s fate.<a name="FNanchor_63" id="FNanchor_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> In -the Venetian republic full liberty of doctrine was really -enjoyed, in religious Tuscany it was only nominal. In -Venice politics and science were secure from Jesuitical -intrigues; for when Pope Paul V. thought proper to place the -contumacious republic under an interdict in April, 1606, the -Jesuit fathers had been compelled to quit the soil of Venice -“for ever.”<a name="FNanchor_64" id="FNanchor_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> In Tuscany, on the contrary, where they felt -quite at home, their influence weighed heavily on everything -affecting their own interests, and especially therefore on -politics and science. Had Galileo never left the pure, wholesome -air of the free city for the stifling Romish atmosphere -of a court, he would have escaped the subsequent persecutions -of Rome; for the republic which, not long before, -had been undaunted by the papal excommunication of their -doge and senate, would assuredly never have given up one of -its university professors to the vengeance of the Inquisition.</p> - -<p>At the beginning of September, 1610, Galileo, to the -no small displeasure of the Paduans, left their university, -at which eighteen years before he had found willing reception<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span> -and support when his longer tarriance at Pisa had -become impossible; deserted his noble friends, Fra Paolo -Sarpi, Francesco Sagredo, and others; and proceeded to the -capital of the court of Tuscany on the lovely banks of the -Arno, where at first, it is true, much honour was done him, -but where afterwards envy, jealousy, narrowness, ill will, and -fanaticism combined together to his destruction. One of his -most devoted friends, Francesco Sagredo, foresaw it. When -Galileo left Venice he was in the East, in the service of the -republic, and did not return till the spring of 1611, when he -wrote a remarkable letter to his friend at Florence. After -having heartily expressed his regret at not finding Galileo -on his return home, he states his doubts about the step his -friend had taken. He asks, among other things, “where will -he find the same liberty as in the Venetian territory? And -notwithstanding all the generous qualities of the young ruler, -which permitted the hope that Galileo’s merits will be justly -valued, who can promise with any confidence that, if not -ruined, he may not be persecuted and disquieted on the -surging billows of court life, by the raging storms of envy?” -It is evident from another passage in the letter that Galileo’s -behaviour had made a bad impression at Venice, where they -had not long before raised his salary to a thousand florins, -and conferred his professorship on him for life; towards the -end of the letter Sagredo lets fall the ominous words that -he “was convinced <i>that as Galileo could not regain what he -had lost</i>, he would take good care to hold fast what he had -gained.”<a name="FNanchor_65" id="FNanchor_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p> - -<p>Only a month after Galileo’s arrival at Florence he made a -fresh discovery in astronomy which eventually contributed to -confirm the Copernican theory, namely, the varying crescent -form of the planet Venus. With this the important objection -to the new system seemed to be removed, that Venus and -Mercury did not exhibit the same phases of light as the moon, -which must be the case if the earth moved, for they would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span> -vary with her position in the universe. Galileo communicated -this appearance, which entailed conclusions so important, and -which he therefore wished to investigate more thoroughly -before making it known, to his friend and correspondent -Julian de’ Medici at Prague, in an alphabetical enigma, as in -the case of the singular appearance of Saturn. It was as -follows:</p> - -<p class="center">“Hæc immatura a me jam frustra leguntur o y.”<a name="FNanchor_66" id="FNanchor_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> - -<p>Having fully convinced himself by nearly three months’ -observations that Venus and Mars exhibited phases similar -to those of the moon, he made it known in two letters of 30th -December<a name="FNanchor_67" id="FNanchor_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> to Father Clavius, at Rome, and to his former -distinguished pupil Benedetto Castelli, abbot of the congregation -of Monte Cassino, in Brescia; and in a letter of 1st -January, 1611, he sent the following solution of the anagram -to Julian de’ Medici:—</p> - -<p class="center">“Cynthiæ figuras æmulatur mater amorum.”</p> - -<p>In this letter he draws the important conclusions, first that -none of the planets shine by their own light, and secondly -“that necessarily Venus and Mercury revolve round the sun; -a circumstance which was surmised of the other planets by -Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, and their followers, but -which could not be proved by ocular demonstration, as it -could now in the case of Venus and Mercury. Kepler and -the other Copernicans may now be proud to have judged -and philosophised correctly, and it may well excite disgust -that they were regarded by the generality of men of book -learning as having little understanding and as not much -better than fools.”<a name="FNanchor_68" id="FNanchor_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> - -<p>At this time Galileo was also eagerly occupied with a -phenomenon which was to be a further confirmation of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> -Copernican view of the universe, the spots on the sun. By -attentively observing their motions on the sun’s disk he afterwards -discovered the sun’s motion on its own axis, a fatal -blow to the Ptolemaic system. Although to science it may -be quite indifferent whether Galileo, or Fabricius, or the -Jesuit father Scheiner first espied the spots on the sun (for -they all lay claim to the discovery), for us it has its importance, -because the bitter contention between Galileo and -Scheiner on the subject materially contributed to set the -stone rolling which, in its fall, was no less disastrous to the -moral greatness of Galileo than to the erudition of Rome.</p> - -<p>In consideration of the intense interest excited by Galileo’s -“epoch-making” discoveries, the Roman curia, which still -held it to be one of its most important duties to guard -mankind as much as possible from precocious knowledge, was -of course eager to learn more about them, and above all, of -the conclusions which the discoverer drew from them. It -must also have appeared of great importance to Galileo to -acquaint the Roman <i>savans</i> and dignitaries of the Church -with his scientific achievements, for the authority and influence -then exercised by them over the free progress of -science made their opinions of the utmost moment to him. -They must, if possible, be first made to see the premises with -their own eyes, that they might afterwards be able to comprehend -and assent to the conclusions. Galileo clearly saw this, -as appears from a letter of 15th January, 1611, to Vinta<a name="FNanchor_69" id="FNanchor_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> (who -was then with the court at Pisa), in which he urgently begs -permission for a visit to the papal residence. The request -was not only immediately granted, but the court placed a -litter at his disposal, undertook to defray all his expenses, -and directed the Tuscan ambassador at Rome to prepare -quarters for him at the embassy and to entertain him during -the whole of his stay.<a name="FNanchor_70" id="FNanchor_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> Meanwhile, however, Galileo was attacked<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> -by an illness which delayed his journey for nearly two -months. On 22nd March he received a cordial letter of introduction<a name="FNanchor_71" id="FNanchor_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> -from Michel Angelo the younger to Cardinal Barberini, -afterwards Urban VIII., and on the next day he set -out provided with his most convincing arguments, namely -several excellent telescopes.</p> - -<p>He was received with the greatest honour. His triumphs -were really extraordinary, so great that they were sure to -secure for him numerous personal enemies in addition to the -opponents of his doctrines. He exhibited the oft discussed -appearances to cardinals and learned men through the telescope, -and, whenever he could, dispelled their doubts by the -incontrovertible evidence of their own eyes. People could -not refuse to believe this, and Galileo’s success in the papal -city was complete. Of still greater importance, however, was -the opinion given on 24th April by four scientific authorities -of the Roman College, on the character “of the new astronomical -discoveries of an excellent astronomer,” at the request -of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This commission, consisting -of the learned fathers Clavius, Griemberger, Malcotio, and -Lembo, confirmed what they had long denied and ridiculed, -convinced by the evidence of their own senses of the truth of -the facts maintained by Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_72" id="FNanchor_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> By this opinion of the -papal experts his discoveries received, to a certain extent, -the sanction of the Church, and became acknowledged truths. -The care with which the mention of Galileo’s name is avoided -both in the request and the opinion is remarkable.</p> - -<p>Attentions of all sorts were heaped upon the astronomer. -Pope Paul V. granted him a long audience and graciously -assured him of his unalterable good will, which however did not -remain quite unaltered in the sequel. The highest dignitaries<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> -of the Church testified their admiration; the Accadémia dei -Lincei (of the Lynxes), founded six years before by Prince -Cesi, made the renowned guest a member; when he took -his departure at the beginning of June he left behind him in -the metropolis of catholicism as many sincere friends and -admirers as envious foes, the fate of all really great men.</p> - -<p>A letter from Cardinal del Monte of 31st May, 1611, to -Cosmo II., best shows how successful Galileo’s visit to Rome -was. He writes with real enthusiasm:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Galileo has during his stay at Rome given great satisfaction, and -I think he must have felt it no less himself, for he had the opportunity of -showing his discoveries so well that to all clever and learned men in -this city they seemed no less true and well founded than astonishing. -Were we still living under the ancient republic of Rome, I verily believe -there would have been a column on the Capitol erected in his honour. -It appeared to me to be my duty to accompany his return with this -letter, and to bear witness to your Highness of the above, as I feel -assured that it will be agreeable to you, since your Highness entertains -such gracious good will towards your subjects, and to distinguished men -like Galileo.”<a name="FNanchor_73" id="FNanchor_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But the watchful Inquisition had already directed its -attention to the man who had made such portentous discoveries -in the heavens. How far this had gone we unfortunately -do not exactly know. The only well authenticated -indication we possess is the following notice in the -protocols of the sittings of the Holy Congregation: “Feria -iii. die, 17 Maii, 1611. Videatur an in Processu Doctoris -Cæsaris Cremonini sit nominatus Galilaeus Philosophiæ ac -Mathematicæ Professor.”<a name="FNanchor_74" id="FNanchor_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> This is the first time that the -name of Galileo occurs in the papers of the Congregation of -the Holy Office, and it was in the midst of the applause -which greeted him in the eternal city. Whether, and in what -way, this official query was answered is not to be found in -the documents of the Inquisition. But it looks ominous -that there should be an inquiry about a connection between<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span> -Galileo and Cremonini who was undergoing a trial. The -causes and course of the trial of Cremonini by the Inquisition -are not yet known. All that is known is that he was Professor -of the philosophy of Aristotle at the University of -Padua; and it appears from the letters of Sagredo to Galileo, -that his lectures and writings had given rise to suspicions -of atheism. For the rest, Cremonini was all his life one of -Galileo’s most decided enemies.</p> - -<p>The very triumphs of Galileo and his telescopic discoveries -were the causes, to a great extent, of those ceaseless and -relentless persecutions which were to restrict his labours and -embitter his life. The Aristotelians perceived with rage and -terror the revolutionary discoveries of this dangerous -innovator were surely, if slowly, gaining ground. Every one -of them, with its inevitable logical consequences, pulled down -some important stone in the artistic structure of their views -of nature; and unless some measures were taken to arrest -the demolition, it was clear that the venerable edifice must -fall and bury the inmates beneath the ruins. This must be -averted at any price, even at the price of knowledge of the -acts of nature. If Galileo’s reformed physics offered no -point of attack, his astronomy did; not indeed in the -honourable contest of scientific discussion, but by bringing -theology into the field against science.</p> - -<p>Galileo had never openly proclaimed his adoption of the -earth’s double motion, but the demonstration of his telescopic -observations alone sufficed to make it one of the burning -questions of the day. What were the phases of Venus and -Mercury, the motions of the solar spots, and above all Jupiter -and his moons, this little world within our large one, as -Galileo afterwards called it himself,<a name="FNanchor_75" id="FNanchor_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> but telling proofs of -the truth of the Copernican theory? The question of the -two systems had been hitherto an exclusively scientific one. -How else could the famous philosopher and astronomer -Nicholas of Casa, who taught the double motion of the earth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> -in the fifteenth century, have gained a cardinal’s hat? How -could the German, Widmanstadt, have explained his theory, -which was based upon the same principles, to Pope Clement -VII. in 1533? How could learned men like Celio Calganini, -Wurteis, and others, have given public lectures on the subject -in Italy in the second half of the sixteenth century? Neither -Casa, however, nor Widmanstadt, Calganini, Wurteis, nor even -Copernicus, had ventured openly to declare war with the -school of Aristotle, nor to overthrow by the crushing evidence -of experiment the dogmas of natural science based upon -philosophy and <i>a priori</i> arguments alone. These learned -men had been tolerated because they fought with the same -weapons as the followers of Ptolemy, logic and philosophy. -They did not possess the powerful lever of direct evidence, -because they were not acquainted with the telescope. But -Galileo, with his fatal system of demonstration by observation -of nature, was far too dangerous a foe. Peripateticism was -no match for the home thrusts of arguments obvious to the -senses, and its defenders were well aware that if they would -not yield their position they must call in some other ally -than mere science. And they adopted the means best -adapted for putting a temporary drag on the wheels of truth, -and for ruining Galileo; in order to prop up the failing -authority of Aristotle they called in the inviolable authority -of Holy Scripture!</p> - -<p>This dragging of the Bible into what had previously been -a purely scientific controversy, a proceeding which proved -so fatal to Galileo, must not however, as has been done by -several authors, be attributed solely to party considerations -or even personal motives. This is absolutely false. Greatly -as these factors were concerned in it, it must be admitted -that at first they were only incidentally mixed up with it. -The multitude of the learned, who still adhered entirely to -the old system of the universe, and regarded the theories -of Copernicus (not yet based on ocular demonstration) as -mere fantasies, were really aghast at the telescopic discoveries<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> -of Galileo which threatened to overturn all their previous -beliefs. The learned, and still more the semi-learned, world -of Italy felt the ground tremble beneath their feet; and it -seemed to them as if the foundations of all physics, mathematics, -philosophy, and religion, were, with the authority of -Aristotle, which had reigned for two thousand years, being -borne to the grave. This did not present itself to them as -progress but as sacrilege.</p> - -<p>A young fanatic, the monk Sizy (the same who seven -years later was broken on the wheel for political crimes at -Paris), was the first to transfer what had been a purely scientific -discussion to the slippery arena of theology. At the -beginning of 1611 he published at Venice a work called -“Dianoja Astronomica”<a name="FNanchor_76" id="FNanchor_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> in answer to the “Sidereus Nuncius,” -in which he asserted that the existence of the moons -of Jupiter was incompatible with the doctrines of Holy Scripture. -He appropriately dedicated his book to that semi-prince -of the blood, John de’ Medici, who was known to be -the mortal enemy of Galileo. The author, as we learn from -his own work, was one of those contemptible men who -carefully abstained from even looking through a telescope, -although firmly convinced that the wonders announced by -Galileo were not to be seen. Galileo did not vouchsafe to -defend himself from this monkish attack any more than from -Horky’s libel the year before. He contented himself with -writing on the back of the title page of the copy still preserved -in the National Library at Florence the following -lines from Ariosto:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Soggiunse il duca: Non sarebbe onesto</div> -<div class="verse">Che io volessi la battaglia torre,</div> -<div class="verse">Di quel che m’ offerisco manifesto,</div> -<div class="verse">Quando ti piaccia, innanci agli occhi torre.”<a name="FNanchor_77" id="FNanchor_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span></p> - -<p>But Galileo’s envious foes at once consorted with the, at -all events, honourable fanatics of the old school, and eagerly -seized the opportunity of pursuing their miserable designs -“to the glory of God and imperilled religion.” It was in -Florence itself, in the palace of the Tuscan Archbishop -Marzimedici, who had once studied under Galileo at Pisa, that -secret consultations were held, presided over by this prelate, -how the inconvenient philosopher and his revolutionary system -might best be ruined. They even then went so far as to -request a preacher to hurl at Galileo from the pulpit the -accusation, more dangerous than any other in the sixteenth -century, that he was attacking the Bible with his doctrines. -But for this time these pious gentlemen had gone to the -wrong man, for the priest, seeing through the foul purpose of -the commission, declined it.</p> - -<p>Galileo had not the slightest knowledge of the secret conspiracy -which was plotting against him, and was first roused -from the security into which he had been lulled by the brilliant -success of his visit to Rome by a letter from his friend -there, Cigoli the painter, of 16th December, 1611.<a name="FNanchor_78" id="FNanchor_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> But he -did not at first attach to these communications the importance -they deserved, and it was not until several months -afterwards that he addressed himself to Cardinal Conti, who -was very friendly to him, to ask how far the Holy Scriptures -did really favour the Aristotelian views of the universe, and -whether the Copernican system contradicted them.</p> - -<p>Conti answered him in a letter of 7th July, 1612,<a name="FNanchor_79" id="FNanchor_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> that -the statements of Holy Scripture were rather against the -Aristotelian principle of the unchangeableness of the heavens -than in favour of it, for all the fathers had held the contrary -opinion. But the case was different with the doctrine of the -earth’s revolution round the sun, as held by the Pythagoreans, -Copernicus and others. This certainly did not seem to agree -with Holy Scripture, unless it was assumed that it merely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -adopted the customary mode of expression. But, added the -cardinal, that was a method of interpretation to be employed -only in case of the greatest necessity. Diego di -Zuñiga had indeed explained in this way, conformably with -the Copernican opinions, the passage in which Joshua commanded -the sun to stand still; but the explanation was not -generally admitted.</p> - -<p>Father Lorini also, professor of ecclesiastical history at -Florence, afterwards a ringleader of the base intrigues against -Galileo and an informant against him, wrote to him 5th -November, 1612,<a name="FNanchor_80" id="FNanchor_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> to deny a report that he had publicly -preached against Galileo. He only confessed to having given -it as his opinion, in a conversation about the two systems, -that the View of this <i>Ipernic</i>, or whatever his name might be, -appeared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Galileo wrote -in a letter of 5th January, 1613,<a name="FNanchor_81" id="FNanchor_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> to Prince Cesi: “The good -man is so well acquainted with the author of these doctrines -that he calls him <i>Ipernic</i>. You can see how and by whom -poor philosophy suffers.” It appears also from the same -letter that Galileo was now well aware of the intrigues being -carried on against him in Florence, for he says among other -things: “I thank you and all my dear friends very -much for your anxiety for my protection against the malice -which is constantly seeking to pick quarrels even here, and -the more so since the enemy is so near at hand; but as they -are but few in number, and their ‘league,’ as they call it -among themselves, is but of limited extent, I laugh at it.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about the Solar -Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s work on the subject at Rome.—Discussion -with the Grand Duchess Christine.—The Bible brought -into the controversy.—Ill-fated Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon -against Galileo.—Lorini denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop -Bonciani’s attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” -of the Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd -accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s -favour.</p> - -</div> - -<p>While the storm which was to burst over Galileo’s head was -thus slowly gathering, he was making important progress in -the departments of physics and mechanics.</p> - -<p>His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very -important results.<a name="FNanchor_82" id="FNanchor_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> In it he again took the field against the -Peripatetic philosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle -that the floating or partial immersion of bodies in water -depended chiefly on their form, for by his approved method -of studying the open book of nature he clearly showed the -error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid the foundations -of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old -school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of -course; but their polemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions -of antiquated wisdom had in their impotence mostly to -content themselves with wretched sophisms as opposed to -Galileo’s hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the -authority of Aristotle.</p> - -<p>The combatants who took the field with various writings to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> -defend the Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of -Galileo were the professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso -Palmerini, Lodovico delle Colombo, in 1612, and in 1613 -Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered by Benedetto -Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the -National Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity -for his opponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken -by severe misfortune. Although professing to be a Roman -Catholic, he was discovered to belong to the Greek Non-Uniat -church, which entailed the loss of his professorship at the -University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to answer Palmerini, -but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not -wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The -lame objections of the other two received a brilliant refutation -in a work published in 1615 by Castelli. From the -original MS., however, in the National Library at Florence, -which is mostly in Galileo’s handwriting, it is evident that he -was the real author.<a name="FNanchor_83" id="FNanchor_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p> - -<p>During the same year in which he had so alarmed the -Peripatetics by the treatise on floating bodies, he was much -occupied with the controversy with the Jesuit father, Scheiner, -before mentioned, professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt, -about the solar spots and the priority of their discovery. In -three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there in 1612) -he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym of “Apelles,” -the earliest observation of these appearances, and explained -them conformably to the traditional opinions. He -propounded the ingenious idea that these spots were a multitude -of little planets, passing over the sun’s disk as they revolved -round the earth. By this clever explanation he -secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed -himself the decided foe of Galileo. Challenged to do -so by Welser, Galileo replied in three letters addressed to -him, in which “Apelles” came off but poorly.<a name="FNanchor_84" id="FNanchor_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> Galileo convincingly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> -refuted his opponent’s explanation of the spots, and -brilliantly defended his own right to the priority of their discovery -by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made it -known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner’s, were -published in March, 1613, under the title “History and Explanation -of the Solar Spots,”<a name="FNanchor_85" id="FNanchor_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> with a fine portrait of Galileo, -and a dedication to his illustrious friend Salviati, of the -“Accadémia dei Lincei.”</p> - -<p>The publication of this work was of especial significance, -because it was the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the -side of the Copernican system. This accounts for the extraordinary -sensation made by these essays. The controversy -on the two systems came more and more to the front. And -yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem at -first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical -circles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals Maffeo -Barberini<a name="FNanchor_86" id="FNanchor_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> (afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and Federigo -Borromeo,<a name="FNanchor_87" id="FNanchor_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> thanking Galileo in the most friendly terms for -sending them his work, and expressing their sincere admiration -for the researches described in it. And Battista -Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of -Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a -similar letter of thanks,<a name="FNanchor_88" id="FNanchor_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> not only fully endorsed these opinions, -but expressed his firm belief that they would in time be -universally acknowledged, although now they had many -opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable character, -and partly from the envy and obstinacy of those who -had from the first maintained the contrary view.</p> - -<p>The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were -far less friendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher -ecclesiastics at the papal residence. Father Castelli, who in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> -October of the same year was called to the chair of mathematics -at this university, reports in a letter of 6th November,<a name="FNanchor_89" id="FNanchor_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> -in which he tells Galileo what reception he had met with -from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of the -university, Mgr. d’Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his -first interview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of -the earth, or even to take occasion in any digression to mention -it as probable!</p> - -<p>An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate -cause of turning the controversy into the channel which -proved so fatal to Galileo. One day in December, 1613, -Castelli and several other learned men were guests at the -Grand Duke’s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. -The conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena -of the Medicean stars, whose veritable existence in the -heavens Boscaglia, professor of physics at the university, was -constrained with a heavy heart to confirm, in answer to a -question of the Grand Duke’s mother, Christine. Castelli -eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo’s splendid -discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could -not master his displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the -Grand Ducal mother that all Galileo’s telescopic discoveries -were in accord with the truth, only the double motion of the -earth seemed incredible, nay impossible, as the Holy Scriptures -were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then over, -and Castelli took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace -when he saw Christine’s porter hastening after him and -calling him back. He obeyed, and found the whole company -still assembled in the Grand Duke’s apartments. Christine -now began, after a few introductory remarks, to attack the -Copernican doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli -at first made some humble attempts to avoid bringing the -Bible into the controversy; but as this was of no avail he -resolutely took the theological standpoint, and defended the -modern views of the universe so impressively and convincingly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span> -that nearly all present, even the Grand Duke and his -consort, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone made -any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause -of the unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion.</p> - -<p>Castelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but -remarked expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to -him that the Grand Duchess Christine had merely persisted -in opposition, in order to hear his replies.<a name="FNanchor_90" id="FNanchor_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -<p>This then was the provocation to that famous letter of -Galileo’s to his friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the -first time theological digressions occur, and which therefore, -although by no means intended for publication, was to be -eagerly turned to account by his opponents, and to form the -groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been -related it will be seen that the reproach often brought against -Galileo that it was he who first introduced the theological -question into the scientific controversy about the two systems -is entirely unwarranted. On the contrary, these explanations -to Castelli, of 21st December, bear telling testimony to -the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the Scriptures -involved in a purely scientific discussion, and that the right of -deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He -sharply defines the relation in which the Bible stands to -natural science, marking the limits which it can only pass at -the expense of the healthy understanding of mankind. As -a good Catholic he fully admits that the Scriptures cannot -lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold good of all their -expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions, -nay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always -interpret the Bible in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for -instance, they must attribute to God hands, feet, and ears, -human feelings such as anger, repentance, hatred, and make -Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future.</p> - -<p>“As therefore,” continues Galileo, “the Holy Scriptures in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span> -many places not only admit but actually require a different -explanation from what seems to be the literal one, it seems to -me that they ought to be reserved for the last place in mathematical -discussions. For they, like nature, owe their origin -to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by the Holy -Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands; -it was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate -itself to the understanding of the majority, to say -many things which apparently differ from the precise meaning. -Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and -cares not whether her hidden causes and modes of working -are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and -never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It -appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience -places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion -derived from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages -of Scripture which contain thousands of words admitting -of various interpretations, for every sentence of Scripture is -not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature.”</p> - -<p>Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself -intelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from -placing even its main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing -qualities to God which are unlike His character and -even opposed to it, who will maintain that in speaking incidentally -of the earth or the sun it professes to clothe its real -meaning in words literally true? Proceeding on the principle -that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo -goes on to draw the following conclusions.</p> - -<p>“Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, -it is the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take -the pains to find out the real meaning of its statements, in -accordance with the conclusions regarding nature which are -quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or from -necessary demonstration. As therefore the Bible, although -dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given -above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span> -literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with -certainty that <i>all</i> interpreters are inspired by God, I think it -would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply -passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, -as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of -which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our -senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds -to man’s understanding? Who can assure us that everything -that can be known in the world is known already? It would -therefore perhaps be best not to add, without necessity, to -the articles of faith which refer to salvation and the defence -of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are in no -danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against -them, especially when the desire to add to them proceeds -from persons who, although quite enlightened when they -speak under Divine guidance, are obviously destitute of those -faculties which are needed, I will not say for the refutation, -but even for the understanding of the demonstrations by -which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.</p> - -<p>I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture -is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary -for their salvation, and which being far above man’s -understanding cannot be made credible by any learning, or -any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit. But -that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, -and understanding, does not permit us to use them, and -desires to acquaint us in any other way with such knowledge -as we are in a position to acquire for ourselves by means of -those faculties, <i>that</i> it seems to me I am not bound to believe, -especially concerning those sciences about which the -Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying -conclusions; and this is precisely the case with astronomy, of -which there is so little that the planets are not even all -enumerated.”</p> - -<p>Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible -into a scientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> -opponents, who, feeling that they could not successfully fight -him on his own ground, had entrenched themselves behind an -unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds to discuss the well -known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were fond -of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the -modern views and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his -adversaries with their own weapons, by showing that if this -passage is taken literally, and God really arrested the sun in -his course in answer to Joshua’s prayer, and thus prolonged -the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the impossibility, of -the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican agrees -with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo -goes on, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west -to east, and the daily one from east to west. Being diametrically -opposed to each other, they cannot both be the -sun’s own motions. The annual motion is the one which belongs -to it; the other originates in the <i>primum mobile</i>, which -carries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions -day and night. If therefore God desired to prolong -the day (supposing the Ptolemaic system to be the right -one) He must have commanded, not the sun but the <i>primum -mobile</i>, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the Bible that -God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the -heavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained -them to be, or the literal meaning must be departed -from, and we must conclude that the Holy Scriptures, in -stating that God commanded the sun to stand still, meant -the <i>primum mobile</i>, but, accommodating themselves to the -comprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand -the rising and setting of the sun, said just the opposite of -what they would have said to scientifically educated people. -Galileo also says that it was highly improbable that God -should have commanded the sun alone to stand still, and have -allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature -would have been deranged by it without any occasion, and -his belief was that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span> -whole system of the universe, at the expiration of which all -the heavenly bodies, undisturbed in their mutual relations, -could have begun to revolve again in perfect order: doubtless -his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like -irony.</p> - -<p>At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal -sense of the passage accords with the Copernican system. -By his discovery of the solar spots the revolution of the sun -on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it is also very probable -that the sun is the chief instrument of nature, the heart of the -universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with certainty, -is the source of light to the planets revolving round it, but -also lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with -Copernicus a revolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal -motion on its own axis, it would certainly suffice merely to -stop the sun in his course, in order to bring the whole system -to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day without disordering -nature.<a name="FNanchor_91" id="FNanchor_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p> - -<p>Castelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to -the Grand Duchess Christine’s objections, and took care to -give it a wide circulation by means of numerous copies. -Galileo’s enemies, however, eagerly grasped the dangerous -weapon thus guilelessly placed in their hands by his friend. -They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which exactly -adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo’s emphatic -opinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific -controversy into the reproach that he assailed the universal -authority of the Bible; by making Joshua’s miracle the subject -of his disquisitions he laid himself open to the cutting remark -that the statements of Holy Scripture must be protected from -the arbitrary interpretations of profane laymen.</p> - -<p>Gherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently -entirely unaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so -enraged about the system that Galileo had defended that he -publicly insulted him, and threatened to bring the matter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span> -before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified by being -informed that the founder of that system was not any -man then living in Tuscany, but a German who had died -seventy years before, and that his work had been dedicated -to Pope Paul III., and had been graciously accepted by -him.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo -had found in Father Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right -tool for setting on foot the long-desired scandal. He had -had some experience in misuse of the pulpit, for he had -before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And -as the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini -appeared as Galileo’s first public accuser by thundering out a -fierce sermon against the astronomer and his system on the -fourth Sunday after Advent, 1614, in the church of Santa Maria -Novella, at Florence. He showed his wit by selecting as the -two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter of Joshua and the -first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: <i>Viri Galilæi -quid statis aspicientes in cœlum</i>: “Ye men of Galilee, why -stand ye gazing up into heaven?” Astronomy was thus -happily introduced into the pulpit. The furious preacher -asserted that the doctrine taught by Galileo in Florence, of -the earth’s revolution round the sun, was quite irreconcilable -with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly contradicted -several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning of -which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, -as he further asserted that no one was permitted to interpret -the Bible in any other sense than that adopted by the fathers, -he as good as denounced the doctrine as heretical. The -sermon ended with a coarse attack on mathematicians in -general, whose science he called an invention of the devil; -and with a wish that they should be banished from all Christian -states, since all heresies proceeded from them.</p> - -<p>As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. -Father Luigi Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for -his learning, who was all his life an admirer of Galileo, told<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> -him in a letter of 10th January, 1615,<a name="FNanchor_92" id="FNanchor_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> how heartily he -regretted this miserable exhibition. He said, among other -things: “I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal -which has taken place, and the more so because the author -of it is a brother of my order; for, unfortunately, I have to -answer for all the stupidities (<i>tutte le bestialità</i>) which thirty or -forty thousand brothers may and do actually commit.” This -sentence has caused all Galileo’s biographers who mention -this letter, with the exception of Nelli,<a name="FNanchor_93" id="FNanchor_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> to conclude that -Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a -glance at the <i>Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum</i>, etc., edited by -the Fathers Quetif and Echard, would have shown them that -from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin Secco, of Pavia, was -general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.<a name="FNanchor_94" id="FNanchor_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> Perhaps, -however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the -Dominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_95" id="FNanchor_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></p> - -<p>Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical -authorities of the insult which had been offered him, and of -demanding satisfaction. But Prince Cesi, whom he consulted -about it, strongly advised him, if any steps were taken -against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the affair and -to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal -Bellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told -him (Cesi) that <i>he held the opinion to be heretical, and that -the principle of the earth’s double motion was undoubtedly -contrary to Holy Scripture</i>. In this complicated state of -affairs the prince recommended that several mathematicians -should complain of the public insults to the science of mathematics -and its disciples. But he gave another express -warning to leave the Copernican system entirely alone, or -they might take occasion at Rome to consult whether the -further spread of this opinion was to be permitted or condemned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span> -Cesi added that in that case it would very likely -be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority -there, and its opponents were generally hated; besides, -it was very easy to prohibit and suspend.<a name="FNanchor_96" id="FNanchor_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> - -<p>Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini -was prudently allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the -first impetus to all the later persecutions of Galileo.</p> - -<p>The questionable merit of having brought Galileo’s affairs -before the tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father -Lorini, a friend of Caccini, and brother of the same order. -Galileo’s fatal letter to Castelli had fallen into his hands; -and when, later on, thanks to Caccini’s zeal, a great ferment -began about it in monkish circles at Florence, Lorini was -moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a copy of it -secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement, -which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the -Congregation of the Index, is couched in a most artful and -miserable style. The denunciator, too cowardly and too -cunning to mention Galileo by name (for he still had -powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of the -Church), only speaks of the “Galileists” in general, “who -maintain, agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the -earth moves and the heavens stand still.” He even ascribes -the enclosed letter to Copernicus, in order to leave the -honoured philosopher quite out of the question. Lorini -goes on to say: “all the fathers of this (his own) devout -convent of St. Mark find many passages in this letter which -are suspicious, or presumptuous, as when it says that many -expressions of Holy Scripture are indefinite; that in discussions -about natural phenomena the lowest place must be -assigned to them; that the commentators have often been -mistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures -should not be mixed up with anything but matters of -religion; that in nature philosophical and astronomical -evidence is of more value than holy and Divine (which passages<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> -your reverence<a name="FNanchor_97" id="FNanchor_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> will find underlined by me in the said -letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that -when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only -understand that the command was addressed to the <i>primum -mobile</i>, as this itself is the sun.” In these statements Lorini -perceives great peril for the Church; he is indignant “that -they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures after -their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation -of the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy -Scriptures appear to be entirely opposed to.... They -tread the entire philosophy of Aristotle, of which scholastic -philosophy has made so much use, under foot,” he exclaims: -“in short, to show how clever they are, they (the -Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter them -abroad in our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, -both from its own good spirit and the watchfulness of our -august rulers.” He feels moved to inform the cardinal of all -this, that he may keep an eye on it, and that if any remedy -seems called for he may take the necessary measures. After -this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: “I, who hold that -all those who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and -good Christians, but a little over wise and self conceited in -their opinions, declare that I am actuated by nothing in this -business but zeal for the sacred cause.” After this assurance -he begs that this letter of his, (“I do not say the enclosed -letter,”) he hastens to add in a parenthesis, “may be kept -secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion -between servant and master,” and not as a legal deposition.<a name="FNanchor_98" id="FNanchor_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> -In conclusion, he expressly mentions the celebrated sermon -of Caccini, probably in order that he might be called as a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> -witness against Galileo, an object which, as we shall see, was -attained.</p> - -<p>In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt -itself called upon at once to institute a secret inquiry about -the astronomer. As Lorini had only been able to show a -copy of Galileo’s letter to Castelli in confirmation of his -accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be of great -importance to obtain possession of the original, written and -signed by Galileo. To attain this end the worthy gentlemen -acted on the principle that “the end sanctifies the means.” -Cardinal Mellini, under date of 26th February, ordered the -secretary of the Holy Congregation to write to the Archbishop -of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were to -procure that document “in a skilful manner.” On the very -next day the order was despatched.<a name="FNanchor_99" id="FNanchor_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p> - -<p>It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned -from a short stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to -the archbishop, Francesco Bonciani. He seized the opportunity -of executing his commission. With this end in view he -began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken aback by -such an exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions, -particularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it -would be to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his -ruin, for those opinions (to say nothing of their folly) were -dangerous, repulsive, and mischievous, for they were directly -opposed to Holy Scripture. The philosophical arguments -with which the archbishop tried to convert Castelli to -orthodox astronomy rose to a climax in the profound remark -that as all things (<i>creatura</i>) had been created for the -use and benefit of man, it was obvious that the earth could -not move like a star.<a name="FNanchor_100" id="FNanchor_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> After giving this affectionate counsel -to Castelli he offered the same for Galileo, and declared himself -ready to demonstrate to all the world the folly of that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> -opinion. But, in order to do it successfully, he must first -acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo’s arguments; and, -therefore (and now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently -begs Castelli to let him see Galileo’s apologetic letter.</p> - -<p>Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli’s possession, for he -had returned it to the author. For not only did he not in the -least perceive the trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent -as to inform Galileo of the request and warmly to second -it.<a name="FNanchor_101" id="FNanchor_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> But Galileo had suspicions, and delayed to reply. The -archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two letters to Rome, -of 8th and 28th of March,<a name="FNanchor_102" id="FNanchor_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> that Castelli was convinced that -he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and as the -common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo -had not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks “whether he shall be -more open with Castelli?” But this time cunning did not -attain its end; at the repeated urgency of Castelli,<a name="FNanchor_103" id="FNanchor_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> Galileo -at last sent him a mere copy without signature, and with the -express reservation that he was not to let it go out of his -hands. From a letter of Castelli’s<a name="FNanchor_104" id="FNanchor_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> to Galileo we learn that -in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop -in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically -concealed his annoyance at the failure of his -intrigue, and put a good face on it, for Castelli adds with -great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly praised -Galileo’s demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics -present the modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture -therein displayed.</p> - -<p>So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of -Galileo’s criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the -Holy Office for his opinion. He pronounced that some words -and phrases occurred in the document that were unsuitable; -but, although at first sight they looked ill, they were capable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> -of being taken in a good sense, and were not of that nature -that they could be said to deviate from Catholic doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_105" id="FNanchor_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of -19th March, to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially -well informed about Galileo’s errors.<a name="FNanchor_106" id="FNanchor_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> He appeared before the -holy tribunal the very next day, and eloquently poured forth -his accusations; but, although upon oath, he did not adhere -very strictly to truth. For not only did he denounce the -opinion of Copernicus as <i>quasi</i> heretical, being opposed to all -scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of -many passages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines -were to be found both in the letter to Castelli and in the -purely scientific treatise on the solar spots, but added the far -more serious charge that he had heard that Galileo maintained -the three following propositions: “God is not a self -existent being, but an accident; God is sentient because the -Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be -performed by the saints are not real miracles.” He further -says that Galileo is at any rate “suspicious in religious -matters,” because he belongs to “a certain Accadémia dei -Lincei,” and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi at -Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions -from real facts can hardly be conceived. To make -a hotbed of heresy out of an academy founded by Prince -Cesi, a man of known piety, and to place Galileo’s religion in -doubt on account of his scientific correspondence with magnates -of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost -like madness.<a name="FNanchor_107" id="FNanchor_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></p> - -<p>In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed -to the testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a -young nobleman, Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards -called in November of the same year. It then came out that -Caccini was not only an eavesdropper but a bad listener.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> -Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple of the -Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with -Ximenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the -proposition concerning the nature of the Godhead, but it -originated entirely in scholasticism and had nothing to do -with Galileo. Caccini, listening behind a partition, caught -something of the conversation; and, thinking that Attavanti -was a well instructed follower of Galileo, and was merely repeating -what he had taught him, explained the fragments of -the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into -these stupid accusations. It also appeared from the evidence -of Ximenes and Attavanti that neither of them knew of anything -suspicious about Galileo, except that he propounded the -doctrine of the double motion of the earth.<a name="FNanchor_108" id="FNanchor_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p> - -<p>After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti -the evidence of Caccini was only so far of importance that it -gave rise to an inquiry into the “History and Explanation -of the Solar Spots.”<a name="FNanchor_109" id="FNanchor_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> This, and the oft discussed letter to -Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which Galileo’s -enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological -error.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>HOPES AND FEARS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s work.—Blindness -of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the Grand Duchess -Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to Rome.—Erroneous opinion -that he was cited to appear.—Caccini begs pardon.—Galileo defends -the Copernican system at Rome.—His mistake in so doing.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the -secret proceedings of the Inquisition against him and his -system. He had only discovered that some Dominican -monks wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli to effect -the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, and that they -were spreading all sorts of calumnies against him based upon -it. Fearing that the copy of it on which they relied might -have been tampered with, he sent a correct copy on 16th -February, 1615, to his sincere friend Mgr. Dini at Rome, with -a request that he would forward it to the mathematician, -Father Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal Bellarmine. -Galileo observed in the accompanying letter that he -had written the one to Castelli “<i>currente calamo</i>,” that since -then he had made many researches into the subject therein -discussed, and announced the speedy completion of a larger -work, in which he should carry out his reasoning far more in -detail; as soon as it was finished he would send it to Mgr. -Dini. (This was his great Apology to the Grand Duchess -Christine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his -enemies were daily increasing in number, and, in order to -injure him the more, were spreading the strange report -among the people that he was the founder of the system of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> -the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to incidents -like that with Bishop Gherardini.<a name="FNanchor_110" id="FNanchor_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> - -<p>The philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited, -received in reply consolatory assurances from -Mgr. Dini and others of his ecclesiastical friends. But they -earnestly advised him to treat the subject of the Copernican -system purely from the mathematical, physical point of view, -and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint came -rather late in the day, and could not now be of much use to -Galileo, when his doctrines were already attacked as heretical, -although secretly at that time, and the accusation was -based on the purely scientific work on the solar spots. War -had been declared with the Copernican system in the name -of the Bible.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th -March,<a name="FNanchor_111" id="FNanchor_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> plainly show how unwillingly he had been driven -into the theological field by his opponents. After he had in -the second letter decidedly rejected Dini’s suggestion that he -should treat the Copernican system merely as a hypothesis, -he added that it had been his earnest desire to keep strictly -to his part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to -defend his astronomical system against religious scruples. -He entirely agrees with those who say that the task of bringing -natural science into agreement with Holy Scripture -should be left to theologians, and shows that he has been -compelled to defend himself on this dangerous ground. He -says besides that his letter to Castelli was not originally intended -to go any farther, and regrets that Castelli had -had copies made of it without his knowledge.</p> - -<p>It is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when -the secret denunciation had been laid before the tribunal of -the Inquisition at Rome, all the letters and reports which -Galileo received from Rome, even from trustworthy friends, -Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were calculated to -allay his anxious fears. None of those persons, although in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span> -influential positions, and likely it would seem to have been -better informed, knew, as appears from their correspondence -with Galileo, anything of the proceedings which were being -instituted at Rome against him and the Copernican system. -The Inquisition knew well enough how to keep its secrets. -On 28th February<a name="FNanchor_112" id="FNanchor_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently to -Galileo that, notwithstanding all the inquiries he had made, -he could learn nothing of any measures against him or the -new doctrines; he sets down the whole rumour to the incautious -talk of some hot-headed fellow.</p> - -<p>On 7th March<a name="FNanchor_113" id="FNanchor_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine -had said “he did not think that the work of Copernicus -would be prohibited, and the worst that would happen would -be that some addition would be made to it, stating that this -theory was only accepted to explain phenomena,<a name="FNanchor_114" id="FNanchor_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> or some -such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able -to discuss the subject whenever he had occasion.” Under -the same date Prince Cesi tells Galileo that a work had -just been published by a Dominican monk, which brilliantly -defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it agree with -Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have -appeared more opportunely.<a name="FNanchor_115" id="FNanchor_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></p> - -<p>But what seems the most strange are the express and repeated -assurances of the cardinals Barberini, Del Monte, and -Bellarmine, to Galileo, through Dini and Ciampoli, that so -long as he did not go beyond the province of physics and -mathematics, nor enter into any theological interpretations of -Scripture, he had nothing to fear.<a name="FNanchor_116" id="FNanchor_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> How could Cardinal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span> -Bellarmine, who had not long before expressly stated to -Prince Cesi that the new system was not compatible with the -doctrines of Holy Scripture, and who, as a member of the -Inquisition, must have been aware of the transactions which -had been going on about Galileo since 5th February, give -these assurances so directly opposed to the truth? And yet -these three prelates afterwards gave many proofs of good -will towards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct -to be explained? It was simply that they were friendly to -Galileo, but not to his doctrines. They certainly desired to -shield his person, and afterwards honestly endeavoured to do -so even under most difficult circumstances; but the system he -defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be -suppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared -advisable to keep it a secret from Galileo that the statement -of Copernicus that the earth moved was assailed from the -theological standpoint, until the Holy Office had issued the -interdict against its circulation and defence. It was thus -that they prudently rounded the rocks which the dreaded -dialectics of the clever Tuscan had exposed to view.</p> - -<p>And the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict -of the Church was to be pronounced on the Copernican -theory, and the more eagerly the secret inquiries about -Galileo were being prosecuted, the more confident became -the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where -this ominous web was being woven. It seems as if all -Galileo’s trusty adherents had been struck with blindness, -for we should not be justified in doubting the sincerity of a -Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who afterwards proved by -their actions their true friendship for the great astronomer. -On 20th March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on -the 21st Ciampoli communicates to Galileo the consoling -observations of the cardinals Del Monte and Bellarmine -mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds to these comforting -assurances by telling him that Foscarini’s work was no doubt -in great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span> -the Holy Office to take place next month, <i>but only because it -meddled with matters concerning Holy Scripture</i>. He goes on -to say with real satisfaction that he can only confirm his -previous information, and that all this noise originated with -four or five persons who are hostile to Galileo; he and Dini -had taken all possible pains to find out this assumed agitation, -but had discovered absolutely nothing. He repeats this -most decidedly in a letter of a week later;<a name="FNanchor_117" id="FNanchor_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> and in another -of 16th May<a name="FNanchor_118" id="FNanchor_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> he cannot at all understand what has so disconcerted -Galileo, and adds that it was no longer doubtful -that the Copernican doctrine would not be prohibited, and -expresses his conviction that it would be a great satisfaction -to every one if Galileo would come to Rome for a time, and -the more so because he had heard that many of the Jesuits -were secretly of Galileo’s opinion, and were only keeping -quiet for the present.</p> - -<p>A private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to -Galileo, of June 20th, is equally sanguine. He tells him that -Foscarini’s work, of which a new and enlarged edition is to -appear immediately, has had great success at Rome, and that -the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much -cast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that -treatise nor the doctrines in question are in any danger, if -only a little prudence is exercised. Cesi even thinks that -the new edition, in which the author refutes all the objections -to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical authorities, convince -opponents, and put an end to the whole business. “Then,” -continues the prince confidently, “when every difficulty is -removed and attack rendered impossible, the doctrine will be -so fully permitted and recognised, that everybody who wishes -to maintain it will be at liberty to do so, as in all other purely -physical and mathematical questions.”<a name="FNanchor_119" id="FNanchor_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p> - -<p>This is the last letter we have from Galileo’s friends of -this period. From this date to the time of his stay in Rome,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span> -in 1616, there are no letters to him extant. This is the more -to be regretted, as the gap occurs at a very interesting juncture. -Perhaps after the Copernican doctrines were condemned -Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence out -of regard for his friends, for it may have contained allusions -to very delicate matters.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by -Mgr. Dini,<a name="FNanchor_120" id="FNanchor_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> he had completed his great apologetic treatise, -in the form of a letter to the Grand Duchess Dowager, -Christine. As it accurately defines the standpoint which -Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and sincere -Catholic, with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems -necessary to give a sketch of its contents.</p> - -<p>Galileo begins with the motive of his Apology. Several -years ago he had made many discoveries in the heavens, -the novelty of which, and the vast consequences they involve, -which are opposed to many of the principles of the modern -Aristotelian school, have incensed no small number of professors -against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in -the heavens with his own hands in order to overturn nature -and science. Placing a greater value on their own opinions -than on truth, these men had taken upon themselves to deny -the existence of these discoveries, whereas if they had only -consented to observe them, they would have been convinced. -Instead of this, they assailed the new discoveries with empty -arguments, and worst mistake of all, interwove them with -passages of Scripture which they did not understand. But -when the majority of the scientific world was convinced with -its own eyes, so that it was impossible any longer to doubt -the truth of these phenomena, their opponents tried to consign -them to oblivion by obstinate silence; and when that did not -avail they took another course. Galileo says that he should -pay no more heed to these attacks than to former ones, at -which, confident of the final result, he had always laughed, -but they seek to cast an aspersion on him which he dreads<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span> -more than death. His opponents, knowing that he favoured -the opinion of the double motion of the earth, and thereby -attacked the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian principles, and perceiving -since the universal recognition of his observations -that they could never combat him successfully on the field -of natural philosophy, are trying now to make a shield for -their false statements out of a fictitious piety and the -authority of Holy Scripture. They have therefore first tried -to spread the opinion that the views he defends are opposed -to the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy of condemnation. -They then easily found some one to denounce -them from the pulpit, and he hurled his anathemas not only -at the Copernican doctrines, but against mathematicians in -general. They also gave out that the modern views of the -system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical -by the highest authorities.</p> - -<p>Galileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of -these doctrines, was not only a good Catholic, but a priest -highly esteemed by the Roman curia, both for his learning -and piety. He had dedicated his famous work: “De -Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” to Pope Paul III., and -no one had felt any scruples about his doctrines, although -some ill-disposed persons want to have the book pronounced -heretical, without ever having read, to say nothing of studied -it. As an adherent of the Copernican theory, Galileo now -feels compelled, in order to justify himself, to discuss in -detail these arguments from Scripture brought forward by -his opponents, and he hopes to prove that he is animated by -a greater zeal for true religion than his adversaries; for he by -no means demands that the book should not be condemned, -but that it should not be condemned without being understood -or even looked at. Before proceeding to discuss these -arguments, he protests that he will not only always be ready -publicly to rectify the errors he may from ignorance have -fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that it -was not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span> -any one on such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these -remarks, to incite others to deliberations useful to the Church. -As to the decision about the Copernican system, we must -bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical authorities, and -should it be adverse to him, let his work be torn up and -burnt, for he had neither wish nor intention to promote -results that were not catholic and pious.</p> - -<p>After this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes -to the matter itself,—the discussion of the principles of -exegesis of Scripture with respect to natural science. He -employs the same arguments as in his letter to Castelli, -only more in detail, and cites several passages from St. -Augustine in support of his views, as to how far questions -of natural philosophy should be left to the understanding -and to science. He also quotes a saying of Cardinal -Baronius: “The Holy Spirit intended <i>to teach us how to go -to heaven, and not how the heavens go</i>.” Galileo then illustrates -by examples how derogatory it will be to the dignity -of Holy Scripture if every unauthorised scribbler is permitted -to adduce passages from it in support of his views, -which he often does not interpret rightly; and experience -shows the futility of this method of proof. He then turns -to the claim of theologians to enforce upon others in scientific -discussions opinions which they hold to agree with -passages of Scripture, while maintaining that they are not -bound to explain the scientific phenomena which are opposed -to their decisions. In support of this they affirm that -theology is the queen of all the sciences, and need not condescend -to accommodate herself to the teachings of other -sciences far beneath her: they must submit to her as their -sovereign, and modify their conclusions accordingly. This -leads Galileo to some considerations which he will here set -forth, that he may learn the opinions of others more expert -on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions he is -always ready to bow.</p> - -<p>He is in doubt whether some ambiguity has not crept in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span> -for want of more precision in defining why theology is -entitled to be called a queen. It must either be because all -that is taught by other sciences is comprised in and explained -by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology treats -of a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects -of which profane science treats. But even the theologians -themselves will hardly maintain that the title belongs to -theology in the first sense; for no one can say that geometry, -astronomy, music, and medicine, are better treated of in -Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boccius, -and Galen. It appears then that the royal prerogative -of theology must be derived from some other source. Galileo -here remarks:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“If then theology occupies herself solely with the highest problems, -maintains her throne by reason of the supreme authority conferred on -her, and does not condescend to the lower sciences as not affecting salvation, -the professors of theology should not assume authority on subjects -which they have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler -should demand, without being a physician or an architect, that people -should treat themselves, or erect buildings, according to his directions, -to the great peril of poor sick people and obvious ruin of the edifices.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo then demonstrates the vast difference between -doctrinal and exact sciences, and says that in the latter -opinions cannot be changed to order. Supported by the -authority of St. Augustine, he maintains that opinions on -natural science which have been proved to coincide with -actual facts cannot be set aside by passages of Scripture, -but these must be explained so as not to contradict the -indisputable results of observation. Those, therefore, who -desire to condemn an opinion in physics must first show that -it is incorrect. But it must be made the subject of close investigation, -and then a different result will often be obtained -from the one desired. Many learned men who intended to -refute the Copernican theory have been changed, by examination, -from opponents to enthusiastic defenders of it. In -order to banish it from the world, as many desired, it would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span> -not be enough to shut the mouth of any one individual, it -would be necessary to prohibit not only the writings of -Copernicus and his followers, but astronomy altogether. But -to suppress his work now, when new discoveries are daily -confirming his theory, after it has been quietly submitted to -for so many years, appears to Galileo like opposition to truth -itself; and to permit the book and condemn the doctrine -would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it -would allow them the opportunity of convincing themselves -of the truth of an opinion which it was a sin to believe. To -forbid astronomy altogether would be like rejecting hundreds -of passages of Scripture which teach us how the glory of -God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be studied -in the open book of nature.</p> - -<p>Galileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican -theory. According to many, it ought to be pronounced -erroneous because it is opposed to the apparent meaning of -many passages in the Bible, while the opposite opinion is to -be believed <i>de fide</i>. He sharply defines two kinds of scientific -questions: those on which all man’s researches can only -lead to probability and conjecture, as for instance, whether -the stars are inhabited or not; and those on which, by experience, -observation, and inevitable deduction, we either have -attained certainty or may safely reckon on doing so,—as -whether the earth or the heavens move. In the first case, -Galileo is decidedly of opinion that it behoves us to be guided -by the literal sense of Scripture; in the second, he repeats -what he has said before, that two truths can never contradict -each other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and of -the earth as standing still to accommodate itself to the understanding -of the people, and not to confuse them, otherwise -they might refuse to believe the dogmas which are absolutely -<i>de fide</i>. For the same reason the fathers have spoken about -things not appertaining to salvation, more in accordance with -usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by quotations -from St. Jerome and St. Thomas.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span></p> - -<p>Even the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation -of any passage of Scripture of scientific import -should, in Galileo’s opinion, only confer authority on it when -the question has been discussed by many fathers with knowledge -of both sides. But this is not the case with the -question of the double motion of the earth, for it had not -come up at all at that time, and it could not occur to the -holy fathers to dispute it, for the current opinion was in -entire agreement with the literal meaning of the Bible. It -was not enough to say that the fathers had all believed that -the earth stood still, and that therefore it was to be held -<i>de fide</i>, for it was very possible that they never investigated -it, and only held it as generally current. If they had done -so and found it deserving of condemnation, they would have -said so, but it had never been discovered that they had. -The writings of Diego di Zuñiga show, on the contrary, that -when some theologians began to consider the Copernican -theory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture. -Moreover, no argument could be drawn from an unanimous -opinion of the fathers, for some of them spoke of the sun as -stationary, others of the <i>primum mobile</i>.</p> - -<p>Galileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise -and well informed theologians on the Copernican theory. -Since no investigation of it was instituted by the ancient -fathers, it might be done now by theologians fitted for it, -who, after they had carefully examined all the scientific -arguments for and against, would establish on a firm footing -what was dictated to them by Divine inspiration. He once -more lays great stress on the need of first convincing one’s self -of the actual facts of nature under the guidance of science, -and then proceeding to interpret texts of Scripture. He is -indignant with those who, from malice or blinded by party -interest, say that the Church should draw the sword without -delay, since she possesses the power. As if it was always -desirable to do whatever was in our power! He shows that -the fathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> -exclaims to these wranglers: “Try first to refute the arguments -of Copernicus and his followers, and leave the task of -condemning them to those to whom it belongs; but do not -hope to find among the fathers, who were as discreet as they -were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who cannot err, -those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal -interests and passions. It is doubtless true that concerning -these and similar statements which are not strictly <i>de fide</i>, -his Holiness the Pope has absolute authority to approve or -condemn; <i>but it is not in the power of any human being to -make them true or false, or other than they de facto are</i>.”</p> - -<p>This lengthy treatise concludes with a disquisition on the -passage in the book of Joshua, which he treats in the same -way as in the letter to Castelli.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this -apology<a name="FNanchor_121" id="FNanchor_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> not to give any handle to his enemies, it contained -far too many liberal and merely human principles not to do -the author more harm than good in the eyes of the orthodox -party, both on religious and scientific questions. His opponents -saw this plainly enough, and agitated against him -all the more vehemently at Rome.</p> - -<p>Ominous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious -enough before; but he could not any how learn anything -definite about these attacks, only so much eked out, that -something was brewing against him, and that it was intended -to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought he could -best meet these intrigues by his personal appearance at -Rome; he wanted to learn what the accusations against -him were, and to show that there was nothing in them; he -desired energetically to defend the new system, to aid truth -in asserting her rights. So, early in December, 1615, provided -with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke, he -set out for Rome.<a name="FNanchor_122" id="FNanchor_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span></p> - -<p>Some older authors, and recently Henri Martin,<a name="FNanchor_123" id="FNanchor_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> have repeated -as a fact the report circulated at the time by Galileo’s -enemies,<a name="FNanchor_124" id="FNanchor_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> that this visit to Rome was by no means so voluntary -as he thought fit to give out. Martin appeals in support -of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi to Cardinal Alexander -d’Este, of 1st January, 1616,<a name="FNanchor_125" id="FNanchor_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> in which he says that the -philosopher had been <i>cited</i> to appear at Rome, that he might -explain how he made his doctrines, which entirely contradict -Holy Scripture, agree with it. Martin also states that the -Tuscan ambassador at Rome, in a despatch of 11th September, -1632, announced that a document had been discovered -in the books of the Holy Office, which showed that Galileo -had been summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise -excellent biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of -probability which, however, are not conclusive. Besides, these -arguments, in the face of other facts, are not valid. Even if -Galileo’s contemporary letters from Rome, in which he repeatedly -expresses his satisfaction that he had come there,<a name="FNanchor_126" id="FNanchor_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> -are not relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent -carrying out of the fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th -April, 1633, bears clear witness that Martin is in error. Being -asked if he came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or -in consequence of a summons, he answered: “In the year -1616 I came to Rome of my own accord, without being summoned.”<a name="FNanchor_127" id="FNanchor_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> -It was impossible that he should then have persisted -in the assumed fiction, for he could not have denied<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> -before the Inquisition a summons issued by itself seventeen -years before, since it would certainly have been entered in their -registers.<a name="FNanchor_128" id="FNanchor_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> According to the statement of the Tuscan ambassador -mentioned above, such a document had been discovered -<i>one</i> year previously in the protocols of the Holy Office. But -in the face of the question put at the examination this does -not seem very credible. Moreover, in none of the documents -now open to historical research relating to the transactions of -1616, is there any such record to be found, nor anything to -indicate that this visit of Galileo’s to Rome did not originate -with himself.</p> - -<p>Neither does the flattering reception he met with at all -agree with the assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his -correspondence with Picchena, successor in office to Vinta, -though very cautious, shows that notwithstanding the comforting -assurances he had received from his friends at Rome, -he found that a zealous agitation was going on, not only -against the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.<a name="FNanchor_129" id="FNanchor_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> In -another letter of 8th January, 1616, he says he sees every -day what a good idea it was to come here, for he had found -so many snares laid for him that it would have been quite -impossible not to be caught by one or other of them, and he -would not have been able to extricate himself for a long time, -perhaps never, or only with the greatest difficulty. He is -confident that he shall now very soon destroy the traps of his -enemies, and be able to justify himself in a way that will -bring all their unworthy calumnies to light. They have -spread the false report that he was in disgrace at the grand -ducal court in consequence of the enormity of his offence, -and that the proceedings against him had the Grand Duke’s -entire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him -by Cosmo II. proved precisely the contrary, the assertions of -his enemies would lose all credit, and he would be believed all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span> -the more, so that he should be able to justify himself completely.<a name="FNanchor_130" id="FNanchor_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p> - -<p>Judging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later -to the Tuscan Secretary of State, Galileo had not found it so -easy to defend himself as he anticipated. Indeed it seems to -have been a very complicated business. A passage from the -letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“My business is far more difficult, and takes much longer owing to -outward circumstances, than the nature of it would require; because I -cannot communicate directly with those persons with whom I have to -negotiate, partly to avoid doing injury to any of my friends, partly because -they cannot communicate anything to me without running the risk of -grave censure. And so I am compelled, with much pains and caution, to -seek out third persons, who, without even knowing my object, may serve -as mediators with the principals, so that I may have the opportunity of -setting forth, incidentally as it were, and at their request, the particulars -of my interests. I have also to set down some points in writing, and to -cause that they should come privately into the hands of those whom I -wish should see them; for I find in many quarters that people are more -ready to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for the former permits -them to agree or dissent without blushing, and then finally to yield to the -arguments used—for in such discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, -whereas people do not so readily change their opinions if it has -to be done publicly.”<a name="FNanchor_131" id="FNanchor_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo at length succeeded by his strenuous efforts in -freeing himself from all false accusations and in refuting the -slanders of Caccini. His affairs took so favourable a turn -that the monk found it advisable to pay an obsequious visit of -several hours to Galileo, humbly begged pardon for his previous -conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power, and -assured Galileo that the agitation going on was not in any -way to be laid at his door.<a name="FNanchor_132" id="FNanchor_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> But he could not refrain from -trying to prove that the Copernican doctrines were erroneous, -in which however he had no more success than in convincing -Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to Picchena that he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span> -had found in Caccini “great ignorance and a mind full of -venom.”<a name="FNanchor_133" id="FNanchor_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p> - -<p>But Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy -adjustment of the difficulties affecting himself; the more -important and grander part of it, the preservation of the -Copernican system from the interdict of the Church, had yet -to be accomplished. His letter of 6th February to Picchena -tells him of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well -as of the noble purposes by which he was animated. He -writes:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“My business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed; all the exalted -personages who have been conducting it have told me so plainly, and -in a most obliging manner, and have assured me that people are fully convinced -of my uprightness and honour, and of the devilish malice and -injustice of my persecutors. As far as this point is concerned, therefore, -I might return home without delay, but there is a question concerning my -own cause which does not concern myself alone, but all those who, during -the last eighty years, have advocated in printed works or private letters, -in public lectures or private conversations, a certain opinion, not unknown -to your Grace, on which they are now proposing to pronounce judgment. -In the conviction that my assistance may be of use in the investigation -of the matter, as far as a knowledge of those truths is concerned which -are proved by the science to which I have devoted myself, I neither can -nor ought to neglect to render this assistance, while I shall thereby follow -the dictates of my conscience and Christian zeal.”<a name="FNanchor_134" id="FNanchor_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few -others were, to appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately -his warm and perhaps too solicitous efforts for -the Copernican cause had a result precisely opposite to the -one he intended. He was still under the great delusion that -the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of the -correctness of the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought -out scepticism on the subject everywhere in the eternal -city, combated it eagerly and apparently with signal success. -In many of the first houses in Rome, such as the Cesarini’s, -Ghislieri’s, and others, he unfolded before numerous audiences<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span> -his views about the construction of the universe. He always -began these discourses by carefully enumerating all the arguments -for the Ptolemaic system, and then proved that they -were untenable by the telling arguments with which his own -observations had so abundantly supplied him; and as he not -seldom added the biting sarcasm of his wit to serious demonstration, -thus bringing the laugh on his side, he prepared -signal defeats for the orthodox views of nature.<a name="FNanchor_135" id="FNanchor_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a></p> - -<p>But by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. -He would not see that the Romanists cared far more for the -authority of Scripture than for the recognition of the laws of -nature; that his system, running counter to orthodox interpretation -of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of the Church. -And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way -of looking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the -true system of the universe would be of greater importance, -even to the servants of the Church, than her own mysteries, -it was but a natural consequence of these false premises that, -instead of attaining his end, he only widened his distance -from it.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, -AND THE ASSUMED PROHIBITION TO GALILEO.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Adverse Opinion of the Inquisition on Galileo’s Propositions.—Admonition -by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute Prohibition to treat of the Copernican -Doctrines.—Discrepancy between Notes of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s -documents.—Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first -doubts the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s -Documents.—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican system.—Attitude -of the Church.—Was the Absolute Prohibition ever issued to -Galileo?—Testimony of Bellarmine in his favour.—Conclusions.</p> - -</div> - -<p>The Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo’s active -propagandism, even among the learned world of Rome, and by -his brilliant defence of the new system, now hastened to bring -to a conclusion the transactions which had been going on for -a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th February, -1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were -not judges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) -and required them to give their opinion on the two following -propositions in Galileo’s work on the solar spots:—</p> - -<p>I. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from -its place.</p> - -<p>II. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not -immovable, but moves, and also with a diurnal motion.<a name="FNanchor_136" id="FNanchor_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a></p> - -<p>In accordance with the papal decree, these theologians -met four days afterwards, at 9 a.m. on 23rd February, -and published the result of their deliberations the next -day, as follows:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span></p> - -<p>The first proposition was unanimously declared to be false -and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch -as it expressly contradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in -many passages, both if taken in their literal meaning and -according to the general interpretation and conceptions of -the holy Fathers and learned theologians.</p> - -<p>The second proposition was declared unanimously “to deserve -the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological -truth, to be at least erroneous in the faith.”<a name="FNanchor_137" id="FNanchor_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p> - -<p>The Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against -Galileo as the chief advocate of the Copernican system, as -follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Thursday, 25th February, 1616. The Lord Cardinal Mellini notified -to the Reverend Fathers the Assessors and the Commissary of the Holy -Office, that the censure passed by the theologians upon the propositions -of Galileo—to the effect particularly that the sun is the centre of the -world, and immovable from its place, and that the earth moves, and -also with a diurnal motion—had been reported; and His Holiness has -directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the said -Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the said opinion; and in case of -his refusal to obey, that the Commissary is to intimate to him, before a -notary and witnesses, a command to abstain altogether from teaching or -defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it; and if -he do not acquiesce therein, that he is to be imprisoned.”<a name="FNanchor_138" id="FNanchor_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span></p> - -<p>This is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended -to look like an official report on the course of the proceedings -ordained above. Every unbiassed reader will expect to find -in it either that Galileo refused to obey the admonitions of -the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of the Inquisition -then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo -immediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition -would not have had to interfere. Instead of this we -find the following document, couched half in a narrative tone, -half like the report of a notary:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Friday, the 26th.—At the Palace, the usual residence of the Lord -Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been summoned and brought -before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in presence of the Most Revd. -Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of the order of preachers, Commissary-General -of the Holy Office, by the said Cardinal warned of the error of -the aforesaid opinion, and admonished to abandon it; and immediately -thereafter, before me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine -being still present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded -and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope, and the -whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said -opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that -the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any -way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be -taken against him in the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo -acquiesced in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, -in presence of Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of Cyprus, -and Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy of Rottz, in the -diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said Cardinal’s house, witnesses.”<a name="FNanchor_139" id="FNanchor_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span></p> - -<p>The discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February -is obvious: that says that the Pope had ordered that -Cardinal Bellarmine should admonish Galileo to renounce -the opinions of Copernicus, and only <i>in case he should refuse</i>, -was the Commissary to issue the order to him to abstain -from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here -in the report of the 26th we read, that “immediately after” -the admonition of the cardinal, the Commissary issued this -stringent order, and with the significant modification, “nor to -hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever.” In this report -of the proceedings it is not expressly stated whether -Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording -of the report, it is almost impossible that he could have -done so, since it represents that the Cardinal’s admonition -was followed immediately by the <i>absolute</i> prohibition from -the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure was by no -means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would -rather have been an arbitrary deviation from it.</p> - -<p>Until within the last ten years, in all the works, great or -small, which treat of Galileo’s trial, we find this absolute prohibition -which he was said to have received related as an -established historical fact. It was the sole legal ground on -which the indictment was based against Galileo sixteen years -later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by -an ostentatious appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document -had been seen by any of the authors who wrote so -confidently of the stringent prohibition of 1616, which confirmed -its historical truth. And yet it could but exist among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span> -the inaccessible archives relating to the trial of Galileo, -since the Inquisitors relied upon it in 1633, and it was the -pole and axis of the famous trial. And what the world had -accepted in good faith on the somewhat doubtful veracity of -the Inquisition was at length, apparently confirmed by the testimony -of Mgr. Marino Marini, prefect of the Vatican Archives. -In that year he published at Rome a book entitled, “Galileo -e l’Inquisizione, Memorie storico-critiche,” which, as the -author stated, was founded upon the original documents of -the trial. It actually contained many “extracts” from the -original protocols; and founded upon documentary materials -accessible only to the author, it was encircled with the convenient -halo of inviolability. And for nearly twenty years -no serious objection was raised to it. Many historians did -shake their heads and say that the work of the right reverend -gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition -as one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by -the author’s high-flown assertion that “the entire publication -of the documents would only redound to the glory of the -Inquisition,”<a name="FNanchor_140" id="FNanchor_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> but drily remarked that it was really a great -pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid an opportunity -to slip of performing a great service alike to history and the -Church, while the fragments produced were of little value -to either one or the other. None of this served to refute a -single sentence of the apology in question. It became, on -the contrary, notwithstanding its obvious partizanship, the -chief source for subsequent narratives of the trial. And it -could not fail to be so; for even taking this partizanship into -account, how could the dates given be doubted? Could any -one suspect a misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did -suspicions of an arbitrary use and distortion of the documents -at the author’s command seem justified? Assuredly -not. Besides, the papal archivist appealed with apparent -scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although, therefore, -the light thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> -to be one-sided, the correctness of his facts in general admitted -of no doubt. Among these the special prohibition of -1616 played a conspicuous part. It is laid before the reader -as beyond all question, and fully confirmed by documents. -The author, however, prudently refrained from publishing -these “documents” verbatim,—the reports of the Vatican -MS. of 25th and 26th February. The discrepancy between -them would then have come to light. That was to be avoided, -and so Marini, by the approved method of rejecting all that -did not suit his purpose, concocted from the two reports a -story of the assumed prohibition to Galileo so precise as to -leave nothing to be desired.<a name="FNanchor_141" id="FNanchor_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> - -<p>In 1867 Henri de L’Epinois surprised the learned world -with his work, “Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation d’après -des Documents inédits.” He reproduced for the first time in -full the most important documents which had been at Marini’s -command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he had -used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th -and 26th February verbatim. But the story of the prohibition -of 1616 had so firmly rooted itself in history, that neither -Epinois himself nor the next French historian, Henri Martin, -who published a comprehensive work on Galileo based on the -published documents, thought of disturbing it.</p> - -<p>It was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, -in Germany and Galileo’s own country, simultaneously and -independently, of the authenticity of the prohibition of 1616. -In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill who first shook this belief -after careful and unbiassed investigation of the Roman MS. -published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: “Der Inquisitions -Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Prüfung seiner -rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen -Inquisition.” (The Trial of Galileo Galilei. An Examination -into its Legal Foundation by the Acts of the Roman Inquisition.) -And just when German learning was seeking to prove by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span> -keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual narrative, -the document was published in Italy which raised -Wohlwill’s conjectures to certainty.</p> - -<p>Up to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment -resist the cardinal’s admonition, but submitted at once, could -only be drawn, as it was drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the -wording of the report of the proceedings of 26th February, -1616, partly from Galileo’s sincere Catholic sentiments, for he -was to the end, from conviction, a true son of the Church. -However much there might be to justify the conclusion, therefore, -it was founded only on probability, was confirmed by -no documents, and was therefore open to assault. It was -attacked by Friedlein in a review of Wohlwill’s brochure.<a name="FNanchor_142" id="FNanchor_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> -But when Friedlein was trying to prove that Galileo must -have resisted the cardinal’s admonitions, and only submitted -to the peremptory threats of the official of the Inquisition, -the document had been already published in Italy which -placed the question beyond doubt. This is an extract of the -protocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office -of 3rd March, 1616, and forms part of the collection of documents -published by Professor Silvestro Gherardi in the <i>Rivista -Europea</i>, 1870. It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right">“<i>3rd March, 1616.</i></p> - -<p>“The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo Galilei, -mathematician, had in terms of the order of the Holy Congregation been -admonished to abandon (deserendam) [disserendam (discuss) was the -word originally written] the opinion he has hitherto held, that the sun is -the centre of the spheres and immovable, and that the earth moves, and -had acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of the Index -having been presented, prohibiting and suspending respectively the writings -of Nicholas Copernicus (De Revolutionibus orbium cœlestium....) -of Diego di Zuñiga on Job, and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span> -Friar—His Holiness ordered this edict of prohibition and suspension -respectively, to be published by the Master of the Palace.”<a name="FNanchor_143" id="FNanchor_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater -importance than merely for the evidence it affords that -Galileo at once submitted to the Cardinal’s admonition; it -permits the conclusion, almost to a certainty, that a proceeding -like that described in the note of 26th February never -took place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal Bellarmine -was giving a report of the proceedings of 26th February -at a private sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office -under the personal presidency of the Pope. His report agrees -precisely with the papal ordinance of 25th February: he had -admonished Galileo to give up the Copernican doctrines, and -he had consented. This was to all appearance the end of the -business. The cardinal does not say a word about the stringent -proceedings said to have taken place in his presence before -notary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would have -been of far greater importance than the first. It may perhaps -be said that it was not the cardinal’s business to report the -doings of the Commissary of the Inquisition. But the objection -is not valid; for in the first place the conditions did not -exist which would have justified the interference of the Commissary, -and in the second, his report would certainly also have -been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th -February were reported. But in the note of 3rd March there -is not a trace of the report of Brother Michael Angelo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span> -Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however, so incredible that no -communication should be made to the Congregation about the -most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, -and that Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the -slightest reference to it in his report, that this document of -3rd March, 1616, discovered by Professor Gherardi, would be -sufficient of itself to justify the suspicion that the course of -the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was not at all that -reported in the note relating to it in the Vatican MS., but -was in accordance with the papal ordinance of 25th February, -and ended with the cardinal’s admonition.</p> - -<p>Let us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree -better with this suspicious note. Two days after the sitting -of 3rd March, in accordance with the order of Paul V., the -decree of the Congregation of the Index on writings and -books treating of the Copernican system was published. It -ran as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation, -that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed -to Holy Scripture—of the motion of the earth, and the quiescence of the -sun, which is also taught by Nicholas Copernicus in <i>De Revolutionibus -orbium Cœlestium</i>, and by Diego di Zuñiga in (his book on) Job, is now -being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a -certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled, <i>Letter of the Rev. Father -Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the opinion of the Pythagoreans -and of Copernicus concerning the motion of the earth, and the stability of -the sun, and the new Pythagorean system of the world, at Naples, printed -by Lazzaro Scorriggio, 1615</i>: wherein the said father attempts to show -that the aforesaid doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the centre of -the world, and of the earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not -opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may -not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the -Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, <i>De -Revolutionibus orbium</i>, and Diego di Zuñiga, on Job, be suspended until -they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo -Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all -other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by -this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. -In witness whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed -with the hands and with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span> -Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, -1616.”<a name="FNanchor_144" id="FNanchor_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>In this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, -a distinction is drawn between two classes of writings: those -which advocate the positive truth of the Copernican system—which -are absolutely interdicted and condemned; and those -to which, by some modifications, a hypothetical character can -be given—these are to be suspended until the needful corrections -have been made. This indicated the precise attitude -which the Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican -system. As a mere working hypothesis it was not -dangerous to the Roman Catholic religion; but as irrefragable -truth it shook its very foundations. They were, therefore, -determined at Rome that it should not make way as truth—it -was to be tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a -mathematical hypothesis, the use of which was obvious even -to the Romish <i>savans</i>, it might be allowed to stand. The -cardinal’s admonition and the decree are in logical agreement -with this intention. Galileo was to “renounce” the opinions -of Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain them as established -fact; as a hypothesis, like the rest of the world he -might retain them. But according to the document of 26th -February, entire silence was enjoined upon Galileo upon the -subject of the double motion of the earth, for in the injunction -neither to hold, teach, or defend it in any way (<i>quovis modo</i>), -the hypothetical treatment was obviously included.</p> - -<p>Perhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the -most distinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of -the Copernican system, who by his telescopic discoveries had -made the controversy a burning question of the day. But -this conjecture does not stand the test of close investigation, -for Galileo’s work on the solar spots, which was based upon -the sun’s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of -forbidden or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span> -of the curia against him at that period, the friendly feeling -for him personally, of powerful patrons in the Church, is -obvious, and it makes any specially rigorous action against -him very improbable. We have also other indications that -this categoric prohibition to Galileo had not then been, <i>de -facto</i>, issued.</p> - -<p>His letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. -We cannot expect to find in them precise information about -the proceedings of 26th February, as it was contrary to the -rules of the Inquisition to make public its secret orders, -under the severest penalties; but they contain no trace of the -deep depression which would have been caused by the stringent -orders of the Holy Office against him personally. On the -contrary, he writes on the 6th March (the day following the -issue of the decree) to Picchena: “I did not write to you, -most revered sir, by the last post, because there was nothing -new to report; as they were about to come to a decision -about that affair which I have mentioned to you <i>as a purely -public one, not affecting my personal interests</i>, or only so far -as my enemies very inopportunely want to implicate me in -it.” He goes on to say that he alludes to the deliberations -of the Holy Office about the book and opinions of Copernicus; -and mentions with evident satisfaction, that the purpose of -Caccini and his party to have that doctrine denounced as -heretical and contrary to the faith had not been attained, -for the Holy Office had simply stated that it did not agree -with Holy Scripture, and therefore only prohibited the books -which maintained, <i>ex professo</i>, that the Copernican doctrine -was not contrary to the Bible. Galileo then tells him more -particularly what the decree contained, and that the correction -of the works of Copernicus and Zuñiga was entrusted -to Cardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations -will be confined to such passages as aim to prove the -agreement of the modern system with Scripture, and “here -and there a word, as when Copernicus calls the earth a star.” -He adds: “I have, as will be seen from the nature of the case,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> -no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said before, -have troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn -me into it.” He means by this that the prohibition to try -and make the doctrine of the double motion square with -Scripture was indifferent to him; he would never have concerned -himself with theology if he had not been driven to it. -He then goes on: “It may be seen from my writings in -what spirit I have always acted, and I shall continue to act, -so as to shut the mouth of malice, and to show that my -conduct in this business has been such that a saint could -not have shown more reverence for the Church nor greater -zeal.”<a name="FNanchor_145" id="FNanchor_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></p> - -<p>In the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo -repeats what he has said about the correction of the work of -Copernicus, and says emphatically that it is clear that no -further restrictions will be imposed. From a reply from -Galileo’s faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters unfortunately not -extant, it is evident that he had by no means expressed -himself as cast down by the issue of the affair. Sagredo -writes in the best of spirits: “Now that I have learnt from -your valued letters the particulars of the spiteful, devilish -attacks on and accusations against you, and the issue of -them, which entirely frustrates the purposes of your ignorant -and malicious foes, I, and all the friends to whom I have -communicated your letters and messages, are quite set at -rest.”<a name="FNanchor_146" id="FNanchor_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p> - -<p>It is clear, then, from Galileo’s correspondence, that he -took the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks -with satisfaction of the trifling alterations to be made in -Copernicus’s work. How could the man, who was forbidden -to “hold, teach, or defend” the repudiated doctrine “in any -way,” write in this style?</p> - -<p>A document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating -to these transactions, is of the utmost importance to -the assertion that no such prohibition had ever been issued<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> -to Galileo. After the publication of the decree of 5th March -he remained three months at Rome. His enemies took -advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been -obliged formally to recant, and absolutely to abjure his -opinion. Galileo seems to have been indignant at this; he -pacified his adherents who sent anxious inquiries to their -master, and complained bitterly of the unscrupulousness of -his enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were too -bad. But in order to confute these calumnies and guard -himself against them in future, before leaving Rome he -begged a certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine to prove the -falsity of this perfidious fiction. This dignitary consented, -and wrote the following declaration:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously -reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also -been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the -truth as to this, declare, that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, -either in our hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or anywhere -else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him, neither -has any salutary penance been imposed upon him; but only the declaration -made by the Holy Father and published by the sacred Congregation -of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the -doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves round the sun, and -that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move -from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot -be defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and subscribed -these presents with our hand this 26th day of May, 1616.”<a name="FNanchor_147" id="FNanchor_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span></p> - -<p>Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this -document and that of 26th February; he has pointed out -that even if, as Martin thinks, “the secrets of the Inquisition -had to be kept at any price, even at the expense of truth,”<a name="FNanchor_148" id="FNanchor_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> -it would not have put forth so downright a lie in <i>optima -forma</i> as the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed -prohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General -of the Inquisition. This prohibition might -easily have been passed over in silence, while the calumnious -reports might have been refuted. But the cardinal was not -content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had -“only” been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation -of the Index about the Copernican system. While -this attestation of Bellarmine’s glaringly contradicts the -second part of the note of 26th February, it not only entirely -accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also -with Bellarmine’s report of the proceedings of 26th February -in the private sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. -This proves that the cardinal certified nothing more nor less -than what had actually taken place. It leads therefore to -the following conclusions:—</p> - -<p>1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the -cardinal’s admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican -doctrine.</p> - -<p>2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined -upon him.</p> - -<p>3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th -February, 1616, is therefore untrue.</p> - -<p>These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent -course of historical events will confirm them step by step, -while it can by no means be made to tally with the assumed -strict injunction of the Commissary-General. Next however,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -the question immediately arises, Through whose means did -the falsehood get into the acts of the trial, and was it <i>bona</i> -or <i>mala fide</i>? Historical research can only partially answer -this question. All these notifications were entered by a -notary of the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, -1616, also. Did he, perhaps merely from officious zeal, -enter a note of an official proceeding as having actually taken -place, which undoubtedly was to have taken place under -certain circumstances, but in their absence did not occur, or -even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal -instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power -which had long been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed -at the failure for the time of its schemes against him, sought -to forge secret fetters for future use by the entry of the -fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge of the -motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; -as however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, -or independent falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture -gains in probability that we are concerned with a -lying, perfidious trick of Galileo’s enemies,<a name="FNanchor_149" id="FNanchor_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> which, as we -shall see later on, signally fulfilled its purpose.</p> - -<p>Wohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long -been of opinion that this note originated, not in 1616, but -in 1632, in order to legalise the trial of Galileo. But after -having repeatedly and very carefully examined the original -acts of the trial, preserved among the papal secret archives, we -were compelled to acknowledge that the material nature of -the document entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent -falsification.<a name="FNanchor_150" id="FNanchor_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> The note was not falsified in 1632; no, in -1616 probably, with subtle and perfidious calculation, a lie -was entered which was to have the most momentous consequences -to the great astronomer.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect his recall.—Erroneous -idea that he was trying to get the Decree repealed.—Intrigues -against him.—Audience of Pope Paul V.—His friendly assurances.—His -Character.—Galileo’s return to Florence.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo had humbly submitted, had witnessed the issue of -the decree of 5th March by the august council; he knew that -the only correct doctrine of the system of the universe had -been reduced to the shadow of a hypothesis, and yet he -could not make up his mind to leave the capital of the hierarchy -where such a slap in the face had been given to science. -The story told in most works on Galileo, that though he had -submitted to the Holy Office he afterwards used his utmost -endeavours to effect a reversal of the decree, is another of the -firmly rooted and ineffaceable mistakes of history. It originated -in the reports of the Tuscan ambassador, Guiccardini, -to the Grand Duke.<a name="FNanchor_151" id="FNanchor_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p> - -<p>This diplomatist, who was no great friend of Galileo’s, -found himself in an awkward position; he had been, on the -one hand, enjoined by his sovereign to support Galileo as far -as it lay in his power, while on the other he knew that the -influential female members of the house of Medici were very -anxious to maintain the good relations of Tuscany with the -Holy See; and he tried to extricate himself from this dilemma -by urgently seeking to effect the recall of the inconvenient -guest to Florence. This object runs through all the ambassador’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -despatches to Cosmo II. He could not depict in -colours too glaring the passion, fanaticism, and pertinacity -with which, in spite of all advice to the contrary, Galileo -defended the Copernican cause at Rome, though he was -thereby doing it more harm than good. The long report of -Guiccardini to the Grand Duke, of 4th March, 1616,<a name="FNanchor_152" id="FNanchor_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> held to -be authentic by most of Galileo’s biographers, is couched in -this tone. Among other things a dramatic scene is narrated -which was the immediate cause of the condemnation of the -Copernican system. Cardinal Orsini, one of Galileo’s warmest -friends, to whom the Grand Duke had sent an autograph letter -of introduction, had spoken to the Pope in favour of Galileo -in the consistory of 2nd March. The Pope replied that it -would be well if he would persuade Galileo to give up this -opinion. Orsini then tried to urge the Pope further, but he -cut him short, saying that he had handed over the whole affair -to the Holy Office. No sooner had Orsini retired than Bellarmine, -the celebrated Jesuit theologian, was summoned to the -Pope, and in the conversation that ensued it was determined -that this opinion of Galileo’s was erroneous and heretical.</p> - -<p>Guiccardini must have been greatly misinformed to send -reports so incorrect to his court. As we have seen, on 19th -February the Qualifiers of the Holy Office were summoned -to pronounce an opinion on the Copernican doctrines, and as -the result Galileo was summoned seven days later to appear -before Bellarmine, who informed him of the decree, and -admonished him to renounce the prohibited doctrine. But -all this seems to have escaped the acuteness of the Tuscan -ambassador. He supposes that the catastrophe had been -brought about by a fit of papal anger! On 4th March he -only knows what was known the next day to all the world—by -the decree of the Congregation of the Index—that the -writings of Copernicus and other authors on the subject of -the double motion were to be partly condemned, partly -corrected, and partly prohibited.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span></p> - -<p>Guiccardini in this despatch represented, on the one hand, -the difficulties into which the imprudent astronomer “might” -bring himself by his vehemence, and on the other the embarrassment -in which those who took his part would be placed; -he reminded the Grand Duke of the attitude which his house -had at all times assumed in the past towards such attacks on -the Church of God, and of the services it had rendered to the -Inquisition, adding that he “could not approve that we should -expose ourselves to such annoyances and dangers without -very good reason, and a different prospect from that of great -damage.” The most potent argument, however, which he -saved for the close of his long epistle of 4th March, as the -climax, was the endeavour to inspire Cosmo II. with the -fear that his brother, Cardinal Carlo de’ Medici, who was -just coming to Rome, would compromise himself by his relations -with Galileo.</p> - -<p>From Galileo’s correspondence with Picchena, we learn in -contradiction to this despatch what it was that induced him -to linger at Rome after the issue of the decree of 5th March. -He did not wish to return to Florence under the impressions -produced by the alarming reports of Guiccardini and the -rumours spread by many of his opponents. It is evident that -he was aware of what was said of him from a passage in a -letter to Picchena of 6th March. After expressing a fear that -somebody not friendly to him might represent his affairs to -the Tuscan Secretary of State and others in a false light, he -entreats Picchena to maintain, until his return, the good opinion -of him which his sincerity deserves. He is convinced that the -arrival of Cardinal de’ Medici will relieve him from the need of -uttering one word of self-justification, as he will hear at once -what an excellent reputation he enjoyed at the Court of Rome. -He then goes on, as if directly refuting Guiccardini’s accusations:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Then your Grace will learn, above all, with what composure and -moderation I have conducted myself, and what regard I have had for the -honour and good repute of those who have eagerly tried to injure mine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> -and certainly your Grace will be surprised. I say this to you, most -honoured sir, in case any false accusations of the kind should reach your -ears from any quarter; and I hope that credit will be given to a party not -adverse to me, so that a more just understanding may be arrived at.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Meanwhile Galileo’s position became more favourable, -because the Pope received the submissive philosopher very -graciously on 11th March, and gave him an audience which -lasted three-quarters of an hour. He seized the opportunity -of speaking to Paul V. of the intrigues of his enemies, and of -some of the false accusations against him; to which the Pope -replied that he was well aware of the rectitude and sincerity -of his sentiments. And when Galileo, in conclusion, expressed -his fears of the perpetual persecutions of relentless -malice, the Pope consoled him by saying that he need not -fear, for he was held in so much esteem by himself and the -whole Congregation, that they would not listen to these calumnies, -and as long as he occupied the chair of St. Peter, Galileo -might feel himself safe from all danger. Paul V. also repeatedly -expressed his readiness to show his favour by his -actions.</p> - -<p>Galileo hastened on the very next day to make known the -favourable result of this audience to Picchena, the Secretary -of State, in a long letter.<a name="FNanchor_153" id="FNanchor_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> The effect of it, however, was -quite different from what he probably expected. The Court -of Tuscany, which had been not a little disquieted by -Guiccardini’s alarming despatch, thought it a good opportunity -to press upon Galileo, now that his fame was so brilliantly -re-established, to leave Rome and return to Florence. This -was the tenor of Picchena’s reply of 20th March.<a name="FNanchor_154" id="FNanchor_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> Their -highnesses, evidently still under the impression of Guiccardini’s -letter, implored Galileo to be quiet, and no longer to discuss -this dangerous subject, but to return.</p> - -<p>Encouraged by the Pope’s friendly words, however, Galileo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span> -showed no disposition to take these plain hints, and we learn -from his further correspondence that his tarriance at Rome -was fully approved by the Tuscan Court. Thus we read in a -letter of 26th March: “As to my return, unless his Highness -wishes it otherwise, I shall, in accordance with your commands, -await the arrival of his Reverence the Cardinal.” And further -on: “After the arrival of the Cardinal I shall stay here as -long as his Highness or the Cardinal pleases.”<a name="FNanchor_155" id="FNanchor_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<p>To the great annoyance of Guiccardini, Galileo remained -three months longer at Rome—beneath those skies which, -according to the ambassador, must prove dangerous to him -in consequence of his vehement temperament, “especially at -a time when the ruler of the eternal city hates science and -polite scholars, and cannot endure these innovations and -subtleties.” This portrait of Paul V. was undoubtedly a -correct one. He cared very little for learning, and displayed -a harsh and sometimes savage character; while the inviolability -of the dogmas of the Church, ecclesiastical privileges, -and blind obedience to the faith, were supreme in his eyes. -We will just remind our readers that it was Paul V. who, just -after his elevation to the papacy, had a poor wretch, named -Piccinardi, beheaded, because, for his private amusement, he -had written a biography of Clement VIII., in which he was -not very aptly compared with the Emperor Tiberius, although -the work was not intended for publication,—a sentence which -occasioned great consternation.</p> - -<p>At a time, therefore, when the tiara was worn by a man of -this character, the atmosphere of Rome might certainly have -been dangerous to an ardent explorer in the fields of natural -science. But as Galileo did not suffer any sort of papal -persecution during his stay there, it is obvious that the -character drawn of him by Guiccardini was very much exaggerated. -This also refutes the constantly reiterated fable -that Galileo was eagerly trying to get the decree of 5th -March repealed. The vehement agitation imputed to him by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span> -the ambassador, and this bold attempt, would have been -speedily followed by penalties. But history knows nothing -at this period of misunderstandings between Galileo and the -Church; indeed we possess a document which entirely contradicts -the reports of Guiccardini. This is a letter from -Cardinal del Monte to the Grand Duke at the time of -Galileo’s departure from Rome, written expressly “to bear -witness that he was leaving with the best reputation and the -approval of all who have had transactions with him; for it -has been made manifest how unjust the calumnies of his -enemies have been.” The cardinal adds, “that having conversed -much with Galileo, and being intimate with those who -were cognisant of all that had taken place, he could assure -his Highness that there was not the least imputation attaching -to the philosopher.”<a name="FNanchor_156" id="FNanchor_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p> - -<p>But to return to the course of events. The Tuscan ambassador -continued to send disquieting letters to the Grand -Duke about Galileo in order that he might be recalled. He -wrote in a despatch of 13th May: “ ... Galileo seems -disposed to emulate the monks in obstinacy, and to contend -with personages who cannot be attacked without ruining -yourself; we shall soon hear at Florence that he has madly -tumbled into some abyss or other.”<a name="FNanchor_157" id="FNanchor_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p> - -<p>Cosmo II., not a little alarmed by these gloomy prognostications -of his ambassador, and really in care for the revered -philosopher, at length issued the order for his long-desired -return. Picchena then wrote the following drastic letter to -Galileo, on 23rd May:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“You have had enough of monkish persecutions, and know now what -the flavour of them is. His Highness fears that your longer tarriance at -Rome might involve you in difficulties, and would therefore be glad if, as -you have so far come honourably out of the affair, you would not tease the -sleeping dog any more, and would return here as soon as possible. For<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span> -there are rumours flying about which we do not like, and the monks are -all powerful. I, your servant, would not fail to warn you, and to inform -you, as in duty bound, of the wishes of our ruler, wherewith I kiss your -hand.”<a name="FNanchor_158" id="FNanchor_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo complied without delay with Cosmo’s wishes, and -set out on his homeward journey on the 4th of the following -month.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work of -Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke Leopold of -Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The three Comets of -1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s -Treatise on them inspired by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical -and Philosophical Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His -Death.—Death of Cosmo II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” -finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” on it.—Death of Gregory XV.—Urban -VIII.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Seven years passed by, during which Galileo lived a secluded -and studious life in the Villa Segni, at Bellosguardo, -near Florence, without publishing any new work. How -could he do so? The acceptance and further application of -the Copernican system was the mainspring of all his scientific -pursuits, of which, multifarious as they were, the -principle of the double motion of the earth was both foundation -and keystone. The general permission to employ the -theory as a working hypothesis was of little service to him. -The lofty structure of correct knowledge of our universe -could not be raised on a pedestal of sand; it required the -imperishable marble of truth. Galileo was compelled to -withhold the results of his researches until, perchance, some -altered state of things should change the mind of the papal -court, at present so inimical to the Copernican cause. The -publication of any researches in accordance with the Copernican -system appeared especially dangerous, until the -promised corrections had been made in the famous work of -the Canon of Frauenburg, which had been temporarily -placed on the Index. These corrections would give more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span> -precise information as to how they wished the new doctrine -handled at Rome, what limits had been set by ecclesiastical -despotism to researches into nature. Galileo watched with -great anxiety the labours of the papal censors, and tried to -hasten them through his friend Prince Cesi.<a name="FNanchor_159" id="FNanchor_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> This eager -interest in the earliest possible publication of the corrections -is another thing which does not accord with the assumed -stringent prohibition of February 26th. What difference -would it have made to Galileo whether any facilities were -offered for the discussion of the Copernican theory or not, -if absolute silence on the subject had been enjoined on him?</p> - -<p>During this period, when he could not venture to have the -results of his various researches published, he was careful to -make them known to some friends of science by means of -long letters, numerous copies of which were then circulated -in Europe. Very few of them, unfortunately, have come down -to us, but there is one of them that deserves special notice. -It indicates precisely Galileo’s position: on the one hand -he feels constrained to make way for the recognition of -the truth; but on the other, as a good Catholic, and from -regard to his personal safety, he does not wish to clash with -ecclesiastical authority. This letter, too, adds weight to -the conclusion <i>that there was no prohibition enjoining absolute -silence on the Copernican theory on Galileo</i>.</p> - -<p>During his last stay at Rome, at the suggestion of Cardinal -Orsini, he had written a treatise on the tides in the form of -a letter to that dignitary, dated January 8th,<a name="FNanchor_160" id="FNanchor_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> in which he -expressed his firm conviction, erroneously as we now know, -that this phenomenon could only be explained on the theory -of the double motion of the earth. He represented it as an -important confirmation of the truth of it. In May, 1618, -he sent a copy of this treatise to the Archduke Leopold of -Austria, who was friendly to him, and was a brother of the -Grand Duchess. But as since it was written the decree<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span> -of March 5th had been issued, which only permitted discussion -of the subject as a hypothesis, Galileo thought it -advisable to add a sort of accompaniment to his treatise, in -which he took the utmost pains to comply with the conditions -imposed by the Church on her dutiful and orthodox son. He -wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“With this I send a treatise on the causes of the tides, which I wrote -rather more than two years ago at the suggestion of his Eminence -Cardinal Orsini, at Rome, at the time when the theologians were thinking -of prohibiting Copernicus’s book and the doctrine enounced therein of -the motion of the earth, which I then held to be true, until it pleased -those gentlemen to prohibit the work, and to declare that opinion to be -false and contrary to Scripture. Now, knowing as I do, that it behoves -us to obey the decisions of the authorities, and to believe them, since -they are guided by a higher insight than any to which my humble mind -can of itself attain, I consider this treatise which I send you merely to -be a poetical conceit, or a dream, and desire that your Highness may -take it as such, inasmuch as it is based on the double motion of the -earth, and indeed contains one of the arguments which I have adduced -in confirmation of it. But even poets sometimes attach a value to one or -other of their fantasies, and I likewise attach some value to this fancy -of mine. Now, having written the treatise, and having shown it to the -Cardinal above-mentioned, and a few others, I have also let a few exalted -personages have copies, in order that in case any one not belonging to -our Church should try to appropriate my curious fancy, as has happened -to me with many of my discoveries, these personages, being above all -suspicion, may be able to bear witness that it was I who first dreamed of -this chimera. What I now send is but a fugitive performance; it was -written in haste, and in the expectation that the work of Copernicus -would not be condemned as erroneous eighty years after its publication. -I had intended at my convenience, and in the quiet, to have gone more -particularly into this subject, to have added more proofs, to have -arranged the whole anew, and to have put it into a better form. But -a voice from heaven has aroused me, and dissolved all my confused and -tangled fantasies in mist. May therefore your Highness graciously -accept it, ill arranged as it is. And if Divine love ever grants that I may -be in a position to exert myself a little, your Highness may expect something -more solid and real from me.”<a name="FNanchor_161" id="FNanchor_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>On reading such passages one really does not know -which to be the most indignant at,—the iron rule by which -a privileged caste repressed the progress of science in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span> -name of religion, or the servility of one of the greatest -philosophers of all times in not scorning an unworthy subterfuge -in order to disseminate a grain of supposed truth in -the world without incurring personal danger.</p> - -<p>But in spite of all precautions, in spite of “chimeras,” -“fictions,” “fantasies,” and even “the voice from heaven,” -the circulation of this treatise, based upon the theory of the -double motion, would have been an infringement of the -assumed absolute prohibition to Galileo, while, thanks to -the ingenious accompaniment, it in no way clashed with the -decree of 5th March. Galileo’s conduct shows plainly enough -that he humbly submitted to the ecclesiastical ordinance, -but there is not a trace of the prohibition to discuss the -doctrine “in any way.”</p> - -<p>Little, however, as Galileo desired to engage, thus hampered, -in any perilous controversies, the next time it was -nature herself who enticed him into the field in which his -genius and his polemical ingenuity acquired for him both -splendid triumphs and bitter foes.</p> - -<p>In August, 1618, three comets appeared in the heavens, -and the brilliant one in the constellation of the Scorpion -strongly attracted the attention of astronomers. Although -it was visible until January, 1619, Galileo had very little -opportunity of observing it, as he was confined to his bed -by a severe and tedious illness.<a name="FNanchor_162" id="FNanchor_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> But he communicated his -views on comets to several of his friends, and among others -to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, who had come to -see the sick philosopher.<a name="FNanchor_163" id="FNanchor_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> He did not consider them to be -real heavenly bodies, but merely atmospheric appearances, -columns of vapour which rise from earth to the skies, to a -very considerable height, far beyond the moon, and become -temporarily visible to the inhabitants of the earth, in the well-known -form of a comet, by the refraction of the sun’s rays. -As he judged comets to be without substance, and placed -them on a par with mock suns and the aurora borealis, he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span> -concluded that they could have no parallax determinations.</p> - -<p>In the same year, 1619, a Jesuit, Father Grassi, delivered a -lecture on the three comets in the Roman College, in which -he gave out that such phenomena were not mere appearances, -but real heavenly bodies; copies of this lecture were widely -circulated, and Galileo was strongly urged by his adherents -to publish his opinion. He was prudent enough to evade -for the time a fresh controversy, which, in the existing -critical state of affairs, might bring him into danger, and -apparently took no part in the scientific feud which was -brewing. But he induced his learned friend and pupil, Mario -Guiducci, consul of the Academy at Florence, to publish -a treatise on comets. Numerous alterations and additions, -however, which are found in the original MS. in the -Palatina Library at Florence, attest that he had a direct -share in the editorship.<a name="FNanchor_164" id="FNanchor_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> The opinions hitherto held by -philosophers and astronomers on this subject were discussed, -and the author’s own—that is Galileo’s—expounded. Grassi’s -views were sharply criticised, and he was reproachfully asked -why he had passed over Galileo’s recent astronomical discoveries -in silence.</p> - -<p>Grassi, who recognised the real originator of the work, in -the reply which he issued a few months later entirely ignored -the pupil, that he might the more vigorously attack the -master. Under the pseudonym of <i>Lothario Sarsi Sigensano</i>, -he published a pamphlet against Galileo, entitled, “The -Astronomical and Philosophical Scales.”<a name="FNanchor_165" id="FNanchor_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> It is written with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span> -caustic bitterness, and is a model of Jesuitical malice and -cunning. The comet question was for the time a secondary -matter with Grassi, and he begins with a personal attack on -Galileo, by disputing the priority of several of his most -important discoveries and inventions, and reproaching him, -with pious indignation, with obstinate adherence to a doctrine -condemned by theologians. Up to this point he is -only angry and spiteful, but as he goes on he becomes -cunning. He sets up for a warm defender of the Peripatetic -physics, and attacks the Copernican system, and its advocate -Galileo, to compel him either to ignominious silence or dangerous -demonstrations. Under pretext of meeting Guiducci’s -reproach that he (Grassi) had taken Tycho as his authority, -he asks whether it would have been better to follow the -system of Ptolemy, which had been convicted of error, or that -of Copernicus, which every God-fearing man must abhor, and -his hypothesis, which had just been condemned? In discussing -the causes of the movements of comets, it seemed -to him that the arguments were insinuated on which the -forbidden doctrines were based. “Away!” he exclaims in -righteous indignation, “with all such words so offensive to -truth and to every pious ear! They were prudent enough -certainly scarcely to speak of them with bated breath, and -not to blazon it abroad that Galileo’s opinion was founded -upon this pernicious principle.”</p> - -<p>Thus attacked, Galileo prepared to defend himself. The -greatest caution was necessary, for Grassi was backed by the -powerful party of the Jesuits, who made a great boast of -this work.<a name="FNanchor_166" id="FNanchor_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> The letters of this period from Prince Cesi and -Galileo’s ecclesiastical friends at Rome show that they were -very anxious that he should not make the influential order of -Jesuits his enemies by a direct collision with them. But as -they saw the absolute necessity of a reply, they gave him all -sorts of good advice, how to parry the attack without incurring<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span> -their hatred. They were of opinion that he should not -honour an adversary concealed behind a pseudonym with a -reply written by himself, but should depute the task to a -pupil, or, if he intended to conduct his defence in person, -clothe his reply in the form of a letter instead of a treatise, -not addressed to Sarsi himself, but to one of his own party.<a name="FNanchor_167" id="FNanchor_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> -He decided for the latter; and adopting a hint from Mgr. -Ciampoli,<a name="FNanchor_168" id="FNanchor_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> he addressed the reply to Mgr. Cesarini, one of -his most devoted friends and dauntless defenders.</p> - -<p>But the completion of this afterwards famous rejoinder was -delayed for two years, and its publication, which, according -to custom with all works by members of the Accadémia dei -Lincei, was undertaken by the Society, was delayed fully -another year owing to the scruples of Prince Cesi and other -“lynxes.” Galileo’s procrastination is to be explained partly -by his continued ill health, but more so by the position of -affairs at Rome as well as in Tuscany, which was by no means -encouraging for a contest with a Jesuit.</p> - -<p>The imperious Paul V. was still the reigning Pope, and his -good will towards Galileo would certainly only have lasted -so long as he was entirely submissive. His dialectic reply, -which was pervaded by cutting irony aimed at a father of the -order of Jesuits, even sometimes making him appear ridiculous, -could not have been much to the taste of a Pope to -whom the inviolability of the Church and her ministers was -all in all. It is characteristic of this pontiff that, as appears -from the negotiations with James I., he seriously claimed the -right of deposing kings, and called every attempt to make -him relinquish this claim “a heretical proceeding,” and pronounced -the writings of some Venetian ecclesiastics who disputed -it, to be worse than Calvinistic. Just as this stern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> -pontiff was gathered to his fathers (16th January, 1621), in -consequence of an attack of apoplexy on the occasion of the -celebration of the victory on the Weissenberg, and the good-natured -and infirm old man, Gregory XV., ascended the papal -chair, Galileo sustained a blow which was most disastrous to -him. This was the death, on 28th February, 1621, of his -kind protector and patron, Cosmo II. The protection of an -energetic prince who sincerely respected him, which he had -hitherto enjoyed, was replaced by the uncertain favour of a -feminine government, as the widowed Grand Duchess, whose -tendencies were thoroughly Romish, assumed the regency -for Ferdinand II., who was still in his minority.</p> - -<p>Under these circumstances Galileo was but little inclined to -bring out his reply; and perhaps the time when they were -founding the Propaganda at Rome, and enrolling Loyola and -Xavier among the saints, did not seem very opportune. -From the new Pope personally there was nothing to fear. -The phlegmatic little man, who was so bowed down by age -and sickness that those about him often feared to lay complicated -business matters before him, lest he should entirely -break down, was certainly not likely to inspire awe; besides, -Gregory had expressed himself to Ciampoli very favourably -of Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_169" id="FNanchor_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> But the Pope’s infirmities made it all the more -necessary to proceed with caution; for they allowed the -Romish administration to exercise full sway. And the man -who guided it with almost sovereign authority was the -Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Lodovico Lodovisi, a former pupil -and therefore zealous friend of the Jesuits.</p> - -<p>Nevertheless Galileo’s adherents, and especially his clerical -friends at Rome, considered it absolutely necessary to publish -his reply as soon as possible, with the precautions before -mentioned, because his opponents construed his silence into -a triumph for Grassi and the Aristotelian school.<a name="FNanchor_170" id="FNanchor_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> Prince<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span> -Cesi, Mgrs. Cesarini and Ciampoli—the latter of whom meanwhile -had become Secretary of the Papal Briefs to Gregory -XV., a post which he also held under his successor, Urban -VIII., until he fell into disgrace about Galileo—urged him -repeatedly to finish his reply.<a name="FNanchor_171" id="FNanchor_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a></p> - -<p>Francesco Stelluti, a member of the Accadémia dei Lincei, -a learned friend of Galileo’s, did indeed at this time (June, -1622) bring out a work against “Lothario Sarsi,” but he only -defended Guiducci, and studiously avoided touching on the -reproaches cast on Galileo, in order not to anticipate him.<a name="FNanchor_172" id="FNanchor_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p> - -<p>At length, in October of the same year, Galileo sent the -MS. of his celebrated work, “Il Saggiatore” (The Assayer), -to Mgr. Cesarini, at Rome.<a name="FNanchor_173" id="FNanchor_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> For five months it passed from -hand to hand among the members of the Accadémia dei -Lincei, who carefully criticised it, and with Galileo’s consent, -altered the passages which might possibly have been taken -advantage of by his enemies to renew their intrigues against -him. The Jesuits meanwhile had got wind of the completion -of the reply, and did their utmost to get hold of one of -the numerous copies of the MS.; but Cesarini, Cesi, Ciampoli, -and the other “Lynxes,” took good care of them, well -knowing that if the Jesuits once made acquaintance with this -crushing reply, they would use every endeavour to prevent -its receiving the <i>imprimatur</i>.<a name="FNanchor_174" id="FNanchor_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> This was granted on 2nd -February, 1623, by the supreme authorities of the censorship, -not only without hesitation, but they spoke of the work -in very favourable and flattering terms. The opinion—which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span> -was drawn up by Father Nicolo Riccardi, a former -pupil of Galileo’s, who will often be mentioned in the -sequel, then examiner, and afterwards even Magister Sacrii -Palatii—was as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“By command of the Master of the Palace I have read the work, ‘Il -Saggiatore,’ and not only have I detected nothing in it which is contrary -to good morals, or deviates from the divine truth of our religion, but I -have found in it such beautiful and manifold observations on natural -philosophy, that I think our age will not have to boast merely of having -been the inheritor of the labours of earlier philosophers, but also of having -been the discoverer of many secrets of nature which they were not -able to penetrate, thanks to the subtle and solid researches of the author, -whose contemporary I think myself happy to be, for now the gold of -truth is no longer weighed wholesale and with the steelyard, but with the -delicate scales used for gold.”<a name="FNanchor_175" id="FNanchor_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The commencement of the printing was again delayed till -the beginning of May,<a name="FNanchor_176" id="FNanchor_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> and then proceeded but slowly, for it -was not until 27th May that Ciampoli sent the first two -sheets of the “Saggiatore” to the author, in order to prove to -him the falseness of a report which had meanwhile gained -currency, that the printing of the work had been prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_177" id="FNanchor_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a></p> - -<p>An event then took place which seemed likely to produce -a great change in Galileo’s relations with Rome; indeed in -the whole attitude of ecclesiastical authority towards the -free progress of science. At all events, as we shall see, -Galileo flattered himself with this hope, and not without -some justification. On 8th July, 1623, Gregory XV. succumbed -to age and infirmity in the second year of his -pontificate. The man who at the age of fifty-five was now -elevated to the papacy, not only did not in the least resemble -his immediate predecessors, but his tendencies were in striking -contrast to theirs. He was previously Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, -and now ascended the papal throne as Urban VIII.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when Cardinal.—Letters -to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication of “Il Saggiatore,” -with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the Work.—The -Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed Prohibition.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Scarcely any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation -of his character and aims in his own trenchant utterances -as Urban VIII. When shown the marble monuments -of his predecessors, he proudly observed that he “would erect -iron ones to himself.” And the fortress of Castelfranco on -the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort -Urbino), the new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the -Vatican Library turned into an arsenal, the new manufactory -of arms at Tivoli, and finally the costly harbour of Civita -Vecchia, are so many silent testimonies to the cherished desire -of this <i>pontiff</i> to transform the eternal city into an inviolable -symbol in stone of the temporal power of the Pope, and -to accredit himself as a true mediæval vicegerent of Christ -with the two-edged sword of the world. His athletic physique -and iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of -his ideas. In his self-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel -with the Sacred College, saying that he “knew better than all -the cardinals put together,” and boldly set himself above all -ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard of reason that “the -sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the decrees -of a hundred dead ones.” And finally, to leave his flock, the -Christian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral -humility, he revoked the resolve of the Romans never again<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -to erect a monument to a Pope in his lifetime, saying, “such -a resolution could not apply to a Pope like himself.”</p> - -<p>The desire for unlimited temporal power rises like a column -out of the life of Urban VIII. Still it is not destitute of the -embellishments of art, poetry, and love of learning. It is no -fiction that this imperious pontiff found pleasure in turning -passages of the Old and New Testaments into Horatian -metre, and the song of Simeon into two sapphic strophes! -His numerous and often cordial letters to Galileo bear witness -also of his interest in science and its advocates; but if these -scientific or poetic tastes clashed for a moment with the -papal supremacy, the patron of art and science had to give -place at once to the ecclesiastical ruler, who shunned no -means, secret or avowed, of making every other interest subservient -to his assumption of temporal and spiritual dominion.</p> - -<p>It is simply a psychological consequence of these traits of -character, that arbitrary caprice, the twin brother of despotic -power, often played an intolerable part in his treatment of -those who came in contact with him.<a name="FNanchor_178" id="FNanchor_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a></p> - -<p>This then was the character of the new head of the Catholic -Church, on whom Galileo placed great hopes for the -progress of science in general, and the toleration of the Copernican -system in particular, though they were to result in bitter -disappointment. Yet to all appearance he was justified in -hailing this election, for not only was Urban VIII. a refreshing -contrast to his immediate predecessors, who cared -little for art or science, but as Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, he -had for years shown the warmest friendship for and interest -in Galileo.</p> - -<p>Many letters from this dignitary to Galileo which have -come down to us bear witness to this.<a name="FNanchor_179" id="FNanchor_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> Thus he wrote to -him from Bologna on 5th June, 1612: “I have received your -treatise on various scientific questions, which have been -raised during my stay here, and shall read them with great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> -pleasure, both to confirm myself in my opinion, <i>which agrees -with yours</i>, and, with the rest of the world, to enjoy the fruits -of your rare intellect.”<a name="FNanchor_180" id="FNanchor_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> The words, “in order to confirm,” -etc., have led some not very careful writers to conclude that, -at all events when cardinal, Urban VIII. was a follower of -Copernicus. But this is quite beside the mark. For the -work in question was the one on floating bodies, with -which, though the Peripatetics got the worst of it, neither -Ptolemy or Copernicus had anything to do. A little more -attention would have saved Philarete Chasles and others -from such erroneous statements.</p> - -<p>Another letter to Galileo from the cardinal, 20th April, -1613, after the publication of his work on the solar spots, shows -the interest he took in the astronomer and his achievements. -He writes:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Your printed letters to Welser have reached me, and are very welcome. -I shall not fail to read them with pleasure, again and again, which they -deserve. This is not a book which will be allowed to stand idly among -the rest; it is the only one which can induce me to withdraw for a few -hours from my official duties to devote myself to its perusal, and to the observation -of the planets of which it treats, if the telescopes we have here -are fit for it. Meanwhile I thank you very much for your remembrance -of me, and beg you not to forget the high opinion which I entertain for -a mind so extraordinarily gifted as yours.”<a name="FNanchor_181" id="FNanchor_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But the cardinal had not confined himself to these assurances -of esteem and friendship in his letters, but had proved -them by his actions in 1615 and 1616, by honestly assisting -to adjust Galileo’s personal affairs when brought before the -Inquisition. And Maffeo Barberini attributed the success -then achieved in no small degree to his own influence, and -used even to relate with satisfaction when Pope, that he had -at that time assisted Galileo out of his difficulties. But here -we must remind those authors who represent Barberini, when -cardinal, as a Copernican, in order to paint his subsequent -attitude as Pope in darker hues than history warrants, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span> -although in 1615 and 1616 he exerted himself for Galileo -personally, he in no way sought to avert the condemnation -of the system.</p> - -<p>In 1620, however, Barberini gave Galileo a really enthusiastic -proof of his esteem. He celebrated his discoveries -in some elegant and spirited verses, in which astronomy was -allied with morality, and he sent them to Galileo, under date -of 28th August, with the following letter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The esteem which I always entertain for yourself and your great -merits has given occasion to the enclosed verses. If not worthy of you, -they will serve at any rate as a proof of my affection, while I purpose to -add lustre to my poetry by your renowned name. Without wasting -words, then, in further apologies, which I leave to the confidence which I -place in you, I beg you to receive with favour this insignificant proof of -my great affection.”<a name="FNanchor_182" id="FNanchor_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>When this dignitary, who was generally regarded as a -friend and protector of science, had ascended the papal chair, -the “Accadémia dei Lincei” hastened to dedicate “Il Saggiatore” -to his Holiness, in order to spoil the sport of the -author’s enemies beforehand.</p> - -<p>To the annoyance of Galileo’s opponents and delight of -his friends, by the end of October, 1623, “Il Saggiatore” -appeared. This work is a masterpiece of ingenuity; for the -author not only dexterously avoids falling into the snares laid -for him by Father Grassi, but prepares signal defeats for him. -Galileo takes his attack on him, “The Astronomical and Philosophical -Scales,” paragraph by paragraph, throws light on -each, and disputes or confutes it. And it is done in so sparkling -and spirited a style, and the reasoning, pervaded by -cutting sarcasm, is so conclusive, that “Il Saggiatore” -certainly deserves to be called a model of dialectic skill.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span> -Our limits preclude going further into its scientific contents. -For our purpose it will suffice to say that Galileo took occasion -in it to lash many errors in Grassi’s work unmercifully, -and thereby incurred the eternal hatred of the all powerful -Jesuit party. Thus it was to a great extent the purely scientific -“Saggiatore” which subsequently conjured up the tragic -element in Galileo’s fate.</p> - -<p>Another interesting point in the work is the way in which -Galileo replies to Grassi’s interpellations about the system -of the universe. Admirable as is the ingenuity with which -he performs this ticklish task, one cannot sympathise with -the denial of his inmost convictions. He parries the provocations -of his adversary by demonstrating that the -Ptolemaic and Copernican doctrines had nothing to do with -the controversy about comets, and that this question was -only raised by “Sarsi” in order to attack him (Galileo). He -adds the ambiguous remark: “As to the Copernican hypothesis, -I am fully convinced that if we Catholics had not to -thank the highest wisdom for having corrected our mistake -and enlightened our blindness, we should never have been -indebted for such a benefit to the arguments and experiences -of Tycho.”<a name="FNanchor_183" id="FNanchor_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> He then shows that the Copernican system, -“which, as a pious Catholic, he considers entirely erroneous -and completely denies,” perfectly agrees with the telescopic -discoveries, which cannot be made to agree at all with the -other systems. But since, in spite of all this caution, a -defence of the new system might have been detected in these -statements, Galileo hastens to the conciliatory conclusion, -that since the Copernican theory is condemned by the Church, -the Ptolemaic no longer tenable in the face of scientific -research, while that of Tycho is inadequate, some other must -be sought for.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding all this fencing, however, no one can fail to -see in “Il Saggiatore” an underhand defence of the Copernican -system, as is evident from the passages quoted. Such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span> -a vague discussion of it as this, however, did not compromise -Galileo according to the decree of 5th March, 1616; but -“Il Saggiatore” would have directly contravened the assumed -absolute injunction to silence on that system of 26th February, -and Galileo would certainly not have ventured to write -in this style if the Commissary-General of the Holy Office -had, in 1616, solemnly forbidden him to discuss the said -doctrine in any way whatever (<i>quovis modo</i>). This is -another proof that this famous prohibition was not issued -to Galileo in the form in which it occurs in the archives of -26th February.</p> - -<p>“Il Saggiatore” was, indeed, denounced to the Inquisition -in 1625, by Galileo’s opponents, as containing a concealed -endorsement of the Copernican system, and a motion was -made in the Congregation of the Holy Office to prohibit it, or -at any rate to have it corrected; but it was not carried, and -the party only prepared a defeat for themselves. In consequence -of the denunciation, a cardinal was charged to investigate -the matter, and to report upon it. He selected -Father Guevara, General of the Theatines, to assist him, who, -after careful examination of the work in question, spoke -in high praise of it, recommended it most warmly to the -cardinal, and even gave him a written statement, in which -he explained that the opinion of the earth’s motion, even if -it had been maintained, would not have appeared to him a -reason for condemning it.<a name="FNanchor_184" id="FNanchor_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> Even Urban VIII., who, we must -suppose, was perfectly acquainted with the proceedings of -1616, does not appear to have had any scruples about “Il -Saggiatore,” for he had it read aloud to him at table, immediately -after its publication,<a name="FNanchor_185" id="FNanchor_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> and, as Galileo was assured, -enjoyed it highly.<a name="FNanchor_186" id="FNanchor_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="I_CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>PAPAL FAVOUR.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his Accession.—Favourable -Reception.—Scientific discussions with the Pope.—Urban -refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The -Microscope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Urban’s favours to Galileo on -leaving Rome.—Galileo’s reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s -hypocrisy.—Spinola’s harangue against the Copernican System.—Lothario -Sarsi’s reply to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his “Dialogues.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>On the accession of Urban VIII. Galileo formed a project -of offering his congratulations to the new Pope at Rome, -and of using all his personal influence on the occasion to -obtain toleration for the Copernican system, now no longer -opposed by the weighty influence of Cardinal Bellarmine, for -he had died two years before. But he first consulted his -friends at Rome, whether he would be well received, and -especially by his Holiness. He wrote among other things to -Prince Cesi, on 9th October, 1623: “I have in my head -plans of no small importance for the learned world, and -perhaps can never hope for so wonderful a combination of -circumstances to ensure their success, at least so far as I am -able to conduce to it.”<a name="FNanchor_187" id="FNanchor_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> Cesi, who well understood Galileo’s -mode of speaking, confirmed him in his intentions in his -answer of 21st October, and urged him to carry out his -project speedily. “It is necessary for you to come, and you -will be very welcome to his Holiness,” wrote the Prince.<a name="FNanchor_188" id="FNanchor_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> -Thomas Rinuccini, brother of the Archbishop of Fermo, of -whom Galileo made the same inquiries, replied as commissioned -by the new Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Francesco<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span> -Barberini, that Urban VIII. would always be pleased to -receive him, and told him that he had had a long audience -of the Pope himself three days ago, of which he reported to -Galileo:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I swear to you that nothing pleased his Holiness so much as the -mention of your name. After I had been speaking of you for some time, -I told him that you, esteemed sir, had an ardent desire to come and kiss -his toe, if his Holiness would permit it, to which the Pope replied that -it would give him great pleasure, if it were not inconvenient to you, and -if the journey would not be injurious to your health; for great men like -you must spare themselves, that they may live as long as possible.”<a name="FNanchor_189" id="FNanchor_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo now resolved to go to Rome as soon as he could, -but his uncertain health and the unprecedentedly bad -weather, which had laid whole tracts of land under water, -delayed his departure. His friends at Rome wrote meanwhile -again and again, encouraging him to set out, for the -Pope, Cardinal Barberini, and all his exalted patrons and -numerous adherents were longing for his presence;<a name="FNanchor_190" id="FNanchor_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> and -Mgr. Ciampoli assured him that he “would find that his -Holiness had a special personal affection for him.”<a name="FNanchor_191" id="FNanchor_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></p> - -<p>At length, on the 1st April, Galileo was able to set out, -although the state of his health was still such that he could -only perform the journey in a litter. He reached Aquasparta -on 8th April, spent a fortnight with Prince Cesi in his fine -place there, and discussed the affairs which lay so near his -heart with his learned and influential friend. He did not -arrive in Rome till towards the end of April. The long-expected -guest would have been sure of a distinguished -reception, even without the Grand Duchess Christine’s letter<a name="FNanchor_192" id="FNanchor_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> -of recommendation to her son, Cardinal de’ Medici. Every -one was aware of the favour which the new Pope entertained<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span> -for the great astronomer. His old adherents, therefore, -received him with greater delight than ever; and his enemies, -for the time, only ventured to clench their fists behind his -back. His letters of this period express the great satisfaction -which this flattering reception afforded him.<a name="FNanchor_193" id="FNanchor_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> The prospect -did not indeed look quite so favourable for his cause. Within -six weeks he had had six long audiences of Urban VIII., -had been most affably received by him, and had found opportunity -to lay before him all his arguments in defence of the -Copernican system;<a name="FNanchor_194" id="FNanchor_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> but he would not be convinced, and in -one of these discussions tried to turn the tables, and to convince -the advocate of the modern system of its incorrectness, -in which he met with no success. And not only did Urban, -in spite of his esteem for Galileo, turn a deaf ear to his -arguments, but he would not grant his petition for toleration -of the new doctrine; on this point he was quite inexorable.</p> - -<p>In vain did Galileo obtain the support of several of the -cardinals who were friendly to him, to gain permission from -the supreme ruler of Christendom to teach the Copernican -system <i>as true</i>. The Pope said to Cardinal Hohenzollern, -who, at Galileo’s request, warmly took up the question, and -had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great -caution was required in dealing with it, “that the Church -neither had condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine -as heretical, but only as rash.”<a name="FNanchor_195" id="FNanchor_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> This language was, as Henri -Martin justly observes,<a name="FNanchor_196" id="FNanchor_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> more than wanting in precision; for -in the first place the Church had never condemned it at -all, either as “heretical” or “rash,” for the Qualifiers of the -Holy Office never mean the “Church”; and in the second -place, this commission had, in 1616, not condemned this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span> -opinion as “rash,” but “foolish and absurd philosophically, -and formally heretical,” and this without the papal confirmation, -so that no condemnation by the Church could be -said to exist.</p> - -<p>Galileo, finding that Urban, with all his friendly feeling towards -him personally, would never be persuaded to revoke -the decree of 5th March, 1616, resolved to return home after -a stay of six weeks at Rome. There was little to be gained -by remaining longer. As soon as the attitude which Urban -intended to assume towards the prohibited doctrine became -evident, Galileo’s clerical adherents as far as possible avoided -expressing themselves on the subject, and the moderate party -among the Romanists merely advised him to take care that -his scientific speculations did not contradict Holy Scripture.</p> - -<p>Father Nicolo Riccardi, who was much attached to Galileo -and took a great interest in his subsequent trial, was very -ingenious in maintaining a safe neutrality between the two -systems. This good man, to whom from his eloquence, or as -others said because he was so fat, the King of Spain had given -the nickname of “Il Padre Mostro,” prudently agreed neither -with the Ptolemaic nor the Copernican system, but contented -himself with a view as peculiar as it was convenient. He saw -no difficulty in the stars being moved, as we see them to be -moved in the vault of heaven, by angels, a proceeding which -demanded nothing on our part but wonder and admiration.<a name="FNanchor_197" id="FNanchor_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile Galileo’s stay at Rome had been of essential -service to science, although in quite a different way from that -which he intended on his arrival. In 1622 a certain Jacob -Kuppler, from Cologne, came to Rome with a microscope -made by a relative of his, a Dutchman of the name of -Drebbel, in order to lay the new discovery, of which Drebbel -claimed to be the inventor,<a name="FNanchor_198" id="FNanchor_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> before the papal government.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span> -Kuppler, however, died before he had an opportunity of -exhibiting his instrument to the court. Soon afterwards -many other microscopes were sent to Rome, where, however, -no one knew how to use the complicated instrument. Galileo -not only at once perceived its use, but greatly improved it.<a name="FNanchor_199" id="FNanchor_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> -He afterwards sent many of these improved instruments to -his friends, and before long his microscopes were in as great -request as his telescopes.<a name="FNanchor_200" id="FNanchor_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> In order to rectify a mistake that -has been often repeated, that Galileo was the inventor of this -instrument of such vast importance to science, we mention -here that he never claimed this merit himself; it was his -eulogist, Viviani, who first claimed it for him, and his thoughtless -followers have repeated it. Galileo had indeed, as he -mentions in his “Il Saggiatore,” discovered a method of using -the telescope to magnify objects as early as 1610, but it required -an over-zealous biographer to claim Galileo as the -inventor of the microscope from this. It was, however, he -who, in 1624, brought the microscope to a degree of perfection -on which for a long time no advance was made.</p> - -<p>Urban VIII. heaped favours of all sorts on Galileo before -his departure. He promised him a pension for his son,<a name="FNanchor_201" id="FNanchor_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> three -days afterwards he sent him a splendid picture, then again -two medals—one of silver, the other of gold, and quite a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span> -number of Agnus Dei<a name="FNanchor_202" id="FNanchor_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a>; poor consolation, it is true, for the -disappointment of the great expectations with which he came -to Rome. However, he did not return to Florence entirely -without hope. Although there could be no longer any expectation -of a public revocation of the famous decree, he -was fain to believe that it would not be rigidly kept to, and -thought that, supported by his papal patron, he should be able -ingeniously to circumvent it. He was far from thinking that -the fetters placed by the ecclesiastical power on the free -course of the Copernican doctrine were removed, but he was -of opinion that they were considerably loosened. And ensuing -events, as well as all the news which Galileo received -from his friends at Rome, were calculated to confirm the idea. -The Pope, wishing to give a strong official proof of his favour, -had himself addressed a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, -in which, to the no small chagrin of Galileo’s enemies, -he had not only done full justice to his services to science, but -had laid special stress on his religious sentiments. In this -letter of 7th June, 1624, Urban first mentioned Galileo’s -great discoveries, “the fame of which will shine on earth -so long as Jupiter and his satellites shine in heaven.” And -after declaring that he felt a true fatherly affection for so -great a man, his Holiness continued:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We have observed in him not only the literary distinction, but also the -love of religion and all the good qualities worthy of the papal favour. -When he came to congratulate us on our accession, we embraced him -affectionately, and listened with pleasure to his learned demonstrations -which add fresh renown to Florentine eloquence. We desire that he -should not return to his native country without having received by our -generosity manifold proofs of our papal favour.... And that you -may fully understand to what extent he is dear to us, we wish to give this -brilliant testimony to his virtues and piety. We are anxious to assure you -that we shall thank you for all the kindness that you can show him, by -imitating or even surpassing our fatherly generosity.”<a name="FNanchor_203" id="FNanchor_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>With his hopes raised still higher by these unusually gracious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span> -words of his papal patron, Galileo ventured, soon after his -return from Rome, to reply to a refutation of the Copernican -system, which in 1616 had been addressed to him as its most -distinguished advocate in the then favourite form of a public -letter, by a certain Ingoli, then a lawyer at Ravenna, and afterwards -secretary of the Propaganda at Rome. Ingoli, though -an adherent of the old system, was at the same time a sincere -admirer of Galileo, so that his arguments against the theory -of the double motion of the earth were characterised by -great objectivity. After the events of 1616, Galileo had -wisely refrained from answering it; in 1618, however, it had -been done by another corypheus of science, Kepler, in his -“Extracts from the Astronomy of Copernicus,”<a name="FNanchor_204" id="FNanchor_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> in which -he valiantly combated Ingoli’s objections. But the latter -did not consider himself beaten, and replied in a letter -addressed to a chamberlain of Paul V.</p> - -<p>Now, after the lapse of eight years, Galileo thought that, -protected by the favour of Urban VIII., he might venture on -a reply to Ingoli. But he again took care in writing it not to -come into collision with the decree of 5th March. With the -assumed imperious prohibition of February, 1616, this step of -Galileo’s can be no more made to agree than his sending his -treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, -1618, or the publication of “Il Saggiatore.” Galileo undertakes, -in the reply to Ingoli, to defend the Copernican doctrine -under a double pretext. On the one hand, he says he -wishes to show that, as he had given currency to the new -system of the universe before it was condemned by ecclesiastical -authority, he had not been the defender of an improbable -or unreasonable idea; on the other hand, he wishes to prove -to the Protestant Copernicans in Germany, that in Catholic -Italy the views of their great countryman had not been rejected -from ignorance of their great probability, “but from -reverence for Holy Scripture, as well as zeal for religion and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span> -our holy faith.” After this ingenious introduction, and an -assurance that he had no intention whatever of representing -the forbidden doctrine <i>as true</i>, he proceeds with equal politeness -and vigour to refute all Ingoli’s objections.<a name="FNanchor_205" id="FNanchor_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a></p> - -<p>In spite of this diplomatic introduction, however, his friends -at Rome, well aware of the malice of his enemies, and having -had but a few months before to defend “Il Saggiatore,” -urgently dissuaded him from having this rather warm defence -of a forbidden doctrine printed.<a name="FNanchor_206" id="FNanchor_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> He gave heed to their -warnings, and so this reply was only circulated in numerous -copies among the learned world in Italy.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the reports which Galileo was constantly receiving -from his friends at Rome tended to increase his confidence -in the favourable influence which Urban’s personal -liking for him, and his taste for art and science, were likely to -exercise on tolerance of the Copernican system. Thus his -devoted adherent Guiducci, in several letters of 6th, 13th and -24th September, 1624,<a name="FNanchor_207" id="FNanchor_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> told him, that through the mediation -of the Jesuit father, Tarquinio Galuzzi, he had had several -interviews with Galileo’s former bitter adversary, Father -Grassi, who had said that Galileo’s theory that the phenomena -of the tides were to be attributed to the double motion -of the earth “was very ingenious,” and that when the truth -of these opinions was unanswerably established, the theologians -would bestir themselves to alter the interpretation of -those passages of Scripture which refer to the earth as being -stationary! The guileless Guiducci added confidentially, quite -taken with this Jesuit’s amiability, that he had not noticed -any great aversion to the new system in Grassi, indeed he did -not despair of estranging “Lothario Sarsi” from Ptolemy.</p> - -<p>Two months later, however, the same correspondent told -Galileo that a violent harangue had been delivered in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span> -Jesuit College at Rome against the adherents of the new -doctrine, by Father Spinola, and some time afterwards he sent -him a copy of it;<a name="FNanchor_208" id="FNanchor_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> but as it attacked all those who did not -profess to be followers of an antiquated Peripateticism, it -made but little impression on Galileo, and that little was -entirely effaced when Mgr. Ciampoli wrote to him, on -28th December, 1625, that he had acquainted the Pope -with several passages of his reply to Ingoli, and that he -had highly approved them.<a name="FNanchor_209" id="FNanchor_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a></p> - -<p>Before long Guiducci found out how bitterly he had been -deceived in Grassi, and what a miserable game he had been -playing with him as Galileo’s friend. The memory of the -favours by which the Pope had distinguished the great Tuscan -when at Rome had scarcely died away when Grassi threw -aside the mask, and “Lothario Sarsi” exhibited himself in a -new and revised edition, fulminating rage and venom against -Galileo and his system. Notwithstanding the hypocritical -moderation exhibited to Guiducci, he had not forgotten the -mortifying defeat which “Il Saggiatore” had subjected him to, -and, though circumstances had prevented him from defending -himself at once, he had by no means given up the intention -of doing so. Two years having elapsed since Galileo’s -visit to Rome, Grassi thought he might venture, under pretext -of a reply to “Il Saggiatore,” to publish a new attack on -its author. It was entitled, in bad Latin: “Ratio ponderum -Libræ et Simbellæ, etc. Autore Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” -It contained many personal accusations against Galileo, and -the work altogether was characterized by a blind hatred, -which repeatedly led the author into very foolish statements. -For instance, Grassi tried incidentally to prove by very ingenious -arguments that Galileo’s physics would lead to the -denial of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper!<a name="FNanchor_210" id="FNanchor_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> But the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span> -enraged Jesuit went still further, and gave his readers pretty -plainly to understand that since Galileo agreed on many -questions of physics with Epicurus, Telesius, and Cardanus, -he must also approve their godlessness, which strange assertion, -however, he did not venture to sustain by any evidence.</p> - -<p>To Galileo it seemed an encouraging sign of the times that -it was considered desirable to seek a publisher for these -accusations from a member of the Roman College away from -the papal residence. Grassi’s effusions came out at Paris in -1626, and at Naples in 1627. The very unfavourable reception -of the work at Rome, except among a few pettifogging enemies -of Galileo, also tended to confirm him in his unfortunately -mistaken opinion that Rome, under the pontificate of Urban -VIII., would have little or nothing to object to in the rich -harvest promised by the researches of Copernicus and Kepler, -as well as by his own discoveries in the field of science. He -thought he could reckon on papal tolerance, if only the defence -of the new system were so circumspectly handled as not -to clash with the oft-mentioned decree of the Congregation.</p> - -<p>On this assumption he had resolved, immediately after his -return from Rome, to carry out the great work which he had -long projected, and which, from the vast scientific knowledge -it displayed, combined with a brilliant style, was to meet with -greater success and favour than had ever been attained by -any scientific work. This was his “Dialogues on the Two -Principal Systems of the World.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="PART_II">PART II.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE -TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD,” AND -TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.</i></span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE “DIALOGUES” ON THE TWO SYSTEMS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their Popular Style.—Significance of the -name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the Copernican System.—Attitude -of Rome towards Science.—Thomas Campanella.—Urban -VIII.’s Duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. to Rome.—Riccardi’s Corrections—He -gives the <i>Imprimatur</i> on certain Conditions.—Galileo -returns to Florence to complete the Work.</p> - -</div> - -<p>It is a curious fact that the very work which was destined -to be one of the most powerful levers in obtaining general -recognition for the true order of the universe originated in -what we now know to be an erroneous idea. The famous -book, “Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the -World, the Ptolemaic and Copernican,”<a name="FNanchor_211" id="FNanchor_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> arose out of the -treatise on the tides which Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, -at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini.<a name="FNanchor_212" id="FNanchor_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> The important -influence of these “Dialogues,” both on science and the -subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss them -more particularly.</p> - -<p>The book contains a great deal more than is promised by -the title; for the author included in it, in connection with the -discussion of the two systems, nearly all the results of his -researches and discoveries in science, extending over nearly -fifty years. He also endeavoured to write in a style which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span> -should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but which -would be both intelligible and attractive to every educated -person; and in this he attained complete success, for he wished -by means of this book to extend as widely as possible a knowledge -of the true order of nature. The form of the work -was most happily chosen. The results of the researches of -a lifetime were not given to the reader in a work redolent -of the pedantry of the professor’s chair, in which scientific -demonstrations drag on with wearisome monotony, but in -the lively form of dialogue, which admitted of digressions -and gave the author scope for displaying his seductive eloquence, -his rare skill in dialectics and biting sarcasm—in -short, for his peculiarly brilliant style.</p> - -<p>The dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of -whom adduce the scientific reasons for the double motion of -the earth, while the third honestly tries to defend the opinions -of the Aristotelian school with all the scientific means at his -disposal, and as these did not suffice, with the arts of sophistry -also. If he has but little success, the fault lies with the cause -he advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders of the Copernican -system the names of his two famous pupils and friends, -neither of them then living, Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and -Giovan Francesco Sagredo, senator of Venice, thereby erecting -a better monument to them than he could have done in marble. -Salviati is the special advocate of the Copernican theory. -Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman, intelligent, -impartial, and desirous to learn. The advocate of the Ptolemaic -system was called briefly Simplicius, a pseudonym over which -the learned have often puzzled their heads. Did he give this -name of simpleton satirically to the champion of the ancient -system, or was it merely an allusion to Simplicius, the commentator -of Aristotle, as Galileo stated in his “Avviso al -lettore?”</p> - -<p>The selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous -attitude which the author maintains in his “Dialogues.” The -sarcastic vein is obvious throughout, but is ingeniously concealed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span> -behind a mask intended to inspire confidence. Salviati -conducts the arguments for the Copernican theory with such -convincing force and clearness, and annihilates so completely -all the objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no unbiassed -reader can fail to perceive the scientific superiority of -the modern theory to the old. And as Galileo conscientiously -puts in the mouth of the Peripatetic philosopher every possible -argument in favour of the Aristotelian cause, as well as the -objections to the other side, the total defeat of its advocate is -a victory all the more brilliant for the immortal Canon of -Frauenburg.</p> - -<p>The condition that the Copernican doctrine is only to be -employed as a hypothesis is ostensibly fully complied with. -If Salviati or Sagredo demonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness -of some Ptolemaic axiom, or add an important -stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to interpolate -some remark to weaken the impression. It must be -confessed, however, that the agreement of this “hypothesis” -with all the phenomena of nature is as clear as daylight; and -when, for instance, it is said that the final decision in the -present controversy rests neither with mathematics and -physics, nor with philosophy and logic, but solely with a -“higher insight,” or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that -he does not in the least wish to maintain the truth of the -Copernican doctrine, but applies the word “possibly” to it, -or speaks of it as a “fantasia” or “vanissima chimera,” the -reader cannot fail to perceive that these prudent reservations, -which always occur at critical passages, are made with the -sole purpose of rendering the publication of the work possible.</p> - -<p>The preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with -the contents of the “Dialogues,” and owe their origin to the -same motive. In the preface the ecclesiastical prohibition -of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is actually called a -“salutary edict” (<i>un salutifero editto</i>)! The reader learns -further, to his no small astonishment, that the purpose of this -comprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span> -which has gained much credit abroad, that this adverse -judgment of Rome was not the result of mature deliberation, -but merely of the hasty impulse of judges who were not -qualified to decide on these questions of natural science. -Galileo asserts that his zeal did not permit him to keep silence -in face of those audacious accusations, and that being in -possession of all the circumstances connected with that -prudent decision, he felt constrained to bear witness to the -truth before all the world. In bringing forward here all his -speculations on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show -that at Rome, where he had taken part in the consultations, -they had been fully aware of all the arguments which could -be adduced in favour of the new doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_213" id="FNanchor_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a></p> - -<p>On the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which -divergent and often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall -enter in detail in its right place.</p> - -<p>The conclusion of the work, which is divided into four -“days,” agrees no better with the rest of the contents than -the preface. Although the Copernicans everywhere gain the -day, Galileo takes care, for very good reasons, not to draw -any conclusions from it on the fourth day. The discussion -ends apparently without coming to any result. Salviati disclaims -any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed -to him a “chimera” or a “paradox.” Addressing himself to -Sagredo, he remarks that Sagredo had often agreed with the -opinions he had expressed, but he thinks that this was often -more from their originality than their conclusiveness. Having -therefore thanked him for his “polite indulgence,” he -apologises to Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, -and assures him that he had no intention of offending him, -but rather of inducing him to communicate his sublime -ideas (!), which would certainly be instructive to himself. In -conclusion, they agree to meet again for a final discussion.<a name="FNanchor_214" id="FNanchor_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a></p> - -<p>Did Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span> -thinks it probable, “for,” he says, “Galileo might at that -period still have hoped that the ecclesiastical authorities -would tolerate the new system during his lifetime, especially -should some new discovery, as, for instance that of a small -annual parallax of the fixed stars, afford certain proof in -favour of his system. In that case Galileo would have been -at last allowed to express his opinions without reserve.”<a name="FNanchor_215" id="FNanchor_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> -We think it very possible, indeed probable, that Galileo did -intend to add a fifth day at a favourable opportunity, in -which he would have given the result of the previous discussions; -but he certainly was not waiting for “some new -discovery.” It was his firm conviction that none was wanted, -since his telescopic observations amply proved the truth of -his theory; neither would the most convincing discovery have -enabled him to express his views without reserve, for they -had by no means been condemned by the clergy from want -of proof, but as “foolish and absurd philosophically and -formally heretical.”</p> - -<p>We are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed -the task of defending the action of the curia against Galileo, -maintain that the ecclesiastical party objected to the new -system because its accordance with the phenomena of nature -had not been sufficiently proved.<a name="FNanchor_216" id="FNanchor_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> But even were this -granted, in view of the opposition raised on scientific grounds -and the rooted attachment to old opinions, every unbiassed -person must demur to the assumption that in the attitude -of Rome towards the Copernican question the interests of -science had any influence whatever. It could not be an -advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The subsequent -harsh proceedings against Galileo, when seventy years -of age, the hostile and peremptory attitude which Rome -maintained towards him until his death, as well as towards<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span> -the new system and all discussion of it, bear ample testimony, -in our opinion, that the clergy had the interests of science -very little at heart, and that their sole desire was to maintain -the foundation-stone in its place on which the ingenious -structure of the Christian Catholic philosophy was raised; -namely, the doctrine that mother earth is the centre of the -universe.</p> - -<p>In December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated -work on the two systems, except the introduction and a few -finishing strokes. He announced this to his friends in sundry -letters,<a name="FNanchor_217" id="FNanchor_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> and told Prince Cesi in two letters of 24th -December, 1629, and 13th January, 1630, that he intended -coming to Rome to see to the printing of the “Dialogues.”<a name="FNanchor_218" id="FNanchor_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> -The prince in his reply expressed entire approval of the -project, and encouraged Galileo to set out for Rome very -soon, “where he would have no further trouble about the -proofs than to give such orders as he pleased.”<a name="FNanchor_219" id="FNanchor_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p> - -<p>Altogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably -favourable for the publication of the “Dialogues.” Galileo’s -devoted adherent, Castelli, had been summoned to Rome in -1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great consideration with -the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest scion, -Taddeo, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried -friend informed Galileo in a letter of 6th February,<a name="FNanchor_220" id="FNanchor_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> that -Father Riccardi, who meanwhile had been raised to the -office of chief censor of the press (Magister Sacri Palatii) had -promised his ready assistance in Galileo’s affairs. Castelli -also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi was -concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of -information in the same letter, however, was not quite so -satisfactory; the personage second in importance at the -papal court, Urban’s brother, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, -had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the “Dialogues,” -said nothing particular against the theory itself, so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span> -far as it was treated as a hypothesis, but had made the -just remark that the earth, if it revolved round the sun, must -be a star, an idea “which was too far opposed to theological -truth.” Castelli appeased the cardinal by assuring him that -Galileo had weighty arguments against this, and it is characteristic -of the prevailing confusion of ideas on astronomical -subjects, that Barberini thought this possible, and that Castelli -wrote to Galileo that he would not find it hard to steer clear -of this rock. Another instance of the trammels placed by -religion on the advancement of science.</p> - -<p>A second letter of Castelli’s to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, -contains far more important and encouraging intelligence. -According to this, Thomas Campanella<a name="FNanchor_221" id="FNanchor_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> had told the Pope -at an audience, that a short time before he had tried to convert -some German nobles to the Catholic faith, that he had -found them favourably disposed, but when they heard of the -prohibition of the Copernican system, they were so indignant -that he could do nothing more with them. To this Urban<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> -replied: “It never was our intention; and if it had depended -upon us, that decree would not have been passed.”<a name="FNanchor_222" id="FNanchor_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> These -pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when repeated to -Galileo were well calculated to mislead him into infringing -the decree, in the spirit if not in the letter. They seem, however, -to have been at least as incorrect as the reply reported -on the same subject to Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. -Urban entirely forgot that he had not interceded in any -way in 1616 for the astronomical system threatened with -condemnation. And his conduct showed that he must have -been a party to it. We need only call to mind how inexorable -he had been on the question in 1624 to Galileo -himself, and how sternly he afterwards allowed proceedings -to be taken against him. Urban could only have acted in -this way because he was convinced of the danger of the -Copernican system to the Christian philosophy. And he was -far too shrewd not to perceive how the modern views -threatened a religion based upon ancient astronomy. His -remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing but smooth -words, and this is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But -they could not fail to inspire Galileo with confidence that under -Urban VIII. an ingenious circumvention of the decree would -give no offence at the Vatican. Besides this, Castelli reported -in the same letter that Mgr. Ciampoli, who was also -well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo’s personal -appearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty -that might occur about publishing the “Dialogues.”<a name="FNanchor_223" id="FNanchor_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> -Another letter from Castelli of 6th April urged him to set -out for the papal residence, where, to quote the words of -Ciampoli, “they were longing for him more than for a lady -love.”<a name="FNanchor_224" id="FNanchor_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span></p> - -<p>Full of hope from these promising reports, on 3rd May -Galileo arrived at Rome with the MS. of his “Dialogues.” -And events during his two months’ stay seemed to realise -his expectations. Soon after his arrival he had a long audience -of Urban VIII., and wrote on 18th May in high spirits -to Florence:—“His Holiness has begun to treat my affairs -in a way that permits me to hope for a favourable result.”<a name="FNanchor_225" id="FNanchor_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> -Riccardi also met Galileo, as was to be expected from Castelli’s -letters, in the most obliging way. Galileo showed him -his work with the express request that he would examine it -closely. The papal censor, however, could not but perceive, -with all his personal regard for Galileo, that in his “Dialogues” -he had by no means always kept, <i>de facto</i>, within the limits of -hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system, and in some -parts had far exceeded them. He decided, therefore, both as -his official duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have -the book altered to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections -were to be made, and both preface and conclusion -were to be altered so as to agree with them. Riccardi intrusted -the first task to his official assistant, Father Rafael -Visconti, who seemed well qualified for it in his capacity of -professor of mathematics. He executed it with equal prudence -and ingenuity, improved many passages, and finally approved -the work thus revised.</p> - -<p>The middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo -was anxious to leave Rome on account of the heat. But -Riccardi wished to look through the “Dialogues” once more -after they had been revised by Visconti, before giving them -his <i>imprimatur</i>. Galileo represented that this second revision -was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi <i>to -grant permission for the printing for Rome</i>.<a name="FNanchor_226" id="FNanchor_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span></p> - -<p>On the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning -and end of the work in accordance with a plan of -the supreme authorities of the censorship. There were also -still a few passages to be personally discussed with the author; -and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome without danger -to his health, which was already beginning to suffer, it was -agreed that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile<a name="FNanchor_227" id="FNanchor_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> -he would prepare the index and the dedication to the Grand -Duke, and revise the preface and conclusion. The main -condition, however, under which Riccardi gave the book his -<i>imprimatur</i>, was that after its final completion it should be -submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of time, he -engaged to look it through sheet by sheet, and to send each -at once to press after inspection. As was usual in the case of -members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, the work was to be -published in the name of this society, and the president, -Prince Cesi, was to see it through the press.</p> - -<p>So at the end of June<a name="FNanchor_228" id="FNanchor_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> Galileo returned to Florence with -his MS. and the ecclesiastical <i>imprimatur</i>, which was granted -<i>bona fide</i> for Rome without reserve. There were indeed sundry -conditions attached to it, to be arranged privately; but -they seemed to present so little difficulty, that a few days -after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli that -Signor Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly satisfied, and -with his affairs quite settled.<a name="FNanchor_229" id="FNanchor_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span></p> - -<p>But events were now at hand which long deferred Galileo’s -ardent desire to see the results of his unwearied researches -and labours speedily given to the world, and which involved -complications afterwards taken advantage of by his enemies -to effect the ruin of their great opponent.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE “DIALOGUES.”</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei Lincei.—Galileo -advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and Delays.—His Impatience.—Authorship -of the Introduction.—The <i>Imprimatur</i> granted for Florence.—Absurd -Accusation from the style of the Type of the Introduction.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Six weeks had scarcely elapsed after Galileo’s return from -Rome, when he received from his friend Francesco Stelluti -the startling intelligence of the death of his influential patron, -Prince Cesi, who had been snatched away on 1st August by -an attack of fever, after a few days’ illness.<a name="FNanchor_230" id="FNanchor_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> This was a -great blow to Galileo. It was not only that he lost in the -prince an adherent, as influential as he was devoted, but his -death just then was of the greatest moment on account of -the “Dialogues.” There was, perhaps, no one so well qualified -to forward their publication as Cesi, who, as president of -the Accadémia dei Lincei, seemed just the man for it. The -Academy, deprived of its strongest support, was gradually -dissolved, after the hand was wanting which knew how to -weave its multitudinous threads into a firm and solid fabric.</p> - -<p>Only the third week after the prince’s death, Galileo felt -the first effects of his heavy loss. In a letter of 24th August, -Castelli urgently advised him “for many most weighty -reasons which he did not wish just then to commit to paper, -to have the work printed at Florence, and as soon as -possible.”<a name="FNanchor_231" id="FNanchor_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> Castelli added that he had inquired of Father -Visconti whether this would present any difficulties, to which -he had replied that there was nothing to prevent, and he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span> -(Visconti) desired above all things that the work should see -the light. Galileo was the more ready to fall in with this -proposition because the plague, which had made fearful -ravages in North Italy, had now made its appearance in -Tuscany, and the precautionary measures taken by the -neighbouring States made all intercourse with them, and -especially with the States of the Church, very tedious and -often impossible. Galileo therefore at once took the needful -steps for publishing his book at Florence. He applied to the -Inquisitor-General of the city, to the Vicar-General, and to -the political authorities for permission, and it was granted -without hesitation on 11th September, 1630.<a name="FNanchor_232" id="FNanchor_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a></p> - -<p>Galileo next addressed himself to Riccardi; represented to -him the great obstacles to publishing the work at Rome, and -therefore asked permission to publish it at Florence. This -was the beginning of troubles. The chief of the Roman censorship -at first roundly refused, and when Galileo urged his -request again, he informed him through the Tuscan ambassador -at the papal court, Francesco Niccolini, that the work -must be sent in for final revision as agreed upon, without -which he should never have consented to the publication. -Castelli also wrote to Galileo on 21st September,<a name="FNanchor_233" id="FNanchor_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> as commissioned -by Riccardi, that as his coming himself to Rome, -as originally agreed upon, was rendered impossible by the -outbreak of the plague, he had better send the manuscript to -Riccardi, in order that he and Mgr. Ciampoli might make the -final corrections. Castelli said further that Riccardi was still -very favourably disposed to Galileo, and that when his work -had undergone this censorship, he could send it to press in -Florence as well as anywhere else. After this Galileo made -inquiries whether, under present circumstances, a large packet -of MSS. could be sent safely over the border. But he was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span> -everywhere met with a negative, and the remark that mere -letters scarcely passed. In vain he applied to the postmaster, -in vain he appealed to the Grand Ducal secretary of state, -Bali Cioli, for help; no means could be devised, under the -strict close of the frontiers, whereby the bulky work could be -transmitted to Rome with any prospect of safety.</p> - -<p>Greatly disconcerted, Galileo represented this state of -things to Riccardi, and offered to send, at any rate, the -preface and conclusion of the “Dialogues,” that the ecclesiastical -authorities might alter these important parts of the work -as seemed good to them, and said that he was willing to -designate the Copernican views mentioned in the book as -mere chimeras, paralogisms, dreams, and fantasies, which, as -is well known, was afterwards actually done. As to the final -revision, Galileo proposed that Riccardi should entrust it to -some one at Florence. Exceedingly annoyed by all these -obstacles to an early publication of his “Dialogues,” Galileo -at the same time asked the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, -and his wife, who were well disposed towards him, to try -and induce Riccardi, whom he had often seen at their house, -to accept this proposal. And what friends and colleagues -of the chief censor and other eminent men had failed in, -was accomplished by the delicate mediation of a lady. On -19th October, 1630, Caterina Niccolini wrote to Galileo, that -the Padre Maestro, who was heartily devoted to him, would -obligingly excuse him from sending the whole work; let him -send the introduction and conclusion, but on condition that -the whole MS. should be revised before publication by some -competent person at Florence, and by a theologian empowered -by the ecclesiastical authorities, who must belong -to the Benedictine order. Father Riccardi proposed Father -Clement for the task. The ambassador’s wife added, however, -commissioned by the Master of the Palace, that if this -choice were not agreeable to Galileo, he might himself propose -a suitable person, who would be empowered to act.<a name="FNanchor_234" id="FNanchor_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span></p> - -<p>And, in fact, Father Clement was not to Galileo’s taste, and -he proposed Father Hyacinthe Stephani, counsellor to the -Holy Inquisition at Florence, who was approved by Riccardi. -This ecclesiastic revised the work very thoroughly, and—so at -least Galileo reports<a name="FNanchor_235" id="FNanchor_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a>—was moved to tears at many passages -by the humility and reverent obedience which the author -had displayed. Having made some insignificant corrections, -suggested by extra caution, he gave the “Dialogues” his -approval, and declared that the famous author should be -begged to publish them rather than have obstacles placed in -his way.</p> - -<p>Riccardi, notwithstanding his friendship for Galileo, seems -to have been of a different opinion. The preface and conclusion -had been sent, but he had allowed weeks and months -to pass without letting Galileo hear anything of them, to say -nothing of sending them back. Castelli once wrote to -Galileo that he had met Riccardi, and that he had told him -that these portions were now quite in order, and that he -would send them to Galileo immediately; but months again -went by without his fulfilling his promise.</p> - -<p>Galileo was in despair, and on 7th March, 1631, addressed -a long letter to Bali Cioli, in which he first related the course -of the negotiations respecting the “Dialogues”<a name="FNanchor_236" id="FNanchor_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> in detail, and -then asked for the powerful intervention of his Highness -the Grand Duke, at Rome, to bring the business to a conclusion, -so that he (Galileo) might enjoy while he lived these -fruits of the labours of over fifty years. Little did Galileo -foresee what dire results these “fruits” were to bring. On -8th March his request was granted, and he was informed that -Niccolini, at Rome, would be commissioned in the name of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span> -the Grand Duke to hasten as much as possible the termination -of the negotiations with the Master of the Palace.<a name="FNanchor_237" id="FNanchor_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> - -<p>Galileo was all the more pleased with the success of this -attempt, because meanwhile, weary of the long delays, he -had begun to have his “Dialogues” printed. This is confirmed -by a letter from him of 20th March to his learned -friend, Cesare Marsili, in which he says that six sheets of his -work, which would consist of fifty or more, were finished.<a name="FNanchor_238" id="FNanchor_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> -We may here remark that this proceeding of Galileo’s has -been the subject of severe and unjustifiable blame on the -part of some authors actuated by party spirit. It seems the -less called for, since Galileo made no secret of the printing -having been begun, and he was not reproached for it at the -subsequent trial before the Inquisition. He quite supposed -that after Father Stephani had inspected and sanctioned the -work, all the conditions were fulfilled. He therefore considered -Riccardi’s consent to the publication in Florence as -certain. It never occurred to him that after all this he would -raise new difficulties.</p> - -<p>A report of Niccolini’s of 19th April to Cioli<a name="FNanchor_239" id="FNanchor_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> confirmed -him in this supposition, and rejoiced his heart, as there seemed -to be an immediate prospect of an end to these tiresome -negotiations. Niccolini wrote that he and his wife had a -little while before had a long conversation with Father -Riccardi about Galileo’s affairs, which had resulted in his -promising to grant permission for the publication, but with -the addition of a declaration, for his own protection, which he -was to forward to Niccolini in a few days. On the 28th -Niccolini received it, but instead of its containing the promised -<i>imprimatur</i>, it required new clauses and imposed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span> -fresh conditions on the publication. The chief censor indeed -acknowledged, at the beginning of this letter, that he -had given the <i>imprimatur</i> to the work, but stated that it -was only with the reservation that the author should make -some alterations as agreed upon, and send his book to Rome -to be published, where with the help of Mgr. Ciampoli all -difficulties would have been overcome. “Father Stephani,” -continues Riccardi, “has no doubt subjected the book to a -conscientious revision; but as he was not acquainted with the -Pope’s views, he had no power to give any approval which -would enable me to sanction the printing without incurring -the danger both to him and myself that unpleasantnesses -might arise, if things were still found contrary to the proscriptions.” -Riccardi then asserts that he had no greater -desire than to serve the Grand Duke, but he considers that -it must be done so as to prevent any danger to his Highness’s -reputation. And this would not be the case if he gave his -<i>imprimatur</i>, as it was not his province to give it for Florence,<a name="FNanchor_240" id="FNanchor_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> -while it would be secured by his assuring himself that -everything was in accordance with the commands of his -Holiness. “When I have inspected the beginning and end -of the work,” he continued, “I shall easily discover what I -want to know, and will then give a certificate that I have -approved the whole work.”</p> - -<p>This sentence is, to say the least, very obscure. Riccardi -had had these two portions of the work in his possession for -months, and could long before have discovered from them -what he wanted to know. Or had he not condescended to -look at them? This seems scarcely credible, and is in direct -opposition to what he said to Castelli months before. But -a desire to spin the matter out is evident enough from this -obscure sentence as well as the rest of the letter. The -Master of the Palace then proposed, if it were still impossible -to forward the work, to send the ordinances of his Holiness to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span> -the Inquisitor at Florence, in order that he, after assuring -himself that they had been complied with, might give the -<i>imprimatur</i>. When Niccolini expressed his suspicions that -these delays had been caused by some intrigues of Galileo’s -enemies, Riccardi assured him that no one but friends of the -famous astronomer had spoken to him on the subject, and -that there really had been no cabal of any sort.<a name="FNanchor_241" id="FNanchor_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a></p> - -<p>When Galileo received the news of this letter, which, contrary -to all his expectations, once more removed all hope of -an end of these transactions into the far future, he could not -repress his ill humour. This is plain enough from a letter -to Cioli of 3rd May. He begins with the tart remark: “I -have read what the Father Master of the Palace has written -about the publication of the ‘Dialogues,’ and perceive, to my -great vexation, that after keeping me for nearly a year without -coming to any conclusion, he means to pursue the same -course with his Holiness, namely, to delay and spin out -everything with empty words, which it is not easy to put -up with.” He then bitterly complains that this letter of -Riccardi’s, instead of the promised <i>imprimatur</i>, contains nothing -but fresh delays on the pretext of conditions with which -he had complied several months before, and in such a way -as to prove to his Holiness and all who were willing to be -convinced that he had done so. “And since I perceive,” he -continues bitterly, “that my affairs are afloat on a vast and -boundless ocean, while the publication of my book is of the -utmost importance to me, as I wish to see the fruits of my -labours secured, I have been considering various ways by -which it might be accomplished; but the authorization of his -Holiness is indispensable for all.” Galileo then says that in -order to come to some result it might be of the highest -importance some day, and that as soon as possible, to be -summoned to appear before his Highness, with the Inquisitor -and Father Stephani. He would like to show them the -work with all the corrections from the hands of Fathers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span> -Riccardi, Visconti, and Stephani, in order that, in the first -place, they might see how trivial the alterations were, and -in the second, how submissively and reverently he had designated -all the evidence and arguments which appeared to -confirm an opinion not approved by the authorities, as -dreams, chimeras, and nullities. He concludes by saying: -“Those present will then perceive how true and just my -doctrines are, and that I have never entertained other views -or opinions than those held by the most venerable and holy -fathers of the Church.”<a name="FNanchor_242" id="FNanchor_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a></p> - -<p>The Grand Duke, Ferdinand II., however, with all his good -will towards his chief mathematician, was by no means inclined -to interfere personally in the matter. He was desirous -to use all the influence he possessed to bring about a decision -at Rome, but it no more occurred to him now to exercise his -rights as sovereign ruler, than it did afterwards when he gave -up the infirm philosopher, at nearly seventy years of age, to -the Roman tribunal. Galileo’s suggestion, therefore, that the -Grand Duke should, to some extent, take the initiative was -by no means acceptable, and was not followed. The summons -to the Inquisitor and Father Stephani to appear with -Galileo before the Grand Duke never came; Niccolini, however, -made fresh efforts to bring about a solution of the -question at Rome. He went to the Master of the Palace and -strongly represented to him that through the dedication -the Grand Duke himself was greatly interested in the publication -of this work, at the head of which his exalted name -was placed.<a name="FNanchor_243" id="FNanchor_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> Galileo finally succeeded, on 24th May, in -inducing Riccardi to address a letter to Fra Clemente Egidio, -the Inquisitor at Florence, in which he left it entirely to him, -after examining the work, to grant permission for the publication -or not. The Master of the Palace again expressly -mentioned in this letter that he had given the authorization<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span> -to print, but with the reservation that the necessary alterations -should be made, and that after further revision it should -go to press in Rome, which conditions, however, had not been -able to be fulfilled owing to the plague. The most interesting -parts of the letter for us are the hints which Riccardi -gives the Inquisitor, in the course of it, as to the Pope’s views -on the subject, which are to guide him in sanctioning the -work. Title as well as contents are only to relate to the -mathematical aspects of the Copernican system, and so that -“the absolute truth of this view is never conceded, but made -to appear as mere hypothesis, and without reference to Scripture.”<a name="FNanchor_244" id="FNanchor_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> -“It must also be explained,” continued Riccardi, -“that this work is only written to show that all the arguments -which can be adduced in favour of this view were well known; -that therefore the sentence of 1616 was not to be attributed -to ignorance at Rome, and the beginning and end of the -book must agree with this statement, <i>which portions, properly -arranged, I will send from here</i>. By observance of these -precautions the work will meet with no obstacles at Rome, -and your reverence will be able to gratify the author, as well -as to serve his Highness, who has shown so warm an interest -in the matter.”<a name="FNanchor_245" id="FNanchor_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> The Inquisitor replied on 31st May that -he would act in accordance with the received instructions. -He says further that he had given the MS. to Stephani, as -a very eminent man and counsellor of the Holy Office, to be -revised again, and this time in accordance with the papal -instructions; also that Galileo consented most willingly to -all the corrections.<a name="FNanchor_246" id="FNanchor_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a></p> - -<p>But it would almost appear as if Riccardi had again repented -of the steps he had taken for the final settlement of -the business, for weeks and months passed before Fra Clemente -Egidio received the preface and conclusion. Not till Niccolini,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span> -at Galileo’s request, had repeatedly urged him to send them, -could he be induced to do so, after a further delay of two -months, and then, as the ambassador graphically describes -the situation, not “till formally pulled by the hair.”<a name="FNanchor_247" id="FNanchor_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> In the -letter of 19th July, 1631, which accompanied them, Riccardi -empowered the author to alter the style of the revised introduction -as he pleased, and to ornament it rhetorically, but so -that the sense should remain the same. As to the conclusion, -he made the vague remark that it must be based upon the -same argument as the beginning.<a name="FNanchor_248" id="FNanchor_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a></p> - -<p>This seems to be the place to enter into the oft discussed -question of the real authorship of this remarkable introduction. -Some, who rely upon the letter of Riccardi’s above -quoted, attribute it to him; others even maintain that it owes -its origin to Urban VIII. himself; while, on the other hand, -some are of opinion that Galileo had the chief share in it, -though assuredly only because he considered that it would -secure his object—permission to publish the “Dialogues.” All -these opinions contain some truth, contradictory as they seem; -the truth lies between them. After careful examination of -the documents relating to the subject, the historical facts -appear to be as follows:—</p> - -<p>When Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer -of 1630, in order to submit his “Dialogues” to the Roman -censorship, an introduction was sketched for him, which he was -to complete at Florence, and on his intended return to Rome -in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript before the -Master of the Palace for final revision.<a name="FNanchor_249" id="FNanchor_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> From the good -understanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. -Ciampoli, and Galileo, and from the contents of the introduction,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span> -we may conclude with certainty that the sketch was -made with Galileo’s concurrence, or even that the main idea -of it was his own. For on close examination we find that the -idea on which the whole introduction turns—namely, that it -was by no means ignorance of the scientific arguments in -favour of the Copernican system which led to the verdict of -1616—is precisely the same as that stated by Galileo in his -reply to Ingoli in 1624.<a name="FNanchor_250" id="FNanchor_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> As we are aware, since the plague -prevented Galileo from returning to Florence or sending the -whole MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to the -chief censor, who kept them for months, and did not return -them to the Inquisitor at Florence till 19th July. From -Riccardi’s letter we learn two facts: firstly, that he had only -concerned himself with the introduction, leaving the conclusion -to the author with the vague remark we have quoted; and -secondly, that Galileo’s preface must have undergone considerable -alterations by the chief censor, as he gave him leave to -alter the style but not the sense. There can be no more doubt -that the Pope had some hand in the final composition of the -preface than that it was not penned by himself. Riccardi -appeals in both his <i>ex officio</i> letters to the Inquisitor of 24th -May and 19th July, to the “views” and commands of his -Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst, the -Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo’s affairs -he had always and in everything acted in concert with the -papal secretary, Mgr. Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly -to special commands of Urban’s.<a name="FNanchor_251" id="FNanchor_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> Riccardi and -Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion with the loss of -their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the subject -that, “evidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span> -afforded by the fact of the witnesses being compelled to -silence or suffering punishment.”<a name="FNanchor_252" id="FNanchor_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a></p> - -<p>With the arrival at last of the preface and conclusion, all -the obstacles which had threatened the continuation of the -printing of the “Dialogues” were removed. Stephani, who -was charged by the Inquisitor at Florence to undertake -the final censorship, was not the man to place difficulties in -the way of the appearance of the book. He took great care, -however, that the Pope’s commands as to the treatment of the -Copernican doctrines should, as far as the letter went, be -strictly obeyed. The “Dialogues,” from beginning to end, -were opposed to the spirit both of the decree of 5th March, -1616, and the papal ordinances, and there was great <i>naiveté</i> -in the idea that the fine-spun preface and the various little -diplomatic arts which Galileo employed in the course of his -work could disguise its real meaning from the learned world. -But that was not Stephani’s affair; for the MS. as a whole had -been sanctioned by Father Visconti and had received the -<i>imprimatur</i> for Rome from the authorities of the censorship.</p> - -<p>The delay about the preface, which, according to Riccardi’s -orders, was to be printed before the book, had two results out -of which Galileo’s enemies afterwards tried to make capital -for their intrigues, and which must therefore find mention -here. The printing had been long in hand and was proceeding -when the preface arrived. It was therefore necessary to -print it on a separate sheet, which, according to Riccardi’s -orders, was placed at the beginning of the book. For technical -reasons, also, it was printed in different type from the rest of -the work. From these two insignificant circumstances, Galileo -was afterwards reproached with having by the outward form -destroyed the inner connection between the introduction and -the book; and with having thus, to some extent, intended to -indicate that it had nothing to do with the “Dialogues.”<a name="FNanchor_253" id="FNanchor_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> This -was at the time when one party was setting every lever in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span> -motion to find cause for accusation against Galileo. The -book itself, which appeared with the double <i>imprimatur</i> of -the ecclesiastical censorship of Rome and Florence, afforded -no legal ground for it. We will not, however, anticipate the -historical course of these memorable events, but will carefully -follow them step by step.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE “DIALOGUES” AND THE JESUITS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s Friends and the -Learned World.—The hostile Party.—The Jesuits as Leaders of Learning.—Deprived -of their Monopoly by Galileo.—They become his bitter -Foes.—Having the <i>Imprimatur</i> for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought -himself doubly safe.—The Three Dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did “Simplicius” -personate the Pope?—Conclusive Arguments against it.—Effect -of the Accusation.—Urban’s Motives in instituting the Trial.</p> - -</div> - -<p>By the beginning of January, 1632, the printing of the -“Dialogues” was so far advanced, that on the 3rd Galileo -had the satisfaction of telling his friend, Cesare Marsili, at -Bologna, that the work would be completed in ten or twelve -days.<a name="FNanchor_254" id="FNanchor_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> It did not, however, appear till February. On the -twenty-second of that month Galileo presented his book to -the Grand Duke, to whom it was dedicated, and to the other -members of the house of Medici.<a name="FNanchor_255" id="FNanchor_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> On the twenty-third he -sent at first thirty-two copies to Cesare Marsili.<a name="FNanchor_256" id="FNanchor_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> He had a -large number of copies handsomely bound for his powerful -friends and patrons at Rome, but they could not be despatched -immediately, since, owing to the continued prevalence -of the plague, they would have had to be purified in the -quarantine houses, which might have injured them. It was -not till May that two unbound copies reached the papal -residence in a roundabout way.<a name="FNanchor_257" id="FNanchor_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> One of these came into -the hands of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who lent it to -Father Castelli. In a letter to Galileo of 26th September, -1631,<a name="FNanchor_258" id="FNanchor_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> he had vowed that, after the appearance of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span> -“Dialogues,” he would read no other book but that and the -Breviary; and in a letter of 29th May,<a name="FNanchor_259" id="FNanchor_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> he now expressed -to the author his admiration of his work, which surpassed -all his expectations. Shortly afterwards, Count Filippo Magalotti, -who was on very friendly terms with Galileo, and from -his relationship to the Barberinis, was an influential personage, -imported eight copies from Florence, and, as charged by the -author, presented one copy each to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, -to the Tuscan ambassador Niccolini, Father Riccardi, -Mgr. Serristori, counsellor of the Holy Office, and the Jesuit -Father Leon Santi.<a name="FNanchor_260" id="FNanchor_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a></p> - -<p>While these few copies were being eagerly devoured by -impatient readers at Rome, and passed rapidly from hand to -hand, the book had been circulating in the rest of Italy in -spite of the difficulties of communication. The applause -which this famous work called forth from all men of independent -minds was unexampled, and was only equalled -by the bitterness and consternation it excited among the -scientific conservatives. The learned world of Italy was -divided into two hostile camps: that of Ptolemy on the one -side, that of Copernicus-Galileo on the other. In the one -were to be found progress, recognition of truth, free independent -thought and research; in the other blind worship of -authority and rigid adherence to the old school. And the -latter party was far the most numerous; it was also reinforced -by those, of whom there were a considerable number, who -opposed the great reformer of science from interested motives. -Besides this, the academic corporations were not favourable -to him, because he so dangerously revolutionised the modern -methods of teaching. The university of his native city -seemed especially adverse to him. It had carried its animosity -so far a few years before as to try to deprive him of -the income which he enjoyed as its first mathematician by -the Grand Ducal decree of 12th July, 1620, though, thanks to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span> -the energetic remonstrances of some influential patrons, the -attempt was not successful.<a name="FNanchor_261" id="FNanchor_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a></p> - -<p>In addition to all this there is another consideration, which -played a much larger part in the sad story of Galileo’s trial -than is generally supposed. The clergy, and especially the -Jesuits, had hitherto had a monopoly of science. Everybody -knows how assiduously it had been cultivated in ancient -times in the cells and schools of the convents, and that the -ecclesiastical orders were the guardians and disseminators of -learning, while among both populace and nobles ignorance -flourished like a weed. When by the natural law of progress -the nations of Europe emerged from the simplicity of childhood -into the storm and stress period of youth; when inventions,—especially -printing,—and above all the discovery -of America, began to spread knowledge and culture among -the masses, it was once more the servants of Rome who, -justly estimating the spirit of the age, placed themselves, so -to speak, in the van of the intellectual movement, that they -might guide its course. The strongest evidence that the -Church was in exclusive possession of the highest mental -powers is afforded by the Reformation; for the first stirrings -of doubt, of critical, philosophical speculation, arose in the -bosoms of the Roman Catholic clergy. All the reformers, -from Abelard and Arnold of Brescia, to Huss and Luther, -sprang, without exception, from among them.</p> - -<p>Just at the juncture when the split into two creeds -threatened to divide the joints and marrow of the supreme -power of the Church, the man appeared who most effectually -contributed to restore it by founding a new ecclesiastical -order, with a very peculiar organisation. This was Ignatius -Loyola. And if we seek for the explanation of the profound -influence gained by this corporation in all parts of the world, -and every grade of society, we shall find it in four factors: -the highest enthusiasm for the common cause; willing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span> -obedience to the central authority—the general for the time -being; utter unscrupulousness as to means; and the supremacy -which knowledge always confers. Far from occupying themselves, -like the Protestant clergy, exclusively with theology, -there was no branch of knowledge that was not cultivated by -these champions of the Church; indeed they stood for a -century at the summit of learning.<a name="FNanchor_262" id="FNanchor_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> And now, in the most -recent epoch of that stigmatised century, Galileo the layman -steps forth upon the arena of the science of the heavens -and the earth, and teaches the astonished world truths before -which the whole edifice of scholastic sophistry must fall to -the ground. The Jesuit monopoly of the education of youth -and of teaching altogether, became day by day more insecure, -and the influence of the society was threatened in proportion. -Was it to be wondered at that the pious fathers strained -every nerve in this final conflict for mastery, and in the -attempt to prevent their world-wide mission of educating -the people from being torn from their hands? This explains -why the reformers of science appeared just as dangerous -to them as those of religion; and they resisted the former, -as they had done the latter, with all the resources at their -command.</p> - -<p>Galileo, as one of the most advanced pioneers of science, -was in the highest degree inconvenient to the Jesuits; members -of their order had also repeatedly measured lances -with the great man in scientific discussion—Fathers Grassi -and Scheiner, for instance—with very unfortunate results, by -no means calculated to make the Society of Jesus more -favourable to him. But now that his “Dialogues on the Two -Systems of the World” had appeared, which, as every intelligent -man must perceive, annihilated with its overwhelming -mass of evidence the doctrines of the old school, and -raised the modern system upon its ruins, the Jesuits set every<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span> -lever in motion, first to suppress this revolutionary book, and -then to compass the ruin of the author.</p> - -<p>Riccardi himself remarked to Count Magalotti at that -time: “The Jesuits will persecute Galileo with the utmost -bitterness.”<a name="FNanchor_263" id="FNanchor_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a></p> - -<p>Besides, they found welcome allies in the overwhelming -majority of the rest of the clergy. With them the theological -considerations we have mentioned formed the motive. -And the louder the applause with which the independent -scientific world greeted Galileo’s latest remarkable work, the -fiercer burnt the flame of ecclesiastical hate. There can be -no doubt that the full significance of the “Dialogues” had -not been apprehended by any of the censors to whom they -had been submitted. This is obvious from the fact that they -seriously thought that the diplomatic preface, and a few -phrases in the work itself, would suffice to make it appear -innocuous. The commotion made by the book in the -scientific and theological world convinced them of their -mistake.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, Galileo in Florence gave himself up to unmixed -delight at the brilliant success of his “Dialogues.” His -learned friends and followers, such as Fra Bonaventura Cavalieri, -Giovan Batista Baliani, Castelli, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, -Alfonzo Antonini, Campanella, and many others, expressed to -him in repeated letters, and often with genuine enthusiasm, -their admiration of his splendid work,<a name="FNanchor_264" id="FNanchor_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> not one of them -had any foreboding that it was to bring its grey-headed author -before the bar of the Inquisition; and Galileo himself least -of all. He expected violent opposition from his scientific -opponents, and was prepared to engage in the contest, but -he considered himself quite secure from ecclesiastical persecution. -Had not influential personages at Rome, Cesi, Mgr.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span> -Ciampoli, Cesarini, and Castelli, been urging him for years to -finish his work, the tendency of which they well knew?<a name="FNanchor_265" id="FNanchor_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> And -when it was at last complete, it was these same friends, as -well meaning as they were influential, who had done their -best to forward the publication. Besides, the book had appeared -not only with the <i>imprimatur</i> and under the protection -of the Inquisition at Florence, as prescribed, and with the -permission of the political authorities of the city, but Galileo -could show also the <i>imprimatur</i> of the Pater Magister Sacri -Palatii, which was not at all usual with works not printed at -Rome.<a name="FNanchor_266" id="FNanchor_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> He considered this a double security; Jesuitism, on -the contrary, contrived afterwards to forge an indictment out -of this unusual circumstance. Not a word had appeared in -print without having been read by the organs of papal scrutiny -and having received the sanction of the Church. Might not -the author well look forward to the publication of his work with -perfect tranquillity, and feel himself secure from any collision -with the ecclesiastical authorities? Undoubtedly, if he had -not made the solemn promise sixteen years before, “<i>entirely to -renounce the opinion that the sun is the centre of the universe, -and is stationary, and that the earth on the contrary moves, and -neither to hold the same, nor in any way to teach or defend it in -speaking or writing</i>.”</p> - -<p>Galileo’s proceedings at this time, as before and after, prove -that he was totally unaware of this assumed prohibition; anyhow, -he pays not the slightest attention to it. He sends<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span> -copies of his work to the most eminent persons at Rome; is -delighted at its immense success; arms himself for defence -against the indignant Aristotelians, but never thinks of a -conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, which, sincere -Catholic as he was, would have given him great pain apart -from consequences. Even in June and July there were some -ill-disposed persons, to the great annoyance of Riccardi, -zealously trying to discover something in the book which -could be formulated into an accusation against the author. -The title page was adorned with a drawing of three dolphins, -one with the tail of another in its mouth, with an insignificant -motto above it.<a name="FNanchor_267" id="FNanchor_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> This illustration was impugned because -it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical approbation, and -they expatiated with more malice than wit upon the meaning -of the mysterious device. It was a great relief to Riccardi’s -mind when it was pointed out by Count Magalotti that the -same illustration appeared on almost all the works which -issued from the press of Landini at Florence, where the -“Dialogues” had been printed. This bait, then, had not -taken, and Galileo’s foes, worthy members of the Society of -Jesus, had to find some other mode of ensnaring him. They -now brought against him the twofold reproach, that the preface -was printed in different type from the rest of the book, -which was true; and that several weighty arguments which -the Pope had brought against the Copernican system in conversation -with Galileo, though they might perhaps have been -adduced in the MS., were not in the printed book; this was -a lie.<a name="FNanchor_268" id="FNanchor_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> The truth however at once came to light, for these -“weighty arguments” were reduced to one, which was brought -forward at the conclusion of the “Dialogues.” But Jesuitism, -as we shall soon see, drew very singular conclusions from -the very natural circumstance that it was mentioned by Simplicius,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span> -the defender of Ptolemy. The brethren of Father -Grassi and Father Scheiner,<a name="FNanchor_269" id="FNanchor_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a>—the latter of whom had been -for a few months at Rome, and was greatly incensed at the -“Dialogues,”—well knew how to lay hold of the Pope by his -most vulnerable points, his personal vanity and boundless -ambition, which made him feel every contradiction like an -attack on his authority. They were assiduous in confirming -Urban in his opinion that the Copernican doctrine endangered -the dogmas of the Christian Catholic faith in the highest -degree, and now represented that the publication of the -“Dialogues” was an incalculable injury to the Church. -Besides this, they persuaded the Pope that in his latest work -Galileo had again, though this time under concealment, -entered into theological interpretations of Holy Scripture. -They thus stigmatised him as a rebel against the papal -decrees, who had only obtained the licence from Riccardi by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span> -cunning devices,—a misrepresentation of the facts which, -however, did not fail of its effect on Urban. This is conclusively -proved by the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of -5th and 11th September, 1632, of which we shall have to -speak more particularly.<a name="FNanchor_270" id="FNanchor_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a></p> - -<p>The crowning point of the intrigues of Galileo’s foes was, -however, the cunning assertion that <i>by Simplicius no other was -intended than Urban VIII. himself</i>; and they actually made -him believe it. One would scarcely have thought this possible -with this shrewd Pope, who was so well-disposed towards -Galileo; but it is beyond all question that it was so, and it put -him in a boundless rage. It is decidedly indicated by his -attitude towards Galileo at the trial, especially at the beginning -of it. At that time it put him in such ill humour to be -spoken to about Galileo, that all who interested themselves for -him agreed that it was better not to confer with Urban himself, -but with Cardinal Barberini or the ministers.<a name="FNanchor_271" id="FNanchor_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> The repeated -attempts also made by Galileo and his friends, even years -afterwards, to convince Urban that it had never entered his -head to insult him, and that it was a cunning slander, prove -that for a long time the Pope had taken Simplicius for his -counterfeit.</p> - -<p>As this manifest falsehood is revived by certain writers, -even at this time of day, as having been Galileo’s real intention, -it seems necessary to throw a little more light on it. The -telling remarks which Albèri makes on the subject might well -suffice to show the absurdity of the imputation. He says that -in the first place the attachment and devotion always shown -by Galileo towards Urban, to the sincerity of which numerous -letters bear witness, exclude all idea of so perfidious an act; -and in the second, that it was Galileo’s own interest to retain -the goodwill of his powerful patron, and not frivolously to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span> -fritter it away.<a name="FNanchor_272" id="FNanchor_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> But we pass from this argument <i>ad absurdum</i> -to one <i>ad concretum</i>. Simplicius is said to be Urban VIII. -But not appropriately, for he was no such headstrong Peripatetic -as is represented by Simplicius; had he been so, it was -impossible that in 1624 he should have enjoyed having “Il -Saggiatore” read to him at table, that cutting satire on the -Aristotelian wisdom in general, and the wisdom of Father -Grassi in particular; and that in the next year he should -have been so much pleased with Galileo’s reply to Ingoli.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s enemies founded their assertion on the circumstance -that at the end of the work Simplicius employs an argument -which the Pope himself had brought forward in repeated conversations -in 1624 with Galileo, and on the weight of which -he plumed himself not a little.<a name="FNanchor_273" id="FNanchor_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> It consisted of the reflection, -undoubtedly more devout than scientific, that God is all-powerful, -so that all things are possible to Him, and that -therefore the tides could not be adduced as a <i>necessary</i> proof -of the double motion of the earth without limiting His omnipotence. -This pious objection is received by both Salviati -and Sagredo with the utmost reverence. The former calls it -heavenly and truly admirable, and the latter thinks that it -forms a fitting conclusion to the discussion, which opinion is -acted upon.<a name="FNanchor_274" id="FNanchor_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> The Pope’s argument is thus by no means made -to appear ridiculous, but quite the contrary. As to the main -point, Simplicius says expressly that “he had this argument -from a very eminent and learned personage.” If this means -Urban VIII., it is plain that Simplicius cannot be Urban -VIII. Q.E.D.<a name="FNanchor_275" id="FNanchor_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a></p> - -<p>In writing his “Dialogues,” Galileo found himself in a -difficult position. As he brought forward all the arguments<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span> -of the disciples of Ptolemy against the new system, the -vain pontiff would have been sorely offended if he had not -introduced his. But who should mention it, if not Simplicius? -Galileo might think that Urban would not perhaps -like to see his argument treated as the original suggestion of -Simplicius, who did not appear in a brilliant light, and devised -the expedient of making him quote it, as that of “a very -eminent and learned personage,” whereby he would imagine -that he had steered clear of every obstacle. But there was -no security against calumny. How little idea Galileo could -have had of making Urban ridiculous under the guise of -Simplicius appears also from the fact that in 1636, when -seeking full pardon from the Pope, and when he would be -most anxious not to irritate him, he had just completed his -famous work, “Dialogues on the Modern Sciences,” in which -Simplicius again plays the part of defender of the ancient -principles; and that he published it in 1638, just when, in -view of the unfavourable answer of 1636, he was begging -at least for the favour of being nursed at Florence. There -can be no doubt that this suspicion materially contributed to -injure Galileo’s cause. Pieralisi, indeed, makes an assertion -as novel as it is untenable, that this bold slander was first -heard of in 1635, and therefore not until after the famous -trial; and in his book, “Urban VIII. and Gal. Galilei,”<a name="FNanchor_276" id="FNanchor_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> he -devotes a chapter of forty-six pages to prove this latest -novelty. But all his arguments are upset by the following -passage by Galileo in a letter to his friend Micanzio on -26th July, 1636:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I hear from Rome that his Eminence Cardinal Antonio Barberini -and the French ambassador have seen his Holiness and tried to convince -him that I never had the least idea of perpetrating so sacrilegious an act -as to make game of his Holiness, as my malicious foes have persuaded -him, and which was the primary cause of all my troubles.”<a name="FNanchor_277" id="FNanchor_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span></p> - -<p>Pieralisi is acquainted with these words, and seeks to -weaken their indisputable force as evidence in a lengthy -disquisition; but an impartial critic only sees in this the -apologist of Urban VIII., who desires, at all hazards, to shield -him from the suspicion of having been actuated in the matter -of Galileo’s trial by personal motives, which will always be -recognised in history as a fact, though it is also an exaggeration -of some historians to maintain that it was the actual -starting-point of the whole process, Urban having wished to -revenge himself for this assumed personal insult.<a name="FNanchor_278" id="FNanchor_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> No, it -had its effect, but was not the chief motive. The Jesuits had -inspired the Pope with the opinion that the “Dialogues” were -eminently dangerous to the Church, more dangerous and abhorrent -even than the writings of Luther and Calvin,<a name="FNanchor_279" id="FNanchor_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> and he -was highly incensed at the representation that Galileo had -shamefully outwitted Father Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and -even his Holiness himself, in obtaining the licence. Offended -majesty, the determination to guard the interests of the -Church and the authority of the Bible, indignation at Galileo’s -assumed cunning, and annoyance at having been duped by it,—these -were the motives which impelled Urban VIII. to the -deed called the institution of the trial of the Inquisition -against Galileo.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Symptoms of the Coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade of -Forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional -Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview with the Pope -and unfavourable Reception.—Report of it to Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—Real -Object of the Special Commission to find a Pretext for the -Trial.—Its Discovery in the Assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report -of the Commission and Charges against Galileo.</p> - -</div> - -<p>As we have seen, even during the months of June and July -a ferment had already begun in certain circles at Rome about -the “Dialogues.” Complaints and accusations were rife, the -Pope was artfully worked upon—these were the first portents -of the heavy storm which was to break over Galileo’s head. -The Master of the Palace went about Rome in great fear for -himself as well as for Galileo, and told his troubles to Count -Magalotti.<a name="FNanchor_280" id="FNanchor_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> At the beginning of August, Riccardi begged -him to deliver up the eight copies of the “Dialogues” which -Magalotti had brought to Rome, with the assurance that he -would return them in ten days at the latest. It was not in -Magalotti’s power to grant this request, the books having, as -we know, long ago passed into other hands.<a name="FNanchor_281" id="FNanchor_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a></p> - -<p>A few days later the first thunderclap broke over Galileo. -His publisher, Landini, at Florence received instructions, -though for the time they were only provisional, forbidding -the further sale of the “Dialogues.” The succeeding scenes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span> -of the melancholy drama quickly followed. A special commission -was instituted at Rome by order of the Pope to -investigate the whole affair. Urban afterwards repeatedly -stated with great emphasis to Niccolini, that it was out of -regard for the Grand Duke, as well as for Galileo, that the -very unusual measure was taken of not referring his cause -directly to the Holy Office, but to a separate congregation.<a name="FNanchor_282" id="FNanchor_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a></p> - -<p>It is altogether a characteristic trait in all the proceedings -of the Roman curia against Galileo, that there was a parade -of great consideration for and forbearance towards him -although strictly within the limits of their real intentions. -Even the favour ostensibly shown to him of referring his -cause to a preliminary commission, composed of theologians -and mathematicians, was not so great in reality as it was -trumpeted to be at the Vatican. It was composed of persons -by no means favourable to him, and all the endeavours of -Niccolini and other powerful friends of Galileo to have influential -persons who were friendly to him put on the commission, -such as Fathers Castelli and Campanella, were -frustrated by the Pope. It occasioned a dangerous threat -to be held over the undaunted Campanella, who energetically -exerted himself in the matter.<a name="FNanchor_283" id="FNanchor_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile disquieting rumours had reached Florence, -and Galileo recognised with terror his dangerous position, -though not to its full extent; this perhaps was as yet foreseen -by no one. He appealed in full confidence to his -friendly young sovereign for protection, and found a willing -ear. On the 24th August a note on this business was -sent to Niccolini, by order of the Grand Duke. It is clear -that Ferdinand’s efforts to assist Galileo were sincere from -the circumstance that, although the letter was written in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span> -Cioli’s name, Galileo was the author of it, as appears from -the original draft in his handwriting in the Palatina Library -at Florence.</p> - -<p>The Grand Duke in this letter expresses his surprise that a -book which had been laid before the supreme authorities at -Rome by the author in person, had been carefully read there -again and again, as well as afterwards at Florence, and at -the author’s request had been altered as seemed good to the -authorities, and had finally received the <i>imprimatur</i> both -there and here, should now after two years be considered -suspicious and be prohibited. The astonishment of his Highness -was the greater, because he knew that neither of the -main opinions treated of were positively confirmed, but only -the reasons for and against brought together; and this was -done, as his Highness knew for certain, for the benefit of the -Holy Church itself, in order that on subjects which in their -nature are difficult to understand, those with whom the -decision rests may see, with less expenditure of time and -trouble, on which side the truth lies, and bring it into agreement -with Holy Scripture. The Grand Duke was of opinion -that this opposition must be directed rather against the person -of the author than against his book, or this or that opinion, -ancient or modern. In order, however, to convince himself of -the merits or misdemeanours of his servant, his Highness -desires that that which is granted in all disputes and before -all tribunals should be permitted to him,—to defend himself -against his accusers. The Grand Duke therefore urges that -the accusations brought against the work, which have caused -it to be prohibited, may be sent here for the author, who -stands firmly on his innocence, to see them. He is so convinced -that all this originates in the calumnies of envious and -malicious persecutors, that he has offered his sovereign to -leave the country and renounce his favour unless he can palpably -prove how pious and sincere his sentiments on these -subjects have always been and still are. The letter concludes -with the commission, by the Grand Duke’s orders, to take the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span> -necessary steps towards the fulfilment of his most reasonable -request.<a name="FNanchor_284" id="FNanchor_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a></p> - -<p>On the same day on which this despatch went off, a mandate -was issued from Rome, which not only confirmed the -provisional prohibition of the “Dialogues,” but requested -Landini to send all the copies in stock to Rome. He replied -that all the copies had been delivered to the purchasers.</p> - -<p>Niccolini on receipt of the Grand Duke’s order hastened to -carry it out, but met with more bitter and obstinate opposition -than either he or the Tuscan court had expected. On -4th September, when the ambassador was about to execute -his mission at the Vatican, the Pope met him bluntly with -the words: “Your Galileo has ventured to meddle with things -that he ought not, and with the most important and dangerous -subjects which can be stirred up in these days.” Niccolini -remarked that the philosopher had not published his -work without the approval of the Church, to which the Pope -angrily rejoined that Galileo and Ciampoli had deceived -him, especially Ciampoli, who had dared to tell him that -Galileo would be entirely guided by the papal commands, and -that it was all right; he had not either seen or read the -work, and this was all he had known about it. His Holiness -then made bitter complaints against the Master of the Palace, -adding, however, that he had been deceived himself, for he -had been enticed by fair speeches to approve the book, and -by more fair speeches to allow it to be printed at Florence, -without at all complying with the form prescribed by the -Inquisitor, and with the name of the Roman censor of the -press, who had nothing whatever to do with works which did -not appear at Rome. Niccolini then ventured to say, that he -knew that a special congregation was appointed to try this -affair, and as it might happen (as was the case) that there -might be persons on it unfavourable to Galileo, he humbly -petitioned that Galileo might have an opportunity of justifying -himself. Urban answered curtly: “In these affairs of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span> -the Holy Office, nothing is ever done but to pronounce judgment, -and then summon to recant.” “Does it not then appear -to your Holiness,” answered the ambassador, “that Galileo -should be informed beforehand of the objections to, scruples -and criticisms respecting his book, and of the points to which -the Holy Office takes exception?” “The Holy Office,” -replied the Pope, angrily, “as I told you before, does not -proceed in that way, and does not take that course, nor does -it ever give such information beforehand: it is not the custom. -<i>Besides, Galileo knows well enough what the objections are, -if he only chooses to know, because we have talked to him about -it, and he has heard them all from ourself.</i>” Niccolini now -urged that the work was dedicated to the Grand Duke, and -written by one of his most eminent servants; he hoped, therefore, -that Galileo would be treated with indulgence. Urban -replied that he had even prohibited books dedicated to himself, -and that in matters where it was a question of endangering -religion, the Grand Duke also was bound, as a Christian prince, -to co-operate in enforcing penalties. Niccolini had therefore -better write plainly to his Highness that he (the Pope) -warned him not to meddle with things which he could not -come out of with honour. The undaunted ambassador now -expressed his conviction that his Holiness would not allow -them to go so far as entirely to prohibit the book, which had -received sanction, without at least hearing Galileo. But -Urban replied, <i>that this was the least that could happen to him, -and he had better take care that he was not summoned before -the Holy Office</i>. The Pope then assured Niccolini that the -preliminary commission was composed of theologians and -men well versed in science, all grave and pious men, who -would weigh every particular, word for word, for it was a -question of the most godless business which could ever be -discussed. He also charged the ambassador to tell his -sovereign that the doctrine was in the highest degree sinful; -everything would be maturely considered; his Highness had -better not interfere, and must be on his guard. In conclusion,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span> -the Pope not only imposed the strictest secrecy on -Niccolini as to what he had been told, but desired that the -Grand Duke also should be charged to keep the secret, adding -that he “had acted with great consideration for Galileo, by -having impressed upon him what he knew before, and by not -referring his affairs, as he ought to have done, to the Holy -Office, but to a specially-appointed congregation.” Urban -added the bitter remark that his behaviour towards Galileo -had been far better than Galileo’s towards him, for he had -deceived him.</p> - -<p>In the narration of the whole of this interesting conversation -between the Pope and the Tuscan ambassador, we have -given an almost literal translation of the Italian original of -Niccolini’s report of it to Cioli, of 5th September, 1632.<a name="FNanchor_285" id="FNanchor_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> -Urban’s last angry expression caused Niccolini to remark in -his despatch that he found “ill will here too; and as for the -Pope, he could not be more against poor Galileo than he was.” -He then said that he had communicated Cioli’s letter of 24th -August to the Master of the Palace, and that Riccardi thought -they would hardly condemn the “Dialogues” altogether, but -only alter some passages which really were objectionable. -He had also offered, as far as he could do so without incurring -censure or transgressing rules, to inform the ambassador -at once of what was going to be done, adding however, that -he must be cautious, for he had already felt the lash in this -matter. He then complained that they had not acted in -accordance with his letter to the Inquisitor, that the introduction -was printed in different type from the rest of the work, and -that the conclusion did not agree with the introduction. Towards -the end of the despatch, Niccolini says that “it will be -better to act without any temper in this business, and rather -to negotiate with the ministers and Cardinal Barberini than -with the Pope himself, because he obstinately persists that it -is a hopeless case, and if you dispute it, or threaten anything,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span> -or are defiant, his Holiness lets fall hard words and -has no respect for anybody.”</p> - -<p>The conclusion of Cioli’s reply of 19th September to this -ominous despatch of Niccolini’s gives us an insight into the -attitude which the Tuscan Government, even at that time, -desired to assume towards the papal chair in this unfortunate -business. Cioli writes:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“His Highness has heard the letters of your excellency of the 4th and -5th, and by this affair of Signor Mariano and that of Signor Galileo he -was placed in so much difficulty that I do not know how it will be. I -know well that his Holiness will never have to blame the ministers for -giving bad advice.”<a name="FNanchor_286" id="FNanchor_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Two letters from Count Magalotti,<a name="FNanchor_287" id="FNanchor_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> who was usually well -informed, arrived almost at the same time as this despatch. -Both bear the date of 4th September; one is to Mario Guiducci, -the other to Galileo, who in a letter of 23rd August, -which is lost, had expressed his anxiety to Magalotti lest -his work should be pronounced suspicious, and the Copernican -doctrine condemned as heretical by the authorities. -Magalotti’s news was, on the whole, reassuring. According -to the opinions of persons who are generally present at the -sittings of the Congregation of the Holy Office, he thought he -could assure Galileo that it would never go so far as for the -Copernican system to be condemned by the <i>supreme authority</i>.<a name="FNanchor_288" id="FNanchor_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> -He thought, with Riccardi, that they would not entirely prohibit -the “Dialogues,” but only correct them, so as to sustain -the decree of 5th March, 1616. He also urgently advised, -like Niccolini, that they should arm themselves with the utmost -patience, and rather confer with Cardinal Barberini<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span> -than with Urban, “for reasons which it is not necessary to -discuss here.”</p> - -<p>Neither Galileo himself, nor Magalotti, nor his other friends, -ever thought of any personal danger to him; Niccolini and -the Grand Duke might perhaps have been more sharp-sighted, -but they were bound to silence. The threads, however, of -this great intrigue can only be disentangled by the later -historian, who has watched the progress of the whole melancholy -drama. Two facts are perfectly obvious to the attentive -observer: the first, that at Rome, with the Pope at their head, -they were determined to bring Galileo to trial before the -Inquisition; and the second, that they did not yet clearly see -how it was to be done with some shadow of justice. To find -this out was the real purpose of the appointment of the special -congregation, which Urban had boasted of as a signal act of -forbearance towards Galileo. All the objections to the book -were subjects rather for accusation against the censors who had -sanctioned it than against the author, who had submitted it -to them, altered it, and again submitted the alterations. The -responsibility for the publication really rested not with the -author, but with those who had sanctioned it. The Pope’s -accusation, however, that Galileo had coaxed them to give the -permission by fair speeches, was too indefinite to institute a -trial upon, and neither did the irregular quotation of the <i>imprimatur</i> -of the Master of the Palace, nor the typographical -difference between the preface and the rest of the book offer -sufficient ground for a legal prosecution. In this difficult case, -therefore, it required all the Romish craft and legal sophistry -at command, to find a pretext for bringing Galileo to trial -before the Inquisition, which should, at any rate according -to Romish principles, justify it in the eyes of the world.</p> - -<p>The preliminary commission appointed by Urban VIII. -was to perform this by no means easy task in brilliant style. -It was certainly very much lightened by a discovery in the -acts of the trial of Galileo in 1616, which was evidently a -surprise to them—the note of 26th February, 1616.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span></p> - -<p>What vast importance they at once thought fit to assign -to this annotation without signature, we learn from a despatch -of Niccolini’s to Cioli, of 11th September.<a name="FNanchor_289" id="FNanchor_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> Niccolini refers in -it to a recent interview with the Master of the Palace. He -had again strongly advised that nothing be done in a hurry, -and that time must be gained, for the Pope was firmly convinced -that religion was really imperilled, for the work did -not treat of mathematics, but of Holy Scripture, religion, and -faith, and the orders respecting the printing of the work had -not been complied with, for the opinion of the author was not -merely indicated, but expressed in many places in the most -decided and unsuitable manner. After Riccardi had assured -the ambassador that all efforts to get Campanella and Castelli -put on the preliminary commission had failed, but that he -(Riccardi) would do his best to defend Galileo, both from -friendship for him, and to serve his Highness, and because he -had given the permission to print, he confided to Niccolini, -under seal of profound secrecy, as of the highest importance, -“<i>that it had been discovered in the books of the Holy Office, -that sixteen years ago, it having been heard that Galileo entertained -that opinion, and disseminated it in Florence, he was -summoned to Rome, and forbidden by Cardinal Bellarmine, in -the name of the Pope and the Holy Office, to hold that opinion, -and this alone is enough to ruin him entirely</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_290" id="FNanchor_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a></p> - -<p>This communication of Riccardi’s contains an obvious -mis-statement, namely, that any document had been found -showing that Galileo had been <i>summoned</i> to Rome in 1616. -As we have seen,<a name="FNanchor_291" id="FNanchor_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> all the historical documents show that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span> -he was not summoned, but that his visit was entirely voluntary. -This verbal statement of Riccardi’s, unsupported by -any document, is of no value as evidence, compared with -the letters of Galileo of that period, and his depositions -afterwards before his judges, who were accurately informed -of all the previous proceedings. The second part of his -communication to Niccolini is also far from precise. He -does indeed say that Galileo, in 1616, had in the name -of the Pope and the Holy Congregation been forbidden -(<i>prohibito</i>), “il poter tenere questo opinione,” but according -to the father’s account this prohibition was communicated -to him by Cardinal Bellarmine. Riccardi is evidently not -precisely instructed, and does not know that, according to -the notification of 26th February, 1616, Galileo received -an absolute prohibition before notary and witnesses.</p> - -<p>We shall see the part this “document” was destined to -play in the proceedings against Galileo.</p> - -<p>The preliminary commission had just then, after about a -month’s session, completed its labours, and submitted to the -Pope a long memorial on the Galileo affair. The document -begins with a concise statement of the course of the negotiations -about the publication of the “Dialogues,” and then -the three following indictments were brought against the -author:—</p> - -<p>(1) Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the -hypothetical treatment by decidedly maintaining that the -earth moves and the sun is stationary. (2) He has erroneously -ascribed the phenomena of the tides to the stability of -the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not exist; (3) -and he has further been deceitfully silent about the command -laid upon him by the Holy Office, in the year 1616, -which was as follows: “To relinquish altogether the said -opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, -and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, -or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, -otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span> -Holy Office, which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced -in and promised to obey.”</p> - -<p>Then follows the remark: “It must now be considered -what proceedings are to be taken, both against the person of -the author and against the printed book.” Yet the nature of -these proceedings is not in any way discussed in the document, -but it now refers more in detail in five counts to the -historical events, from the time when the “Dialogues” were -submitted in Rome in 1630, to the publication in Florence -in 1632. A sixth count considers that the following points -in the “Dialogues” themselves must be laid to the author’s -account:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“1. That without orders and without making any communication -about it, he put the <i>imprimatur</i> of Rome on the title page.</p> - -<p>“2. That he had printed the preface in different type, and rendered it -useless by its separation from the rest of the work; further, that he had -put the saving clause at the end in the mouth of a simpleton, and in a -place where it is hard to find; that it is but coolly received by the other -interlocutor, so that it is only cursorily touched upon, and not fully -discussed.</p> - -<p>“3. That he had very often in the work deviated from the hypothesis, -either by absolutely asserting that the earth moves, and that the sun is -stationary, or by representing the arguments upon which these views rest -as convincing and necessarily true, or by making the contrary appear -impossible.</p> - -<p>“4. That he had treated the subject as undecided, and as if he were -waiting for, though he does not expect, explanation.</p> - -<p>“5. That he contemns authors who are of a contrary opinion, and -those whom Holy Church chiefly employs.</p> - -<p>“6. That he perniciously asserts and sets forth that, in the apprehension -of geometrical matters, there is some equality between the Divine and -human mind.</p> - -<p>“7. That he had represented it to be an argument for the truth that -Ptolemaics go over to the Copernicans, but not <i>vice versa</i>.</p> - -<p>“8. That he had erroneously ascribed the tides in the ocean to the -stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not exist.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The special commission, however, by no means draws the -conclusion from all these errors and failings, that the “Dialogues” -should be prohibited, but says: “All these things<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span> -could be corrected, if it was thought that the book to which -such favour should be shown were of any value.”</p> - -<p>Immediately after this follows the seventh point, saying -that “the author had transgressed the mandate of the -Holy Office of 1616, ‘that he should relinquish the said -opinion,’ etc.—down to, ‘and promised to obey.’”<a name="FNanchor_292" id="FNanchor_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> - -<p>Herewith the memorial of the preliminary commission -concludes. It draws no conclusions from the facts adduced, -but leaves that to his Holiness the Pope. The last count -confirms Galileo’s chief offence: he is guilty of having disobeyed -a special mandate of the ecclesiastical authorities, -has broken a solemn promise made before a notary and -witnesses. Such a crime, according to inquisitorial usage, -demanded severe punishment. The perfidy of 1616 had -signally triumphed.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE SUMMONS TO ROME.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Niccolini’s Attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s Parable.—The Mandate -summoning Galileo to Rome.—His Grief and Consternation.—His -Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed Order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s -fruitless Efforts to save him.—Medical Certificate that he -was unfit to Travel.—Castelli’s hopeful View of the Case.—Threat to -bring him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to -go.—His Powerlessness to protect his Servant.—Galileo’s Mistake in -leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Only a few days later, on 15th September, the Pope informed -the Tuscan ambassador through one of his secretaries, Pietro -Benessi, that he (Urban) hereby notified to him, out of esteem -for his Highness the Grand Duke, that he could do no less -than hand Galileo’s affairs over to the Inquisition. At the -same time the strictest secrecy as to this information was enjoined -both on the Grand Duke and Niccolini, with a threat -that otherwise they would be proceeded against according to -the statutes of the Holy Office.<a name="FNanchor_293" id="FNanchor_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a></p> - -<p>Niccolini was astounded by this news, and hastened, two -days afterwards, to the Pope, to make a final attempt to avert -the danger of a trial before the Inquisition for Galileo. But -his urgent though respectful solicitations met with no response. -Urban indeed said that “Signor Galileo was still -his friend,—but that opinion had been condemned sixteen -years before.” He then expatiated, as he had so often -done before, on the danger of the doctrine, and ended by -saying that Galileo’s book was in the highest degree pernicious.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span> -When Niccolini remarked that he thought the “Dialogues” -might be altered to the prescribed form, instead of -being prohibited altogether, the Pope answered affably by -telling him a parable about Cardinal Alciato. A manuscript -was submitted to him with the request that, in order not to -spoil the fair copy, he would mark the places requiring -alteration with a little wax. The cardinal returned it without -any marks at all. The author thanked him, and expressed -his satisfaction that he had not found anything to find fault -with, as there was not a single mark; but the cardinal -replied that he had not used any wax, for if he had, he must -have gone to a wax chandler’s, and dipped the whole work -into melted wax in order to amend it thoroughly.<a name="FNanchor_294" id="FNanchor_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> Thus -had Cardinal Alciato enlightened the unfortunate author in -his day, and Urban enlightened Niccolini by quoting the -story, to which he could only reply with a forced smile, that -nevertheless he “hoped his Holiness would allow them to -treat Galileo’s work as indulgently as possible.”</p> - -<p>Niccolini’s efforts had been in vain, and measures were laid -with almost breathless haste to deliver Galileo up to the -Inquisition. This was finally effected in the sitting of the -Congregation of the Holy Office of 23rd September, 1632, -when it was pronounced that he had transgressed the prohibition -of 26th February, 1616, and concealed it when he -obtained the <i>imprimatur</i>. In a document of the Vatican -Manuscript we have the papal mandate which followed this -sentence. It runs as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“23rd September, 1632. His Holiness charges the Inquisitor at -Florence to inform Galileo, in the name of the Holy Office, that he is to -appear as soon as possible in the course of the month of October, at -Rome before the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. He must -also obtain a promise from Galileo to obey this order, which the Inquisitor -is to give him in the presence of a notary and witnesses, but in such a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span> -way that Galileo may know nothing about them, so that if he refuse and -do not promise to obey, they may, if necessary, bear witness to it.”<a name="FNanchor_295" id="FNanchor_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>On 1st October the Inquisitor carried out this order, which -Galileo had to certify by the following attestation:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>1st October, 1632, at Florence. “I, Galileo Galilei, certify that on the -day indicated the order has been delivered to me by the honourable -Father Inquisitor of this city, by command of the Holy Congregation of -the Holy Office at Rome, to go to Rome in the course of the present -month, October, and to present myself before the Father Commissary -of the Holy Office, who will inform me what I have to do. I will willingly -obey the order in the course of this month October. And in testimony -thereto I have written these presents.”</p> - -<p>“I, Galileo Galilei wrote <i>manu propria</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_296" id="FNanchor_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This mandate to present himself before the Inquisition -quite overwhelmed Galileo, as is evident from his correspondence -of that period. He was totally unprepared for it. -Scarcely recovered from a severe complaint in the eyes, which -had lasted several months and had prevented him from using -them, otherwise suffering in health, and at an advanced age, -he was now to go to Rome in the midst of the plague, which -had broken out again with increased virulence, and entailed -strict quarantine regulations, in order to give account of himself -before the dread tribunal. No wonder that it dismayed -him, and in spite of his promise “willingly to obey the order -in the course of this month, October,” we find him making -every effort to get out of it. On 6th October he wrote in the -greatest excitement to Cioli, who was just then with the -Grand Duke at Siena, that he was in the greatest consternation -at this summons to appear before the Inquisition at -Rome, and as he was well aware of the importance of the -matter, he would come to Siena to lay his schemes and plans<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span> -before his Highness, for he had more than one in his head, -and to consult him about the steps to be taken.<a name="FNanchor_297" id="FNanchor_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p> - -<p>This journey, however, was not undertaken, as the court -soon returned to Florence.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s deep depression is most evident from a long letter -of 13th October addressed to a cardinal of the Barberini -family,<a name="FNanchor_298" id="FNanchor_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> which was to reach him through Niccolini. Galileo -remarks first that he and his friends had foreseen that his -“Dialogues” would find opponents, but he had never imagined -that the envious malice of some persons would go so -far as to persuade the authorities that they were not worthy -to see the light. He goes on to say that the summons before -the Inquisition at Rome had caused him the deepest grief, for -he feared that such a proceeding, usual only in the case of -serious delinquents, would turn the fruits of all his studies -and labours during many years, which had lent no little repute -to his name with the learned all over the world, into aspersions -on his fair fame. “This vexes me so much,” continues -Galileo, “that it makes me curse the time devoted to these -studies in which I strove and hoped to deviate somewhat from -the beaten track generally pursued by learned men. I not -only repent having given the world a portion of my writings, -but feel inclined to suppress those still in hand, and to give -them to the flames, and thus satisfy the longing desire of my -enemies to whom my ideas are so inconvenient.” After this -desperate cry from his oppressed soul, he expresses his conviction -that, burdened with seventy years and many bodily -sufferings, increased by constant sleeplessness, he shall not -reach the end of this tedious journey—made more arduous by -unusual difficulties—alive. Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation -common to all men, he ventures to ask the good<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span> -offices of the cardinal. He begs him to represent his pitiable -condition to the wise fathers in Rome, not to release him -from giving account of himself, which he is most anxious to -do, as he is sure that it will only tend to his advantage, but -only that it may be made easier for him to obey. There are -two ways of doing this. One is for him to write a minute -and conscientious vindication of all that he has said, written, -or done since the day when the conflict began on Copernicus’s -book and his new system. He is certain that his -sincerity and his pure, zealous, and devout attachment to the -holy Church and its supreme head, would be so obvious from -this statement, that every one, if he were free from passion -and party malice, must confess that he had behaved so -piously and like a good Catholic, that not even any of the -fathers of the Church to whom the epithet <i>holy</i> is applied, -could have shown more piety. He asserts and will indisputably -prove, by all the works he has written on this subject, -that he has only entered into the controversy out of zeal for -the holy Church, with the intention of imparting to her servants -that knowledge which one or other of them might wish -to possess, and which he had acquired by long study, as it -treated of subjects difficult to understand and different from -the learning generally cultivated. He will also show how -many opinions contained in the writings of the fathers of the -Church had been an encouragement to him, and how he was -“finally confirmed in his intention by hearing a short but -holy and admirable address, which came unexpectedly, like -an echo of the Holy Spirit, from the lips of a personage -eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of life.” But -for the present he will not give this admirable saying, nor the -speaker’s name, as it does not seem prudent or suitable to -involve any one in the present affair which concerns him personally -alone.<a name="FNanchor_299" id="FNanchor_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> Having in a touching manner begged that -what he should write may be read, and declared that should<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span> -his vindication not give satisfaction on all points he will reply -in detail to objections, he proceeds to the second means of -averting the journey to Rome.</p> - -<p>He only wishes that his adversaries would be as ready to -commit to paper what they have perhaps verbally and <i>ad -aures</i> said against him, as he was to defend himself in writing. -If they will not accept his written vindication, and still insist -upon a verbal one, there was an Inquisitor, Nuncius, archbishop, -and other high officials of the Church at Florence, whose summons -he was quite ready to obey. He says:—“It appears -to me that things of much greater importance are decided -by this tribunal. And it is not likely that under the -keen and watchful eyes of those who examined my book -with full liberty to omit, to add, and to alter as seemed -good to them, errors so weighty could escape that the -authorities of this city should be incompetent to correct or -punish them.” This passage again clearly indicates that -Galileo knew nothing whatever of the prohibition of 1616; -that he had no idea of having broken his word to the -ecclesiastical authorities. His only thought is of a revision -of his work as the result of a conviction that it contained -errors.<a name="FNanchor_300" id="FNanchor_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a></p> - -<p>The letter to the cardinal concludes with the following -assurance:—“If neither my great age, nor my many bodily -infirmities, nor the deep concern I feel, nor the wearisomeness -of a journey under the present most unfavourable circumstances, -are considered sufficient reasons, by this high and -sacred tribunal, for granting a dispensation, or at least a -delay, I will undertake the journey, esteeming obedience -more than life.”<a name="FNanchor_301" id="FNanchor_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a></p> - -<p>Niccolini could not deliver this letter to the cardinal immediately,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span> -as he was just then absent from Rome. He received -however, at the same time, an urgent petition from another -quarter. Michael Angelo the younger wrote to this dignitary, -with whom he was on friendly terms, and entreated him, out -of consideration for the philosopher’s age and infirmities, to use -his powerful influence to get his affairs settled at Florence.<a name="FNanchor_302" id="FNanchor_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> -But there was a long delay before Galileo’s letter was delivered -to the cardinal. The ambassador wished first to -consult Castelli, whom the Grand Duke had appointed as his -counsel in Galileo’s affairs, whether it was to be delivered. -Niccolini had doubts about these explanations, and expressed -them both in a letter to Galileo of 23rd October,<a name="FNanchor_303" id="FNanchor_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> and in a -despatch to Cioli of the 24th.<a name="FNanchor_304" id="FNanchor_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> In the former Niccolini says -that he thinks Galileo’s letter is more calculated to incense -them against him than to pacify them, and the more he -asserted that he could defend his work the more it would be -thought that it ought to be condemned. He thinks that a -delay will be granted to the accused of his journey to Rome, -but that he will not be released from it on any consideration. -Niccolini gave him the following friendly hint as to the attitude -he should maintain: “It appears desirable not to enter -into any defence of things which the Congregation do not -approve, but to submit and to recant what the cardinals may -desire; for to speak as a Christian, one must not maintain -anything, but what they, as the highest tribunal, that cannot -err, please.”<a name="FNanchor_305" id="FNanchor_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> By such conduct the ambassador hopes for -an easier solution of the question; not, however, without its -coming to an actual trial, and Galileo may even be somewhat -restricted in his personal liberty. He has great doubts about -the passage referring to an “admirable address, which came -unexpectedly like an echo of the Holy Spirit from the lips of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span> -a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity -of life,” as he thinks that if the letter is handed to the cardinal, -he will hand it to the Congregation, and the cardinals -may request to be informed who this personage is. At all -events he would like first to consult Castelli, who was not -just then at Rome.</p> - -<p>The result of the consultation was, however, to deliver -the letter to Barberini. Niccolini reported to Galileo on 6th -November,<a name="FNanchor_306" id="FNanchor_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> that he had received it in a very friendly spirit, -and was altogether very kindly disposed towards him. The -ambassador does not doubt that a delay will at any rate be -granted, that Galileo may make the journey to Rome with -less inconvenience.<a name="FNanchor_307" id="FNanchor_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> We learn from a document in Gherardi’s -archives, that Galileo’s petitions were discussed at a sitting of -the Congregation of the Holy Office held on 11th November, -in presence of the Pope, but that he would not grant them, -and decreed that Galileo must obey, and ordered that the -Inquisitor at Florence should be written to that he might -compel Galileo to come to Rome.<a name="FNanchor_308" id="FNanchor_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a></p> - -<p>Niccolini, meanwhile, was unwearied in trying to get Galileo’s -proposals accepted. He went to Cardinal Ginetti, who -was a member of the Congregation and in high favour with -the Pope, and to Mgr. Boccabella, assessor of the Holy Office, -and represented to both Galileo’s great age, his failing health, -and the peril to his life of a journey through quarantine and -plague. But as both prelates, on whom as members of the -Holy Office strict secrecy was imposed, “only heard what -he had to say, and answered nothing,” Niccolini went to the -Pope himself, to make one more attempt. Having as he -thought put the imperious pontiff into the best of humours, -by assuring him that the unfortunate <i>savant</i> was ready to -render prompt obedience to every command, he laid all the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span> -circumstances before him, and used all his eloquence to awaken -pity for the infirm old man. But in vain. Niccolini asked -at last whether his Holiness had not seen Galileo’s letter to -Cardinal Barberini; and he said he had, but in spite of all that -the journey to Rome could not be dispensed with. “Your -Holiness incurs the danger,” replied Niccolini, “considering -Galileo’s great age, of his being tried neither in Rome nor -Florence; for I assure your Holiness that he may die on the -way under all these difficulties combined with so much -anxiety.” “He can come very slowly (<i>pian piano</i>) in a litter, -with every comfort, but he really must be tried here in person. -May God forgive him for having been so deluded as to involve -himself in these difficulties, from which we had relieved -him when we were cardinal.” This was the Pope’s stern -reply to the ambassador’s urgent representations. And when -he remarked that it was the sanction given to the book here -which had occasioned all this, because from the signature, and -the orders given to the Inquisitor at Florence, they felt quite -secure, and had proceeded without scruple, Urban broke out -into violent complaints about the conduct of Father Riccardi -and Mgr. Ciampoli, and repeated that it was a question of a -most pernicious doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_309" id="FNanchor_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p> - -<p>Niccolini, seeing that his efforts were in vain retired, but -only to hasten to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and to entreat -him to take up the cause of this persecuted man. But the -cardinal made the pertinent excuse that he could not act -against the Pope’s will, but he would procure all possible -relaxation of the strict quarantine regulations for Galileo. -Niccolini could not even obtain any definite promise of delay; -and, much discomfited and with profound sorrow, he communicated -the results of his sincere and unwearied endeavours<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span> -in a letter to Galileo of 13th November, 1632, and a -despatch to Cioli of the same date.<a name="FNanchor_310" id="FNanchor_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a></p> - -<p>A few days after the receipt of this bad news, on 19th -November, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at -Florence for the second time, in accordance with the papal -mandate of 11th November. He sent the following report of -it on 20th November, to Rome:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I have again summoned Galileo Galilei, who said that he was perfectly -willing to go to Rome, and only hesitated on account of his advanced age, -his evident ill health, the circumstance that he was under medical treatment, -and many other things. I then charged him to comply with the -order to go to Rome, and in presence of a notary and two witnesses gave -him a respite of one month. He again appeared quite willing, but I do -not know whether he will go. I told him what I had received.”<a name="FNanchor_311" id="FNanchor_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>On 9th December the papal orders were issued to the -Inquisitor at Florence, as soon as the month had elapsed, -to <i>compel</i> Galileo to set out for Rome.<a name="FNanchor_312" id="FNanchor_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> Niccolini wrote to -Cioli on the 11th<a name="FNanchor_313" id="FNanchor_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> and to Galileo on the 12th<a name="FNanchor_314" id="FNanchor_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> December, that -he had again tried to procure a longer respite, but had found -it impossible. He moreover strongly advised Galileo to set -out as soon as possible, and stay for at least twenty days’ -quarantine somewhere within the territory of Siena, as this -prompt obedience would be greatly to his advantage at -Rome.</p> - -<p>But the time appointed had nearly elapsed, and Galileo -made no preparations for starting. Shortly before it terminated, -in accordance with his instructions, the Inquisitor at -Florence sent his vicar to him. On 18th December the -Inquisitor sent the following report to Rome:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“My vicar found Galileo Galilei in bed. He told him he was quite -willing to come, but in these times he had no heart for it; besides, just<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span> -now, owing to having been attacked by sudden illness, he was not in a -condition to set out. He has sent me the enclosed medical certificate. -So that I have not failed to do my duty.”<a name="FNanchor_315" id="FNanchor_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The medical certificate, dated 17th December, gives a clear -idea of the physical condition of this much-tried man, and -we therefore give it in full. It is signed by the doctors -Vettorio de Rossi, Giovanni Ronconi, and Pietro Cervieri, -and is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We, the undersigned physicians, certify that we have examined Signor -Galileo Galilei, and find that his pulse intermits every three or four beats, -from which we conclude that his vital powers are affected, and at his -great age much weakened. To the above are to be ascribed frequent -attacks of giddiness, hypochondriacal melancholy, weakness of the -stomach, sleeplessness, and flying pains about the body, to which others -also can testify. We have also observed a serious hernia with rupture of -the peritoneum. All these symptoms are worthy of notice, as under the -least aggravation they might evidently become dangerous to life.”<a name="FNanchor_316" id="FNanchor_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But much importance does not seem to have been attached -to this certificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, -Niccolini expressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical -authorities at Florence should receive extreme orders.<a name="FNanchor_317" id="FNanchor_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> Castelli -also, in a letter of 25th December, urged his old master -to set out.<a name="FNanchor_318" id="FNanchor_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a> But in this, as in all his letters of this period, he -shows that he had no idea of the real moment to Galileo of -the proceedings going on at Rome, and he was altogether -ill informed about the course things were taking.<a name="FNanchor_319" id="FNanchor_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> Probably -great reserve was maintained towards this faithful adherent -of Galileo, who was also to be his advocate. Castelli always -consoled him with the assurance that, to the best of his belief, -the final decision of the holy tribunal would never be against -him.<a name="FNanchor_320" id="FNanchor_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> Even in his letter of 25th December, Castelli says that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span> -he only considers it necessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, -because he entertained a singular notion that Galileo’s cunning -persecutors desired nothing more than that he should not -come to Rome, in order that they might decry him as an obstinate -rebel; for he had not committed any crime against the -Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was -not very sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before -by giving up the original of the celebrated letter of Galileo’s -to him of 21st December, 1613.</p> - -<p>On 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his -despatch of 26th December were realised. On that day a -papal mandate was issued to the Inquisitor of Florence, which -said that neither his Holiness nor the Holy Congregation -could or would tolerate such evasions; it must therefore be -proved whether Galileo’s state was really such that he could -not come to Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness -and the Holy Congregation would therefore send a commissioner, -with a physician, to Florence, who would visit Galileo -and make a true and trustworthy report on his condition, and -if he were in a state to travel, bring him a prisoner in irons -to Rome (<i>carceratum et ligatum cum ferris</i>). If, out of consideration -for his health, or other danger to life, his coming -must be postponed, as soon as he had recovered and the -danger was over, he was to be brought a prisoner in irons to -Rome. The document concluded with the remark that the -papal commissioner and the physician would travel at Galileo’s -expense, because he had not obeyed the command to -appear at Rome when his condition would have permitted it.<a name="FNanchor_321" id="FNanchor_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span></p> - -<p>To avert these extreme measures from being actually -carried out, the Grand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo -on 11th January, 1633, that he (Ferdinand) took a sincere -interest in the affair, and regretted that he was unable to -spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he -should obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might -perform the journey more comfortably, he would place one -of the grand ducal litters and a trustworthy guide at his -disposal, and would also permit him to stay at the house of -the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would, within -a month, be released from Rome.<a name="FNanchor_322" id="FNanchor_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a></p> - -<p>The pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face -of the Roman hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign -does not dare to protect the philosopher—the greatest -of whom Italy can boast—from papal persecution, but was -obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition. It must -not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then -only twenty-two, because he had been brought up in the -strictest Romish fashion by the two Grand Duchesses and -Cioli, acted otherwise than any other Italian ruler would have -done in the like situation. Not one of them would have had -courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome, to put an -energetic veto on a papal mandate like this. The Venetian -Republic, in which it had been established as an axiom by -Paolo Sarpi that “the power of rulers is derived immediately -from God, and spiritual as well as temporal things are subject -to it,” was the only State of Italy which would have asserted -its sovereignty and would never have delivered up one of its<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span> -officials to the Roman will. Galileo now suffered a bitter -penalty for his former thankless conduct to the Free State. -The grand ducal orders had to be unconditionally obeyed; -and as any further delay might entail the worst consequences, -Galileo fixed 20th January for his departure.<a name="FNanchor_323" id="FNanchor_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a></p> - -<p>Before setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he -addressed a long letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate -in the parliament of Paris, Elia Diodati (not to be confounded -with Johannes Diodati, the translator of the Bible), -who corresponded with the most learned men of the time, and -took a lively interest in Galileo’s studies and fate. Some -parts of this letter show how well this strictly theistic, or more -properly, Roman Catholic <i>savant</i>, knew how to bring the -modern astronomy into agreement with Christian philosophy -and the Bible, and this from real conviction, for this letter -to his friend at Paris was quite private. From this we may -conclude that even his celebrated demonstrations to Father -Castelli, of 21st December, 1613, and the still more elaborate -ones to the Grand Duchess Christine, 1615, were the result of -honest conviction, and were not, as his enemies maintained, -mere dialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and the -Copernican theory into agreement. We give these interesting -passages of the letter as well as those which refer to -Galileo’s unhappy situation:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I am sorry that the two books of Morin<a name="FNanchor_324" id="FNanchor_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> and Fromond<a name="FNanchor_325" id="FNanchor_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> did not reach -me till six months after the publication of my ‘Dialogues,’ because otherwise -I should have had an opportunity of saying much in praise of both, -and of giving some consideration to a few particular points, especially to -one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished that -Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and that he should -pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which seem to me very uncertain) -to establish its truth. It will really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, -he raises astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human -sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great curiosity. As to -Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of much mind, I could have -wished not to see him fall into, in my opinion, a grave though wide-spread -error; namely, in order to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls -scornful jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still more -unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy Scripture, and at -length goes so far as to call those views on these grounds nothing less -than heretical. That such a proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me -to admit of very easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made -the sun, the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order and -motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations of God. If -asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would answer, the Holy -Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is therefore the work and -the Scriptures are the word of the same God. If asked further, whether -the Holy Spirit never uses words which appear to be contrary to things -as they really are, and are only so used to accommodate them to the -understandings of rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would -reply, in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of Scripture, -which, in a hundred passages, says things for the above reason, that if -taken literally, are not only heresies, but blasphemies, since they impute -to God, anger, repentance, forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, -whether God, in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding -of the multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which -is God’s handmaid, and is not changeable at man’s desire, has not always -observed, and does not still maintain, her usual course in respect to -motion, form, and relative positions of the various parts of the universe—I -am certain that he would answer, the moon has always been spherical, -although for a long period the people thought she was flat; he would say, -in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate itself to the -comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so, why, in our search for -knowledge of the various parts of the universe, should we begin rather -with the words than with the works of God? Is the work less noble or -less excellent than the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span> -that the opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards, -demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should prove -that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have brought himself -and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary, the works are indisputably -proved to vary from the literal meaning of the words, and we give -the Scriptures the second place, no detriment to Scripture results from -this. Since, in order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, -even to God Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose -that in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such strict -laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations, out of regard for -the ignorance of the masses, which are opposed to fact? If it be true -that the earth moves and the sun stands still, it is no detriment to Holy -Scripture, since it speaks of things as they appear to the people.</p> - -<p>“Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning, I -wrote a letter<a name="FNanchor_326" id="FNanchor_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> of some length, in which, supported by the authorities -of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed what an abuse it was -to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in questions of natural science, -and I proposed that in future it should not be brought into them. As -soon as I am in less trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less -trouble, because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been -summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited the circulation -of my ‘Dialogues.’ I hear from well-informed parties that the -Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is -more execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of Luther -and Calvin. And all this although, in order to obtain the <i>imprimatur</i>, I -went in person to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of -the Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding, and -omitting, and even after he had given it the <i>imprimatur</i>, ordered that it -should be examined again at Florence. The reviser here, finding nothing -else to alter, in order to show that he had gone through it carefully, contented -himself with substituting some words for others, as, for instance, -in several places, ‘Universum’ for ‘Nature,’ ‘quality’ for ‘attribute,’ -‘sublime spirit’ for ‘divine spirit,’ excusing himself to me for it by saying -that he foresaw that I should have to do with fierce foes and bitter -persecutors, as has <i>indeed come to pass</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_327" id="FNanchor_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan Embassy.—No -Notice at first taken of his Coming.—Visits of Serristori.—Galileo’s -Hopefulness.—His Letter to Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s Audience -of the Pope.—Efforts of the Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s -behalf.—Notice that he must appear before the Holy Office.—His -Dejection at the News.—Niccolini’s Advice not to defend himself.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On 20th January this palsied old man set out, borne in a -litter, on his arduous journey to Rome.<a name="FNanchor_328" id="FNanchor_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> Near Ponte a Centino, -on the frontiers of the States of the Church, in the unhealthy -flats of the vale of Paglia, he had to submit to a long -quarantine, which, in spite of Niccolini’s repeated efforts, -had only been shortened two days.<a name="FNanchor_329" id="FNanchor_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> He could not resume -his journey for twenty days, but arrived at length, on 13th -February, at Rome, in good preservation, and alighted at the -hotel of the Tuscan Embassy, where he was most kindly -received by Niccolini. On the next day Niccolini informed -Cioli that “Signor Galilei arrived yesterday evening in good -health at this house.” He mentioned further that Galileo -had already called on Mgr. Boccabella, not as an official -personage, as he had resigned his office of assessor to the -Holy Office a fortnight ago, but as a friend who showed -great interest in his fate, and to take his advice as to the conduct -to be observed. Galileo had already introduced himself -to the new assessor. Niccolini concluded his despatch by -saying that to-morrow, in the course of the forenoon, he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span> -would introduce Galileo to Cardinal Barberini, and ask him -for his kind mediation with his Holiness, and beg him, in -consideration of Galileo’s age, his reputation, and his ready -obedience, to allow him to remain at the hotel of the embassy, -and not to be taken to the Holy Office.<a name="FNanchor_330" id="FNanchor_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a></p> - -<p>This request was tacitly granted for the time being, and -afterwards officially confirmed. To Galileo’s great surprise, -no notice was taken of his presence at Rome for some time. -Cardinal Barberini gave him a friendly hint, not at all <i>ex -officio</i>, that he had better keep very retired in the ambassador’s -house, not receive any one, nor be seen out of doors, as any -other conduct might very likely be to his disadvantage.<a name="FNanchor_331" id="FNanchor_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> -Of course the <i>savant</i>, anxious as he was, scrupulously obeyed -the admonition, and awaited the event in quiet retirement, -though with great impatience. Not the smallest instruction -was issued by the Holy Office; to all appearance it did not -in the least concern itself about the arrival of the accused -which it had urged so strenuously. But it was appearance -only. For only two days after he came, Mgr. Serristori, -counsellor to the Holy Office (the same to whom a year before -Count Magalotti had, by Galileo’s wish, presented one of -the eight copies of the “Dialogues” brought to Rome), called -several times on Galileo, but always said expressly that his -visits were entirely of a private character and originated with -himself. But as he always discussed Galileo’s cause very -particularly, there is good reason to think that he was acting -under orders from the Holy Office, who wanted to discover -the present sentiments and defensive arguments of the -dreaded dialectician, that they might act accordingly at the -trial,—a measure entirely in accordance with the traditional -practice of the Holy Office. Niccolini put this construction -on the Monsignore’s visits,<a name="FNanchor_332" id="FNanchor_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> but not so Galileo. For<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span> -although he perceived that in all probability they were “approved -or suggested by the Holy Congregation,” he was far -from thinking any evil, and was delighted that this officer of -the Inquisition, his “old friend and patron,” should “cleverly -give him an opportunity of saying something by way of expressing -and confirming his sincere devotedness to the holy -Church and her ministers,” and that he apparently listened to -it all with great approval.<a name="FNanchor_333" id="FNanchor_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a> He thinks this course pursued -by the Inquisition “may be taken to indicate the beginning -of mild and kindly treatment, very different from the threatened -cords, chains, and dungeons;”<a name="FNanchor_334" id="FNanchor_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> indeed, while he assumes -that these conferences are held at the instigation of the -authorities, “and for the purpose of gaining some general -information,” he thankfully acknowledges “that in this case -they could not proceed in any way more favourable to him -or less likely to make a sensation.”<a name="FNanchor_335" id="FNanchor_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> However, in the sequel -he was to discover soon enough, that they cared nothing -whatever about making a sensation at Rome, and that even -in this respect they did not spare him in the least.</p> - -<p>At this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. -On 19th February he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance -the threatened storm had passed, so that he did not -allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck were inevitable, -and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the -more so as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy -billows he—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Was taking his course with modest sail set.”<a name="FNanchor_336" id="FNanchor_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">This instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo -“to be always ready to obey and to submit to whatever was -ordered, for this was the only way to allay the irritation of -one who was so incensed, and who treated this affair as a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span> -personal one.”<a name="FNanchor_337" id="FNanchor_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a> It is clear that by this personal persecutor -no other than Urban VIII. can be intended.</p> - -<p>The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of -Galileo’s of 25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage -in it deserves special attention. It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We” (Niccolini and Galileo) “hear at last that the many and serious -accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have been allowed to -drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty in getting rid when the -grounds of my defence have been heard, which are meanwhile being -gradually brought, in the best way that circumstances allow, to the knowledge -of some of the higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen -freely to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So that -in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for.”<a name="FNanchor_338" id="FNanchor_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>A despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of two days later explains -the nature of this chief accusation:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Although I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo’s affair has -reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can learn the main difficulty -consists in this—that these gentlemen maintain that in 1616 he -was ordered neither to discuss the question nor to converse about it. He -says, on the contrary, that those were not the terms of the injunction, -which were that <i>that doctrine was not to be held nor defended</i>. He considers -that he has the means of justifying himself, because it does not -at all appear from his book that he does hold or defend the doctrine, -nor that he regards it as a settled question, as he merely adduces the -reasons <i>hinc hinde</i>. The other points appear to be of less importance -and easier to get over.”<a name="FNanchor_339" id="FNanchor_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is -evident from Niccolini’s report above—from the first decidedly -denies ever having received an injunction not to discuss the -Copernican theory <i>in any way</i>; all that he knows is that it is -not to be held nor defended; that is, <i>all that he knows fully -agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and with the -decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616</i>. Accordingly -he does not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span> -the authorities, and thinks that he can prove it even from the -book itself.</p> - -<p>On 27th February the Tuscan ambassador had a long -audience of the Pope, officially announced Galileo’s arrival at -Rome, and expressed the hope that as he had shown his -readiness to submit to the papal judgment and the enlightened -opinion of the Congregation, the Pope would now be -convinced of his devout reverence for spiritual things, especially -in reference to the matter in hand. The Pope found it -convenient not to take any notice of this indirect question, -and replied that he had shown Galileo a special and unusual -favour in allowing him to stay at Niccolini’s house instead of -in the buildings of the Holy Office; and he had only done so -because he was a distinguished official of the Grand Duke’s, -and it was out of respect for his Highness that he had granted -this exceptional favour to his subject. In order to enhance -its value, Urban also told the ambassador that even a noble of -the house of Gonzaga, a relative of Ferdinand’s, had not only -been placed in a litter and brought under escort to Rome by -command of the Holy Office, but had been taken at once -to the Castle and kept there for a long time, until the trial -was ended. Niccolini hastened to acknowledge the greatness -of the favour, expressed his warmest thanks for it, and ventured -to plead that in consideration of Galileo’s age and infirm -health the Pope would order that the trial should come on -soon, so that he might return home as soon as possible. -Urban replied that the proceedings of the Holy Office were -generally rather tedious, and he really did not know whether -so speedy a termination could be looked for, as they were -still engaged with the preliminaries of the trial. Urban had -by this time become warm, and went off into complaints of -Ciampoli and the rest of his evil counsellors; he also remarked -that although Galileo had expressly stated in his -“Dialogues” that he would only discuss the question of -the double motion of the earth hypothetically, he had, in -adducing the arguments for it, spoken of it as settled, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span> -as if he agreed with it. In conclusion the Pope said: <i>Moreover, -Galileo had acted contrary to the injunction given him in -1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine in the name of the Holy Congregation.</i> -Niccolini mentioned in defence of Galileo all that he -had told him about this accusation, but the Pope adhered -obstinately to his opinion. The ambassador came away from -this audience with the scant consolation that, at all events, -Urban’s personal embitterment against Galileo was a little -appeased.<a name="FNanchor_340" id="FNanchor_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> We may remark here that what the Pope said -about the proceeding of 26th February, 1616, is just as -inaccurate as Riccardi’s communication to Niccolini was -at that time.<a name="FNanchor_341" id="FNanchor_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a></p> - -<p>Both Niccolini and the Grand Duke were unwearied in their -good offices for Galileo. The former urgently commended -his case to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, senr., who said he -was exceedingly well disposed to Galileo, and regarded him -as a very eminent man; but added that it was a dangerous -question, which might easily introduce some fantastic religious -doctrines into the world, and especially at Florence, where -men’s wits were so subtle and over curious.<a name="FNanchor_342" id="FNanchor_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> The Grand -Duke, at Galileo’s request, sent letters of introduction to the -Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio (the well-known statesman -and historian), who, as Niccolini had learnt, were members -of the Congregation.<a name="FNanchor_343" id="FNanchor_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> Ferdinand also thanked the Pope, in -an official letter through Cioli to Niccolini, for the favour of -allowing Galileo to stay at the embassy, ending with a request -that the business might be concluded as soon as possible.<a name="FNanchor_344" id="FNanchor_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a></p> - -<p>When Niccolini delivered this message to Urban on 13th -March, he told him that it would be absolutely necessary to -summon Galileo to the Holy Office as soon as the trial came<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span> -on, because it was the usage and it could not be departed -from. Niccolini again urged Galileo’s health, his age, and -willingness to submit to any penalties; but Urban replied, -“It would not do to act otherwise. May God forgive Galileo -for having intruded into these matters concerning new doctrines -and Holy Scripture, when it is best to keep to universally -recognised opinions. May God help Ciampoli, also, -about these new notions, as he seemed to have a leaning -towards them, and to be inclined to the modern philosophy.” -The Pope then expressed his regret at having to “subject -Galileo, who had been his friend, with whom he had often -held confidential intercourse, and eaten at the same table, to -these annoyances; but it was in the interests of religion and -faith.” Niccolini remarked, that when Galileo was heard he -would be able, without difficulty, to give satisfactory explanations -of everything; to which Urban replied: “He would be -heard when the time came; but there was one argument which -had never been answered, namely, that God was omnipotent, -and therefore everything was possible to Him; but if so, why -should we impose any necessity upon Him?” This was, as -we know, the argument brought forward by Urban in his -intimate conversation with Galileo in 1624, and which at -the end of the “Dialogues” he had put into the mouth of -Simplicius as originating “with a very exalted and learned -personage.” Niccolini prudently replied that he did not -understand these matters, but he had heard it said of Galileo -that he did not hold the doctrine of the earth’s double -motion as true, but said that it could not be denied that -as God could have created the world in a thousand ways, -He could have created it in this way. Urban replied with -some irritation: “It is not for man to impose necessity -upon God.” Niccolini, who saw that the Pope was getting -angry, tried to pacify him by saying that Galileo was here on -purpose to obey and to recant everything which could be -injurious to religion. He then adroitly turned the subject, -and returned to the request that his Holiness would have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span> -compassion on Galileo, and allow him to remain at the -embassy. Urban merely replied that he would have special -apartments assigned to Galileo, the best and most comfortable -in the Holy Office. With this Niccolini had to be -content.</p> - -<p>In concluding the despatch of 13th March to Cioli, in -which he reported this interview, he says:—<a name="FNanchor_345" id="FNanchor_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“When I returned home I told Galileo in part the conversation with -his Holiness, but not for the present, that it was intended to summon him -to the Holy Office, because I am convinced that this news would cause -him the deepest concern, and he would be in the greatest anxiety till the -time came. I have thought all the more that it was best to act thus, as -no further particulars are as yet known about his citation; for the Pope -told me in reference to the speedy settlement of the business, that he did -not know what hope there was of it, but that all that was possible would -be done.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Meanwhile, Ferdinand II., in spite of the increasingly unpromising -aspect of affairs, continued indefatigably to sustain -his ambassador’s efforts. The latter and Galileo, in two -letters of 19th March,<a name="FNanchor_346" id="FNanchor_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> asked the Grand Duke to send letters -of recommendation to the eight other cardinals who composed -the Holy Congregation, like those he had sent to their -eminences Bentivoglio and Scaglia, lest they should feel -themselves slighted, and the Grand Duke readily granted the -request.<a name="FNanchor_347" id="FNanchor_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> The prelates, however, received these letters with -mixed feelings, and excused themselves from answering them, -as it was forbidden them in their capacity as members of the -Holy Office; some even hesitated to receive the letters at all, -and it was not till Niccolini pointed out that Cardinal Barberini -and others had received them, that they consented to -do so.<a name="FNanchor_348" id="FNanchor_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a> These letters had evidently produced the happiest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span> -effect with the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio. They -united, as Niccolini reported on the 19th to Cioli, in protecting -Galileo. Scaglia even read the celebrated “Dialogues,” -and, which was more to the purpose, that he might, with the -help of Castelli,<a name="FNanchor_349" id="FNanchor_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a> who was best qualified to do it, explain the -offending passages in a conciliatory spirit.</p> - -<p>All this time Galileo, as is evident from his letters, was -entertaining the most confident hopes of the favourable issue -of his cause, and the final triumph of truth over falsehood.<a name="FNanchor_350" id="FNanchor_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> -Neither he nor his indefatigable friends, Niccolini and Castelli, -could, it is true, learn anything definite about the actual state -of the trial. The members of the Congregation, who alone -could have given any information, kept the secrets of the -Inquisition very close, as indeed they were bound to do under -the heaviest penalties. The month of March passed by before -the Holy Tribunal opened any direct official intercourse with -Galileo. April was now come, and with it the storm which -had been so long gathering burst over his head.</p> - -<p>On the 7th, Niccolini went to Cardinal Barberini by his -desire, and was informed on behalf of the Pope and the -Congregation, that, in order to decide Galileo’s cause, they -could not avoid citing him to appear before the Holy Office, -and as it was not known whether it could be all settled in the -course of two hours, perhaps it would be necessary to detain -him there. Barberini continued that “out of respect for the -house in which Galileo had been staying, and for Niccolini as -grand ducal ambassador, and in consideration of the good -understanding which had always existed between his Highness -and the papal chair, especially in matters relating to the -Inquisition, they had not failed to inform him (Niccolini) of -this beforehand, not to be wanting in respect for a prince so -zealous for religion.” After Niccolini had warmly thanked -the cardinal for the attention shown by the Pope and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span> -Congregation to the Grand Duke, and to himself as his ambassador, -he pleaded Galileo’s age and health,—he had again -been suffering severely from a fresh attack of the gout,—and -finally the deep grief he would feel, and earnestly begged -that his eminence would consider whether it would not be -possible to permit him to return every evening to sleep at -the embassy. As to secrecy, the strictest silence might be -enjoined on him under threat of the severest penalties. But -the prelate was not of opinion that such a permission was to -be expected; he proffered, however, every comfort for Galileo -that could be desired, and said that he would neither, as was -customary with accused persons, be treated as a prisoner, nor -be placed in a secret prison; he would have good rooms, and -perhaps even the doors would not be locked.</p> - -<p>Niccolini reported this notification to Cioli on 9th April,<a name="FNanchor_351" id="FNanchor_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> -and added the following interesting information:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“This morning I also conversed with his Holiness on the subject, -after having expressed my thanks for the communication made to me; -the Pope again gave vent to his displeasure that Galileo should have discussed -this subject, which appears to him to be very serious, and of great -moment to religion. Signor Galileo thinks, nevertheless, that he can -defend his statements on good grounds; but I have warned him to refrain -from doing so, in order not to prolong the proceedings, and to submit to -what shall be prescribed to him to believe respecting the motion of the -earth. He has fallen into the deepest dejection, and since yesterday has -sunk so low that I am in great concern for his life.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>From this, then, we learn that up to 8th April Galileo -was still intending to defend his opinions before the Holy -Tribunal; and that it was only on the urgent expostulation -of the ambassador, whom he knew to be his sincere friend, -that he gave up all idea of opposition, and resolved upon -entire and passive submission. How hard it was for him to -yield is evident from the concluding sentence of Niccolini’s -despatch.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>The First Hearing.—Galileo’s submissive Attitude.—The Events of February, -1616.—Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special Prohibition.—Produces -Bellarmine’s Certificate.—Either the Prohibition was not issued, -or Galileo’s Ignorance was feigned.—His Conduct since 1616 agrees with -its non-issue.—The Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—Opinions of -Oregius, Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the -Palace of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri -Bocchineri.—Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an Enigma.—Now -explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. Barberini.—Galileo’s -Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for -his first hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the -Commissary-General of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo -Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the fiscal attorney of the -Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all his answers to -the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of shortening -the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive -acquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind -in order to form a correct judgment of his depositions before -the dread tribunal.<a name="FNanchor_352" id="FNanchor_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a></p> - -<p>According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered -to the accused that he will speak the truth, and he -is then asked whether he knows or conjectures the reason of -his citation. Galileo replied that he supposed he had been -summoned to give an account of his last book. He was -then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, -“Dialogo di Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” which treats of the two -systems of the world, as entirely his own; to which he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span> -replied after a close examination of the copy, that he acknowledged -all that it contained to have been written by -himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor -wishes to know whether Galileo was at that time in -Rome, and for what reason. He deposed that he certainly -came to Rome in that year, and because he had heard -that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions, -and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in -this matter, in order to be sure of not holding any but holy -and Catholic views. This deposition seems to be a misrepresentation -of the real state of the case; for we know that he -went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the one -hand, to frustrate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, -Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the -threatened prohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his -scientific demonstrations. The motive of his journey to -Rome is not in any way altered by the fact that he did not -succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the -admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to -the decree of 5th March.</p> - -<p>The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to -Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a summons. -“<i>In the year 1616 I came of my own accord to Rome, without -being summoned</i>,” was the decided answer. The conferences -were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time with -several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that -these conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in -order that he might instruct them about Copernicus’s book, -which was difficult for laymen to understand, as they specially -desired to acquaint themselves with the system of the -universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. The Inquisitor -then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the -subject.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “Respecting the controversy which had arisen on the aforesaid -opinion that the sun is stationary, and the earth moves, it was -decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index, that such an opinion,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span> -considered as an established fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was -only admissible as a conjecture (<i>ex suppositione</i>), as it was held by -Copernicus.”<a name="FNanchor_353" id="FNanchor_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a></p> - -<p><i>Inquisitor</i>: “Was this decision then communicated to you, and by -whom?”</p> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index was -made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.”</p> - -<p><i>Inquisitor</i>: “You must state what his Eminence Cardinal Bellarmine -told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether he said anything else -on the subject, and what?”</p> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that the aforesaid -opinion of Copernicus might be held as a conjecture, as it had been -held by Copernicus, and his eminence was aware that, like Copernicus, -I only held that opinion as a conjecture, which is evident from an answer -of the same Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio -Foscarini, provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in -which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that your reverence and -Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with speaking <i>ex suppositione</i>, -and not with certainty.’ This letter of the cardinal’s is dated -12th April, 1615.<a name="FNanchor_354" id="FNanchor_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> It means, in other words, that that opinion, taken -absolutely, must not be either held or defended.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in -February, 1616, and communicated to him.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal Bellarmine -told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if adopted absolutely, -was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must neither be held nor defended, but -that it might be held hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In -accordance with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal -Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the Copernican -opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is opposed to Holy -Scripture, of which certificate I herewith submit a copy.”<a name="FNanchor_355" id="FNanchor_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a></p> - -<p><i>Inquisitor</i>: “When the above communication was made to you, were -any other persons present, and who?”</p> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to me -what I have reported about the Copernican views, some Dominican<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span> -fathers were present, but I did not know them, and have never seen them -since.”</p> - -<p><i>Inquisitor</i>: “Was any other command communicated to you on this -subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any one else, and -what?”</p> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “I remember that the transaction took place as follows: -Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning, and told me certain -particulars which I was to bring to the ears of his Holiness before I -communicated them to others.<a name="FNanchor_356" id="FNanchor_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> But the end of it was that he told me -that the Copernican opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must -not be held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those -Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came afterwards; -neither do I remember whether they were present when the Signor -Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be held. It may be that a -command was issued to me that I should not hold nor defend the opinion -in question, but I do not remember it, for it is several years ago.”</p> - -<p><i>Inquisitor</i>: “If what was then said and enjoined upon you as a -command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?”</p> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “I do not remember that anything else was said or enjoined -upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what was said to me, -even if it were read to me. I say freely what I do remember, because -I do not think that I have in any way disobeyed the injunction, that is, -have not by any means held nor defended the said opinion that the earth -moves and the sun is stationary.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which -was issued to him before witnesses contained: “that he must -neither hold, defend, nor teach that opinion in any way -whatsoever.”<a name="FNanchor_357" id="FNanchor_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> Will he please to say whether he remembers -in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “<i>I do not remember that the command was intimated to -me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally</i>; and I remember that the -command was, <i>not to hold nor defend</i>. It may be that, ‘and <i>not to teach</i>’ -was also there. I do not remember it, neither the definition ‘in any way<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span> -whatsoever’ (<i>quovis modo</i>), but it may be that it was; for I thought no -more about it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, -as a few months later I received the certificate now produced, of the said -Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in which the injunction given -me, <i>not to hold nor defend</i> that opinion, is expressly to be found. The -two other definitions of the said injunction which have just been made -known to me, namely, <i>not to teach</i>, and <i>in any way</i>, I have not retained -in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the said -certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a reminder.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware -of the injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation -of the Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise -only remember that Cardinal Bellarmine told him of the -decree of the Holy Congregation; that a <i>command</i> was -issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; but -true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: -“It may be, but I do not remember it.” But the Inquisitor -treats the issue of the “command” as an established fact; and -Galileo, to whom it may have appeared somewhat indifferent -whether he was merely informed of the decree of the Congregation, -or whether a command in conformity with it was -issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this -assumption of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo “that -this command issued to him before witnesses contained that -he must not in any way hold, defend, nor teach that opinion.” -Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any way whatever” -and “nor teach,” sound new, entrenches himself behind his -stereotyped answer, “I do not remember it.” Then he appeals -to the certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on -26th May, 1616, which does not mention either of these two -definitions. To the repeated query <i>who</i> intimated the command -to him, he invariably replies: “Cardinal Bellarmine.” -He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the cardinal’s -communication as the <i>command</i>. Galileo’s depositions -do not contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as -the document of 26th February reports), after the cardinal’s -communication, any further instruction was given him by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span> -the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in the name of -the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial -before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most -important proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo’s -memory. There are but two alternatives: either it did not -take place, and, of course, Galileo cannot remember it; or his -ignorance is feigned.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the -latter supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but -we must assume with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial -with great judicial acumen, and whom we have followed on -many points discussed above, that Galileo would only have -availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if it would -have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the -advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February -is by no means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have -seen—supposing him to make false depositions—from the -Inquisitor’s questions that he had the protocol of 26th February -before him. Of what avail then could a fiction be in face -of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather -injure his cause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has -pointed out that it would have been a masterpiece of cunning -to play out the comedy of assumed ignorance from beginning -to end of the trial in so consistent a manner, never -contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo’s depositions. -His simplest replies would then have formed parts of a -complex tissue of falsehood, and it would be astonishing that -throughout the whole course of the trial he should never for -a moment deviate from his difficult part.</p> - -<p>While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders -the assumption of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, -there are other more weighty arguments to show that -he states before his judges all that he knows about the proceedings -in 1616. These arguments consist of all Galileo’s -statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during -the seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span> -strongest evidence for the credibility of his depositions. We -recur first, simply to the letters of the time of the first trial, -in which there is not only no trace of the assumed absolute -prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses his satisfaction that -his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an entire prohibition -of the Copernican theory, and he again and again -mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains -open. And the attitude maintained by him during the -seventeen years towards the new system is in entire conformity -with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th -March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with -the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the -Holy Office. This is shown by his eagerness to get his work -on Copernicus published in the very year 1616; by his -sending the treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold -of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican -theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 -to get the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, -and, as he thought, more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that -he tried to get any special prohibition to himself revoked); -by his reply to Ingoli of the same date, which treated exclusively -of the marked defence of the Copernican theory; and -finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues” themselves, -in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision -with the published decree of 1616, while the very authorship -of the work would have infringed an absolute command to -silence on the Copernican system.</p> - -<p>We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although -his statements, in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict -the assertion of the Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, -received an injunction not to hold, teach, or defend the -Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does not take -the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also -omitted on the part of the judges which might have cleared -up the point; for example, to summon the witnesses, whose -names are on the note of 26th February, 1616, and confront<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span> -them with the accused. And as no attempt is made to account -for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply taken for -granted, it must be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say the -least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using, -without any close examination, a paper as a valid document -on the trial, which was destitute of nearly all the characteristics -of one, namely, the signatures of the accused, of the -notary and witnesses, and in spite of three contradictory -depositions of the accused. No special arguments are needed -to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from mere -carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has -declared that he does not remember any command but that -intimated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor -asking him: Whether, after the aforesaid command -was issued to him, he had received any permission to write -the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which -he afterwards had printed?</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not ask permission -to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine, because I did -not consider that in writing it I was acting contrary to, far less disobeying, -the command not to hold, defend, or to teach the said opinion.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from -whom, and in what way, Galileo had received permission to -print the “Dialogues.” Galileo briefly relates the whole -course of the negotiations which preceded the printing. As -his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it is not -reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when -asking permission to print his book, he had told the Master -of the Palace about the command aforesaid, which had been -issued to him by order of the Holy Congregation?</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Galileo</i>: “I did not say anything about that command to the Master of -the Palace when I asked for the <i>imprimatur</i> for the book, for I did not -think it necessary to say anything, because I had no scruples about it; -for I have neither maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth -moves and the sun is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated -the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the -arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span></p> - -<p>With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, -the first hearing closed. Silence having been imposed -on Galileo on oath on subjects connected with his trial, he -was taken to an apartment in the private residence of the -fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings of this tribunal. -Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and -Niccolini’s reports) kind and considerate treatment. On -16th April he wrote to Geri Bocchineri:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have been -assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office, with -free permission to walk about in the spacious apartments. My health -is good, for which, next to God, I have to thank the great care of the -ambassador and his wife, who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and -far more than I require.”<a name="FNanchor_358" id="FNanchor_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a></p> - -</div> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;"> -<img src="images/plan.jpg" width="500" height="390" alt="Plan of Galileo’s rooms" /> -</div> - -<p>Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his -servants took the meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could -keep his own servant about him, and he was even allowed to -sleep in the buildings of the Holy Office.<a name="FNanchor_359" id="FNanchor_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> No obstacle was -placed in the way of free correspondence between Galileo -and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span> -patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions, -without exciting any observation.<a name="FNanchor_360" id="FNanchor_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a></p> - -<p>While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, -nothing but favours unheard of in the annals of the -Inquisition were shown him, nothing was left undone to find -the best method of effecting his moral ruin. At the beginning -of April, when the actual trial was to come on, his faithful -friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed -in theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from -Rome and not recalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile -condemned, had left the city.<a name="FNanchor_361" id="FNanchor_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a></p> - -<p>Three days after the first examination the three counsellors -of the Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and -Zacharias Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial -of Galileo. Oregius declared that “in the book superscribed -‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’ the doctrine which teaches -that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary is <i>maintained</i> -and <i>defended</i>.” Inchofer’s statements (he drew up -two) declared that “Galileo had not only taught and defended -that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined -to it, and even held it to this day.” Both these attestations -were supported by a memorial, in which the opinions given -were founded on passages quoted from the “Dialogues.”<a name="FNanchor_362" id="FNanchor_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span> -The first sought to prove that Galileo in his book had treated -the stability of the sun and its central position in the universe, -not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, -that in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine -of the earth’s motion round the sun.</p> - -<p>Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the -first he expresses his view that Galileo, by the publication -of his “Dialogues,” had infringed the order given him by -the Holy Office not in any way to hold the Copernican -Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or speaking, in -respect to <i>teaching</i> and <i>defending</i>, and it was very suspicious -that he <i>held</i> it.</p> - -<p>In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting -passages from the “Dialogues,”<a name="FNanchor_363" id="FNanchor_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a> that although in the beginning -of the book Galileo had stated that he should treat -the doctrine of the double motion only as a hypothesis, he -had in the course of it departed from hypothetical language, -and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.</p> - -<p>Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the -special prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo -has overstepped it both as regards teaching and defending, -and is very strongly open to the suspicion of holding -it.<a name="FNanchor_364" id="FNanchor_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a></p> - -<p>By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as -decided. His transgression of the command of the Holy -Office, and particularly of the special prohibition of 26th -February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of his guilt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span> -there could be no question—neither could there be any of -the penalty.</p> - -<p>The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, -which had been so essential to the old man’s health,<a name="FNanchor_365" id="FNanchor_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> combined -with great mental agitation, at length threw him on -a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to Geri Bocchineri:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen hours -with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my experience, will last -as much longer. A little while ago I had a visit from the commissary -and the fiscal who conduct the inquiry. They have promised and -intimated it as their settled intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am -able to get up again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I -place more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to -me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather upon -surmises than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my innocence -and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now hope it more than -ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will conclude.”<a name="FNanchor_366" id="FNanchor_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th -April. It has hitherto astounded all those who have studied -this famous trial; for while at the close of his first depositions, -Galileo decidedly denied having defended the Copernican -system in his “Dialogues,” and even asserted that he -had done just the contrary, at the second hearing, almost -without waiting for the Inquisitor’s questions, he makes a -humble declaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a -penitent confession that he had defended it in his book. The -cause of this change in Galileo is explained by a most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span> -interesting letter from the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, -Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was -at that time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to -Cardinal Francesco Barberini. This letter of 28th April, -1633, first published in full by Pieralisi, the learned librarian -of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have so often quoted, -is as follows:<a name="FNanchor_367" id="FNanchor_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a>—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday informed -the most eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of Galileo’s -cause, the position of which I briefly reported. Their Eminences approved -of what has been done thus far, and took into consideration, on the other -hand, various difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case, -and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has in his examination -denied what is plainly evident from the book written by him; since -in consequence of this denial there would result the necessity for greater -rigour of procedure and less regard to the other considerations belonging -to this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that the Holy -Congregation should grant me permission to treat extra-judicially with -Galileo, in order to render him sensible of his error, and bring him, if he -recognises it, to a confession of the same. This proposal appeared at -first sight too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing -this object by merely adopting the method of argument with him; but -upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made the suggestion, -permission was granted me. That no time might be lost, I entered into -discourse with Galileo yesterday afternoon, and after many arguments and -rejoinders had passed between us, by God’s grace I attained my object, -for I brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised -that he had erred, and had gone too far in his book. And to all this he -gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who experienced great -consolation in the recognition of his error, and he was also willing to -confess it judicially. He requested, however, a little time in order to consider -the form in which he might most fittingly make the confession, which, -as far as its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner -indicated.</p> - -<p>I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence with this -matter, having communicated it to no one else; for I trust that his Holiness -and your Eminence will be satisfied that in this way the affair is -being brought to such a point that it may soon be settled without difficulty. -The court will maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal -leniently with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will -recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences of satisfaction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span> -herein desired. To-day I think of examining him in order to -obtain the said confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only -remain to me further to question him with regard to his intention, and to -impose the prohibitions upon him; and that done, he might have the -house<a name="FNanchor_368" id="FNanchor_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to -whom I offer my most humble reverence.</p> - -<p>Rome, 28th April, 1633.</p> - -<p class="center">Your Eminence’s humble and most obedient servant,</p> - -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Fra Vincᵒ da Firenzuola</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as -Firenzuola proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account -of Galileo’s indisposition. He had again to take an oath -that he would speak the truth, after which he was requested -to state what he had to say. He then began the following -melancholy confession:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In the course of some days’ continuous and attentive reflection on the -interrogations put to me on the 16th of the present month, and in particular -as to whether, sixteen years ago, an injunction was intimated to me -by order of the Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach ‘in -any manner,’ the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the motion of -the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred to me to re-peruse -my printed dialogue, which for three years I had not seen, in order carefully -to note whether, contrary to my most sincere intention, there had, -by inadvertence, fallen from my pen anything from which a reader or the -authorities might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, -but also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had contravened -the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the kind permission -of the authorities, at liberty to send about my servant, I succeeded in -procuring a copy of my book, and having procured it I applied myself -with the utmost diligence to its perusal, and to a most minute consideration -thereof. And as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it -presented itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another -author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to me set forth in -such a form that a reader ignorant of my real purpose might have had -reason to suppose that the arguments adduced on the false side, and which -it was my intention to confute, were so expressed as to be calculated -rather to compel conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. -Two arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the solar -spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide—which in truth come -to the ear of the reader with far greater show of force and power than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span> -ought to have been imparted to them by one who regarded them as inconclusive, -and who intended to refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely -held and do hold them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. -And, as excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to my -intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that when a man -recites the arguments of the opposite side with the object of refuting -them, he should, especially if writing in the form of dialogue, state these -in their strictest form, and should not cloak them to the disadvantage of -his opponent,—not contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,—I resorted -to that of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard to -his own subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than the generality -of men, in devising, even in favour of false propositions, ingenious and -plausible arguments. With all this, although with Cicero ‘<i>avidior sim -gloriae quam satis est</i>,’ if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without -doubt I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make -an apparent show of that force of which they are really and essentially -devoid. My error, then, has been—and I confess it—one of vainglorious -ambition, and of pure ignorance and inadvertence.</p> - -<p>This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this particular, and -which suggested itself to me during the re-perusal of my book.”<a name="FNanchor_369" id="FNanchor_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was -allowed immediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to -him this time. But he must have thought that he ought to -go still further in the denial of his inmost convictions, further -even than Father Firenzuola had desired in his extra-judicial -interview, further than the Inquisition itself required. He -did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the “error” -into which he had fallen in writing his “Dialogues” sufficient. -The Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution -publicly to correct it. He therefore returned at once to the -court where the sacred tribunal was still sitting, and made -the following undignified proposition:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and do not -hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of the motion of the -earth and the stability of the sun,—if there shall be granted to me, as I -desire, means and time to make a clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready -to do so: and there is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in -the work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again after a -certain time to discuss several distinct problems of nature, connected with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span> -the matter discoursed of at their meetings. As this affords me an opportunity -of adding one or two other ‘days,’ I promise to resume the arguments -already adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has been -condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual method as by the -blessing of God may be supplied to me. I pray, therefore, this sacred -tribunal to aid me in this good resolution, and to enable me to put it in -effect.”<a name="FNanchor_370" id="FNanchor_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>It is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of -science; and yet the man who repeatedly denies before his -judges the scientific convictions for which he had striven and -laboured for half a century, who even proposes in a continuation -of his monumental work on the two chief systems of -the world to annihilate all the arguments therein adduced for -the recognition of the only true system, can never be absolved -by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and -insincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the century the -opening of which had been ominously marked by the funeral -pile of Giordano Bruno, and but eight years before, the corpse -of Marc’Antonio de Dominis,—the famous Archbishop of -Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of the Engelsburg -during his trial before the Inquisition,—had, after the -sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting -place and publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical -writings.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE TRIAL CONTINUED.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His Hopefulness.—Third -Hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement of it with previous -Events.—Confident Hopes of his Friends.—Niccolini’s Fears.—Decision -to examine Galileo under threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s Audience -of the Pope.—Informed that the Trial was over, that Galileo would -soon be sentenced, and would be imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent -back to “<i>locum suum</i>.”—No Evidence that he suffered Torture or -was placed in a Prison Cell.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On the day on which the second hearing had taken place, -at Firenzuola’s suggestion to the Pope, Galileo was permitted, -in consideration of his age and infirmities, to return to the -hotel of the Tuscan ambassador, on oath not to leave it, not -to hold any intercourse with any one but the inmates of the -house, to present himself before the Holy Office whenever -summoned, and to maintain the strictest silence about the -course of the trial.<a name="FNanchor_371" id="FNanchor_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> On the very next day Niccolini wrote -to Cioli with great satisfaction: “Signor Galileo was yesterday -sent back to my house when I was not at all expecting -him, and although the trial is not yet ended.”<a name="FNanchor_372" id="FNanchor_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> The Tuscan -Secretary of State replied on 4th May, with the curt -observation: “His Highness was much pleased at the -liberation of Signor Galileo,” and immediately adds the ill-humoured -and unworthy remark: “It appears to me that I -must remind your Excellency that when I wrote to you to -entertain Signor Galileo at the embassy, the time specified -was one month, and the expenses of the remaining time must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span> -fall upon himself.”<a name="FNanchor_373" id="FNanchor_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a> Niccolini replied with ill-concealed -indignation: “It would not become me to speak of this -subject to Galileo while he is my guest; I would rather bear -the expense myself, which only comes to fourteen or fifteen -scudi a month, everything included; so that if Galileo should -remain here the whole summer, that is six months, the -outlay for him and his servant would amount to about from -ninety to a hundred scudi.”<a name="FNanchor_374" id="FNanchor_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a></p> - -<p>Galileo, who had no idea that his generous protector, -Niccolini, had even had to go into unpleasant questions about -his support, was entertaining the most confident hopes of a -successful and speedy termination of his trial. Although his -letters of this period are unfortunately not extant,<a name="FNanchor_375" id="FNanchor_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a> we -see from the answers of his correspondents what sanguine -accounts he sent them. Geri Bocchineri wrote on 12th May:</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I have for a long time had no such consolatory news as that which -your letter of the 7th brought me. It gives me well-founded hopes that -the calumnies and snares of your enemies will be in vain; and in the -end, the annoyances involved in the defence, maintenance, and perhaps -even increase, of your reputation, can be willingly borne, as you undoubtedly -have borne them, since you have gained far more than you -have lost by the calamity that has fallen upon you! My pleasure is still -more enhanced by the news that you expect to be able to report the end -of the affair in the next letter.”<a name="FNanchor_376" id="FNanchor_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But many a post day was to pass over, many a letter from -Galileo to be received, before his trial was to come to the -conclusion he so little anticipated.</p> - -<p>On 10th May he was summoned for the third time before -the Holy Tribunal, where Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General -of the Inquisition, informed him that eight days -were allowed him in which to write a defence if he wished<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span> -to submit one. But Galileo handed it in <i>at once</i>,<a name="FNanchor_377" id="FNanchor_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a> from which -we may conclude that he had been informed of this proceeding -beforehand. It was as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“When asked if I had signified to the Reverend Father, the Master -of the Sacred Palace, the injunction privately laid upon me, about sixteen -years ago, by order of the Holy Office, not to hold, defend, or ‘in any -way’ teach the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of the -sun, I answered that I had not done so. And not being questioned as -to the reason why I had not intimated it, I had no opportunity to add -anything further. It now appears to me necessary to state the reason, -in order to demonstrate the purity of my intention, ever foreign to the -employment of simulation or deceit in any operation I engage in. I -say, then, that as at that time reports were spread abroad by evil-disposed -persons, to the effect that I had been summoned by the Lord Cardinal -Bellarmine to abjure certain of my opinions and doctrines, and that I -had consented to abjure them, and also to submit to punishment for them, -I was thus constrained to apply to his Eminence, and to solicit him to -furnish me with an attestation, explaining the cause for which I had been -summoned before him; which attestation I obtained, in his own handwriting, -and it is the same that I now produce with the present document.<a name="FNanchor_378" id="FNanchor_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a> -From this it clearly appears that it was merely announced to me that the -doctrine attributed to Copernicus of the motion of the earth and the -stability of the sun must not be held or defended, and ... [Here the -MS. is defaced] beyond this general announcement affecting every one, -any other injunction in particular was intimated to me, no trace thereof -appears there. Having, then, as a reminder, this authentic attestation -in the handwriting of the very person who intimated the command to me, -I made no further application of thought or memory with regard to the -words employed in announcing to me the said order not to hold or defend -the doctrine in question; so that the two articles of the order—in addition -to the injunction not to ‘hold’ or ‘defend’ it—to wit, the words ‘nor to -teach it’ ‘in any way whatsoever’—which I hear are contained in the -order intimated to me, and registered—struck me as quite novel and as -if I had not heard them before; and I do not think I ought to be disbelieved -when I urge that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years I had -lost all recollection of them, especially as I had no need to give any -particular thought to them, having in my possession so authentic a -reminder in writing. Now, if the said two articles be left out, and those -two only be retained which are noted in the accompanying attestation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span> -there is no doubt that the injunction contained in the latter is the same -command as that contained in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of -the Index. Whence it appears to me that I have a reasonable excuse -for not having notified to the Master of the Sacred Palace the command -privately imposed upon me, it being the same as that of the Congregation -of the Index.</p> - -<p>Seeing also, that my book was not subject to a stricter censorship than -that made binding by the decree of the Index, it will, it appears to me, -be sufficiently plain that I adopted the surest and most becoming method -of having it guaranteed and purged of all shadow of taint, inasmuch as I -handed it to the supreme Inquisitor at the very time when many books -dealing with the same matters were being prohibited solely in virtue of -the said decree. After what I have now stated, I would confidently hope -that the idea of my having knowingly and deliberately violated the command -imposed upon me, will henceforth be entirely banished from the -minds of my most eminent and wise judges; so that those faults which -are seen scattered throughout my book have not been artfully introduced -with any concealed or other than sincere intention, but have only inadvertently -fallen from my pen, owing to a vainglorious ambition and -complacency in desiring to appear more subtle than the generality of -popular writers, as indeed in another ... [MS. defaced] deposition -I have confessed: which fault I shall be ready to correct by writing -whenever I may be commanded or permitted by your Eminences.</p> - -<p>Lastly, it remains for me to pray you to take into consideration my -pitiable state of bodily indisposition, to which, at the age of seventy years, -I have been reduced by ten months of constant mental anxiety and the -fatigue of a long and toilsome journey at the most inclement season—together -with the loss of the greater part of the years of which, from my -previous condition of health, I had the prospect. I am persuaded and -encouraged to do so by the clemency and goodness of the most eminent -lords, my judges; with the hope that they may be pleased, in answer to -my prayer, to remit what may appear to their entire justice ... to -such sufferings as adequate punishment—out of consideration for my -declining age, which too, I humbly commend to them. And I would -equally commend to their consideration my honour and reputation, -against the calumnies of ill-wishers, whose persistence in detracting from -my good name may be inferred from the necessity which constrained me -to procure from the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine the attestation which -accompanies this.”<a name="FNanchor_379" id="FNanchor_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This touching appeal to the mercy of the judges of the -Holy Office can scarcely be read without feelings of the profoundest -pity for the unhappy old man, who, in the evening<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span> -of his days, felt compelled by dread of the stake to deny his -scientific convictions.</p> - -<p>In looking at the defence in a judicial light, in spite of -mistrust in the truthfulness of the accused, for which there -is some justification, it must be allowed that his statements -about the proceedings of sixteen years before, agree entirely -with all his letters and actions from 1616 to 1632. In view of -this state of the case, Galileo’s remark in his defence that “he -had received that certificate from the very person who had -intimated the command to him,” possesses increased significance. -His whole defence is intended to convince the judges -that the two particulars “not to teach” and “in any way” -were unknown to him up to the day of his first hearing, or, as -he says, to avoid direct contradiction, “he had lost all recollection -of them.” He obviously thinks that the gravity of -the indictment lies in these words. But he seems to be -absolutely ignorant of their having been issued to him after -the previous admonition of the Cardinal, by the Commissary-General -of the Inquisition, with the threat that “otherwise -they would proceed against him in the Holy Office,” indeed, -by the above remark he decidedly contradicts it. Apologists -of the Inquisition at any price, of the stamp of Mgr. Marini, -do not fail to adopt the only means left to them, and call -Galileo’s defence “childish evasions unworthy of so great a -man, which are sure signs of guilt.”<a name="FNanchor_380" id="FNanchor_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a> We are of opinion, on -the contrary, that the confident hopes of a favourable issue -of his trial, by which, as appears from the replies of his -correspondents and Niccolini’s despatches, Galileo was animated -up to the last moment, by no means comport with -consciousness of guilt.</p> - -<p>After his defence had been received, and the same obligations -imposed on him on oath as after the second hearing, he -was allowed to return to the embassy. The nearer the time -approached when the old man’s illusions were to be dispelled, -the more sanguine was the intelligence he sent to his friends.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span> -He reminds one of a consumptive patient, full of hope when -in the last stage of his disorder. Galileo receives in reply to -his letters the congratulations of his friends on the, as they -suppose, doubtless favourable issue of his trial. Cardinal -Capponi writes on 21st May, that he had never expected anything -else.<a name="FNanchor_381" id="FNanchor_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> Bocchineri, Guiducci, Agguinti, Cini, and others -heartily express their satisfaction;<a name="FNanchor_382" id="FNanchor_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> the Archbishop of Siena, -Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo’s devoted friend, invites him, in -expectation of his speedy dismissal from Rome, to come and -see him at Siena, that he may await the extinction of the -plague at Florence.<a name="FNanchor_383" id="FNanchor_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a> Galileo accepts the friendly invitation, -and informs Bocchineri that he intends to go to Siena immediately -after the end of the trial.<a name="FNanchor_384" id="FNanchor_384"></a><a href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a> Archbishop Piccolomini -even offers his impatiently expected guest a litter for the -journey.<a name="FNanchor_385" id="FNanchor_385"></a><a href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> A favour granted to Galileo just at the last, on -the urgent solicitation of Niccolini, and quite unheard of in -the annals of the Inquisition, might have increased these -confident hopes. He was permitted to take the air for the -sake of his health in the gardens of the Castle of Gandolfo, -to which, however, he was always conveyed in a half-closed -carriage, as he was not to be seen in the streets.<a name="FNanchor_386" id="FNanchor_386"></a><a href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a></p> - -<p>Niccolini, however, did not share the hopes of his famous -guest, and for very good reasons. He had had an audience, -on 21st May, of the Pope and Cardinal Barberini, who had -told him in answer to his inquiries when the trial might be -expected to end, that it would probably be concluded in -the congregation to take place in about a fortnight. After -reporting this in his despatch to Cioli of 22nd May, Niccolini -continues: “I very much fear that the book will be prohibited, -unless it is averted by Galileo’s being charged, as I proposed, -to write an apology. Some ‘salutary penance’ will also be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span> -imposed upon him, as they maintain that he has transgressed -the command communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine -in 1616. I have not yet told him all this, because I want to -prepare him for it by degrees, in order not to distress him. -It will also be advisable to observe silence about this in -Florence, that he may not hear it from his friends there; and -the more so, as it may turn out otherwise.”<a name="FNanchor_387" id="FNanchor_387"></a><a href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a> It was indeed -“to turn out otherwise,” but in a way that even Niccolini -did not in the least suspect.</p> - -<p>A momentary lull now took place in Galileo’s trial—the -preparation for the great catastrophe that was to take all the -world by surprise. Sultry silence reigned for four weeks. -No one, not even Niccolini, could learn anything about the -progress of the affair; the thunderbolt had already fallen -which was to crush the accused before it was known to anyone -beyond the Holy Congregation. His fate had been sealed -in a private meeting of it presided over by the Pope. Unfortunately -we have no written notes of the proceedings of this -highly interesting sitting. From two documents, which agree -entirely in essentials, we simply know what the decrees were -which minutely prescribed the final proceedings to be taken -against Galileo. One of these documents is derived from the -Vatican collection of the acts of Galileo’s trial; the other is -reproduced in Gherardi’s collection of documents, and belongs -to the MS. originals of the decrees drawn up in the sittings of -the Holy Congregation in the archives of the Inquisition.</p> - -<p>It is decreed in both documents<a name="FNanchor_388" id="FNanchor_388"></a><a href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a> which agree almost verbatim: -To try Galileo <i>as to his intention, and under threat of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span> -torture</i>; if he kept firm, he was to be called upon to recant -before a plenary assembly of the Congregation of the Holy -Office, condemned to imprisonment according to the judgment -of the Holy Congregation, and ordered in future not to -discuss, either in writing or speaking, the opinion that the -earth moves and the sun is stationary, nor yet the contrary -opinion, under pain of further punishment for contumacy; -further, the work, “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” -was to be prohibited. And in order to make this known -everywhere, copies of the sentence were to be sent to all -papal envoys, and all inquisitors into heretical crimes, and -specially to the Inquisitor of Florence, who was to proclaim -it in a full conclave of the Congregation, and read -it publicly to a majority of the professors of mathematics -summoned for the purpose.</p> - -<p>It is noteworthy that it was expressly decreed that Galileo -was to be enjoined, “nor yet to discuss the contrary opinion,” -the Ptolemaic. They obviously accredited the clever dialectician -with the skill, under pretext of defending the old system, -of demonstrating exactly the contrary. It therefore -seemed most prudent to impose absolute silence on him on -this delicate subject.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span></p> - -<p>Two days after the course of the proceedings had been -secretly determined on, the Pope gave audience to Niccolini, -who once more came to beg for a speedy termination of -the trial. Urban VIII. said that it had already been terminated, -and that within the next few days Galileo would -be summoned before the Holy Office to hear his sentence. -The ambassador, who was terrified at this unexpected -intelligence, hastened to implore his Holiness, out of -respect for his Highness the Grand Duke, to mollify the -severity which the Holy Congregation might perhaps have -thought it necessary to exercise; and added obligingly that -the great complaisance shown to the Grand Duke in the -matter of Galileo was fully appreciated, and that the Grand -Duke was only awaiting the end of the business to express -his gratitude in person. The Pope replied, with equal suavity, -that his Highness need not take this trouble, as he had -readily granted every amelioration to Galileo out of affection -for him; but as to his cause, they could do no less than prohibit -that opinion, because it was erroneous and contrary -to Holy Scripture, dictated <i>ex ore Dei</i>; as to his person, he -would, according to usage, be imprisoned for a time, <i>because he -had transgressed the mandate issued to him in 1616</i>. “However,” -added Urban, “after the publication of the sentence -we will see you again, and we will consult together so that -he may suffer as little distress as possible, since it cannot be -let pass without some demonstration against his person.” In -reply to Niccolini’s renewed urgent entreaties that his Holiness -would extend his accustomed mercy to the pitiable old -man of seventy, the Pope said that “he would at any rate be -sent for a time to some monastery, as for instance, St. Croce; -for he really did not know precisely what the Holy Congregation -might decree (?!), but it was unanimous and <i>nemine -discrepante</i> in intending to impose a penance on Galileo.”</p> - -<p>The very same day the ambassador sent a detailed despatch -about this audience to Cioli,<a name="FNanchor_389" id="FNanchor_389"></a><a href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a> and remarked at the end<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span> -that he had simply informed Galileo of the approaching end -of the trial, and of the prohibition of his book, but had said -nothing about the personal punishment, in order not to -trouble him too much at once; the Pope had also enjoined -this, that Galileo might not distress himself yet, and “because -perhaps in the course of the proceedings things might -take a better turn.”</p> - -<p>Galileo’s trial now proceeded strictly according to the -programme settled by the Congregation of the Holy Office -under the papal presidency. On the evening of Monday, -20th June, Galileo received a summons from the Holy Office -to appear the next day.<a name="FNanchor_390" id="FNanchor_390"></a><a href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a> In this final hearing the accused -was to be questioned, under threat of torture, about his -intention, that is, as to his real conviction concerning the -two systems. On the morning of the 21st Galileo appeared -before his judges. After he had taken the usual oath, and -had answered in the negative the query whether he had -any statement to make, the examiner began as follows:—</p> - -<p>Interrogated whether he holds or has held, and how long -ago, that the sun is the centre of the world and that the -earth is not the centre of the world, and moves, and also -with a diurnal motion;</p> - -<p>He answered: “A long time ago, <i>i.e.</i>, before the decision of -the Holy Congregation of the Index, and before the injunction -was intimated to me, I was indifferent, and regarded -both opinions, namely, that of Ptolemy and that of Copernicus, -as open to discussion, inasmuch as either one or the -other might be true in nature; but after the said decision, -assured of the wisdom of the authorities, I ceased to have -any doubt; and I held, as I still hold, as most true and indisputable, -the opinion of Ptolemy, that is to say, the stability -of the earth and the motion of the sun.”</p> - -<p>Being told that from the manner and connection in which -the said opinion is discussed in the book printed by him subsequently -to the time mentioned—nay, from the very fact<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span> -of his having written and printed the said book, he is presumed -to have held this opinion after the time specified; and -being called upon to state the truth as to whether he holds or -has held the same;</p> - -<p>He answered: “As regards the writing of the published -dialogue, my motive in so doing was not because I held the -Copernican doctrine to be true, but simply thinking to confer -a common benefit, I have set forth the proofs from nature -and astronomy which may be adduced on either side; my -object being to make it clear that neither the one set of -arguments nor the other has the force of conclusive demonstration -in favour of this opinion or of that; and that therefore, -in order to proceed with certainty we must have recourse to -the decisions of higher teaching, as may be clearly seen from -a large number of passages in the dialogue in question. I -affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold -the condemned opinion, and have not held it since the decision -of the authorities.”</p> - -<p>Being told that from the book itself and from the arguments -adduced on the affirmative side,—namely, that the -earth moves and that the sun is immovable,—it is presumed, -as aforesaid, that he holds the opinion of Copernicus, or at -least that he held it at that time; and that therefore, unless -he make up his mind to confess the truth, recourse will be -had against him to the appropriate remedies of the law;</p> - -<p>He answered: “I do not hold, and have not held this -opinion of Copernicus since the command was intimated to -me that I must abandon it; for the rest, I am here in your -hands,—do with me what you please.” Being once more -bidden to speak the truth, otherwise recourse will be had to -torture, the terrified old man answered with the resignation -of despair: “I am here to obey, and I have not held this -opinion since the decision was pronounced, as I have stated.”</p> - -<p>In the protocol of the trial the concluding sentence follows -immediately after this last answer of Galileo’s: “And as -nothing further could be done in execution of the decree<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span> -(of 16th June), his signature was obtained to his deposition, -and he was sent back to his place.”<a name="FNanchor_391" id="FNanchor_391"></a><a href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a></p> - -<p>There is not in this document, nor in any other extant, the -slightest trace that torture was actually applied to Galileo, as -has long and even recently been fabled. Since the publication -of it by Epinois has acquainted us with the decree of 16th -June, none such can be expected ever to be found. In that -decree the course of the final legal proceedings was precisely -indicated. But it was only the <i>threat</i> of torture that was prescribed, -after which recantation and sentence of imprisonment -were to follow. The execution of this threat, then, would -have been a gross, and under the circumstances, incredible -violation of the decrees of the Holy Office itself. Moreover, -the assumed torture of Galileo is opposed, as we shall see by -and by, to various historical facts. When the whole course -of the trial is unrolled before our eyes, we shall go more -deeply into the region of fable and malicious fabrication.</p> - -<p>But as we pursue the path of history, we come upon an -error which Mgr. Marini’s peculiar mode of interpretation has -given rise to. He takes the concluding words of the protocol -of the trial of 21st June, “remissus fuit ad locum suum,” to -mean that Galileo was sent back to the Tuscan embassy.<a name="FNanchor_392" id="FNanchor_392"></a><a href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a> -Now, it is indisputable, from a despatch of Niccolini’s to -Cioli of 26th June, 1633, that after the hearing of the 21st -June, the accused was detained in the buildings of the Holy -Office, and did not leave them till the 24th.<a name="FNanchor_393" id="FNanchor_393"></a><a href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have no information whatever as to the treatment he -met with this time in the buildings of the Holy Office. Was -he put into the apartments he had occupied before, or was he -confined in a prisoner’s cell? From the considerate treatment -in outward things which Galileo met with during his -trial at Rome, it may perhaps be concluded <i>that he never was -thrown into the dungeons of the Inquisition</i>.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican System had not -been pronounced heretical by “Infallible” Authority.—The Special -Prohibition assumed as Fact.—The Sentence illegal according to the -Canon Law.—The Holy Office exceeded its powers in calling upon -Galileo to recant.—The Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped -notice for two hundred and thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile -attempts to show that Galileo had really altered his Opinion.—After -the Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita -de’ Monti.—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to -Siena.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, in the forenoon, Galileo was -conducted to the large hall used for melancholy proceedings -of this kind, in the Dominican Convent of St. Maria sopra la -Minerva, where, in the presence of his judges and a large -assemblage of cardinals and prelates of the Holy Congregation, -the following sentence was read to him:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<ul> -<li><span class="smcap">We</span>, Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasia, detto d’Ascoli;</li> -<li class="isub1">Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Antonio Barberino detto di S. Onofrio;</li> -<li class="isub1">Laudivio Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di S. Sisto;</li> -<li class="isub1">Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna, Verospi, chiamato Prete;</li> -<li class="isub1">Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e</li> -<li class="isub1">Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi;</li> -</ul> - -<p class="noindent">by the grace of God, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Inquisitors -General, by the Holy Apostolic see specially deputed, against heretical -depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span></p> - -<p>Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, -aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office -for holding as true the false doctrine taught by many, that the sun is the -centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and also with -a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; -for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany -concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the -Solar Spots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for -replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to -time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to -your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy -of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to -one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth,<a name="FNanchor_394" id="FNanchor_394"></a><a href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a> -following the hypothesis of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true -sense and authority of Holy Scripture:</p> - -<p>This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding against the -disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the -prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of his Holiness and of the -most eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, -the two propositions of the stability of the sun and the motion of the -earth were by the theological “Qualifiers” qualified as follows:</p> - -<p>The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and does not -move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally -heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.</p> - -<p>The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world and immovable, -but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally -absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least -erroneous in faith.</p> - -<p>But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was -decreed at the Holy Congregation held before his Holiness on the 25th -February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should -order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine, and, in the event -of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the -Commissary of the Holy Office, to give up the said doctrine, and not to -teach it to others, nor to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing your -acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned. And in -execution of this decree, on the following day, at the Palace, and in the -presence of his Eminence, the said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being -gently admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was intimated -to you by the Father Commissary of the Holy Office for the time -before a notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the -said false opinion, and not in future to defend or teach it in any way -whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon your promising to -obey you were dismissed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span></p> - -<p>And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out -and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a -decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index, prohibiting -the books which treat of this doctrine, and declaring the doctrine itself to -be false and wholly contrary to sacred and divine Scripture.</p> - -<p>And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, -the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: -“Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Two Principal Systems of the World, -the Ptolemaic and the Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation -was afterwards informed that through the publication of the said book, the -false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was -daily gaining ground; the said book was taken into careful consideration, -and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction -that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended -the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be -so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the -impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms as probable: -which however is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be -probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to Divine -Scripture:</p> - -<p>Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office, where, -being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book to be written -and published by you. You confessed that you began to write the said -book about ten or twelve years ago, after the command had been imposed -upon you as above; that you requested licence to print it, without however -intimating to those who granted you this licence that you had been -commanded not to hold, defend, or teach in any way whatever the doctrine -in question.</p> - -<p>You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in various -places drawn up in such a form that the reader might fancy that the -arguments brought forward on the false side are rather calculated by -their cogency to compel conviction than to be easy of refutation; excusing -yourself for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign -to your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue, and by the -natural complacency that every man feels in regard to his own subtleties, -and in showing himself more clever than the generality of men, in -devising, even on behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible -arguments.</p> - -<p>And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare your -defence, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of his Eminence the -Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by you, as you asserted, in order to -defend yourself against the calumnies of your enemies, who gave out that -you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate -it is declared that you had not abjured and had not been punished, -but merely that the declaration made by his Holiness and published by -the Holy Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you, wherein<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span> -it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability -of the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended -or held. And as in this certificate there is no mention of the two -articles of the injunction, namely, the order not “to teach” and “in any -way,” you represented that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen -or sixteen years you had lost all memory of them; and that this was -why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested permission to -print your book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your -error, but that it might be set down to a vainglorious ambition rather -than to malice. But this certificate produced by you in your defence has -only aggravated your delinquency, since although it is there stated that -the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless -dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability; nor does the -licence artfully and cunningly extorted by you avail you anything, since -you did not notify the command imposed upon you.</p> - -<p>And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth -with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a -rigorous examination, at which (without prejudice, however, to the matters -confessed by you, and set forth as above, with regard to your said intention) -you answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and -maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together with your -confessions and excuses above mentioned, and all that ought justly to be -seen and considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final sentence -against you:—</p> - -<p>Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and -of His most glorious Mother, and ever Virgin Mary, by this our final -sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the -Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our -assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes presently -before us between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, -Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and you Galileo -Galilei, the defendant, here present, tried and confessed as above, of the -other part,—we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, that you, the said -Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in process, and by you confessed -as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy -Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and -held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine -Scriptures—that the sun is the centre of the world and does not move -from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the centre of the -world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after -it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture; and -that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed -and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, -general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are -content that you be absolved, provided that first, with a sincere heart, -and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span> -heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and -Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us.</p> - -<p>And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression -may not remain altogether unpunished, and that you may be more -cautious for the future, and an example to others, that they may abstain -from similar delinquencies—we ordain that the book of the “<i>Dialogues -of Galileo Galilei</i>” be prohibited by public edict.</p> - -<p>We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during our -pleasure, and by way of salutary penance, we enjoin that for three years -to come you repeat once a week the seven penitential Psalms.</p> - -<p>Reserving to ourselves full liberty to moderate, commute, or take off, in -whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.</p> - -<p>And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, condemn and -reserve, in this and any other better way and form which we can and may -lawfully employ.</p> - -<p>So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce.</p> - -<ul> -<li>F. Cardinalis de Asculo.</li> -<li>G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.</li> -<li>Fr. Cardinalis de Cremona.</li> -<li>Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.</li> -<li>B. Cardinalis Gypsius.</li> -<li>Fr. Cardinalis Verospius.</li> -<li>M. Cardinalis Ginettus.<a name="FNanchor_395" id="FNanchor_395"></a><a href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a></li> -</ul> - -</div> - -<p>Before proceeding to narrate the consequences of this -sentence to the culprit (namely, his recantation and punishment), -this seems to be the place to subject this memorable -document to a critical review, to show how far the sentence -pronounced on Galileo had a legal basis, even on Romish -principles. To this end it will be necessary to follow the -construction of the sentences step by step, for only in this -way can a correct opinion be formed of the accordance of -this cunningly devised structure with the actual state of -things.</p> - -<p>The sentence begins with a condensed historical review of -the transactions of 1615, obviously based on the denunciations -of Lorini, and the evidence of Caccini of 20th March, 1615. -Immediately afterwards follows the well-known opinion of -the theological Qualifiers on the principles of Copernicus.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span> -This is plainly to justify the measures taken in consequence -by the ecclesiastical authorities against his doctrine and its -most distinguished advocate. For immediately after follows, -first a recapitulation of the report registered in the Vatican -MS. of the events of 25th and 26th February, 1616, and -then the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th -March, 1616, “by which those books were prohibited which -treat of the aforesaid doctrine, and the same was declared to -be false and entirely contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture.” -The sentence then comes to the occasion of the trial of -Galileo, namely, his “Dialogues,”—and states: firstly, that -by this book he had transgressed the special prohibition of -1616;<a name="FNanchor_396" id="FNanchor_396"></a><a href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> secondly, that his statement therein, which is almost -incredible, that he had left the Copernican view undecided -and as only <i>probable</i>, is a “gross error,” since a doctrine -cannot in any way be probable (<i>probalis</i>) which has already -been found and declared to be “contrary to Holy Scripture.”</p> - -<p>The first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, -which treated the note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic -document, is certainly correct; the second, even according to -the maxims of Rome, is not to the purpose. According to -these maxims a proposition can only be made into a dogma -by “infallible” authority, namely, by the Pope speaking <i>ex -cathedra</i>, or by an Œcumenical Council; and on the other -hand, it is only by the same method that an obligation can -be laid upon the faithful to consider an opinion heretical. But -a decree of the Congregation of the Index does not entail the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span> -obligation; for, although by virtue of the authority conferred -on it, it can enforce obedience and inflict punishment, its -decrees are not “infallible.” They can, however, be made so, -according to ecclesiastical views, either by the subsequent -express confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as -supreme head of the Christian Catholic Church; or by the -decree of the Congregation being originally provided with the -clause: “<i>Sanctissimus confirmavit et publicari mandavit.</i>” -But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is neither confirmed by a -subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special formula; -and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the -opinion of Copernicus to be “false and contrary to Holy and -Divine Scripture,” it might still be considered as undecided, -and even probable, because the decree might be fallible, and -did not entail the obligation to adopt its sentence as an article -of faith.<a name="FNanchor_397" id="FNanchor_397"></a><a href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> This must also have been the view of the ecclesiastical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span> -authorities of the censorship, who had given Galileo’s -book the <i>imprimatur</i>, and thereby, as H. Martin justly remarks,<a name="FNanchor_398" id="FNanchor_398"></a><a href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a> -relieved the author of responsibility, not in anything -relating to the assumed special prohibition, but concerning -the accordance of the work with the published decree. Point -2, therefore, seems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The -sentence now gives a brief <i>résumé</i> of the confessions made by -Galileo during the examination, which are employed to confirm -his guilt. The twofold reproach is urged against him, as -of special weight, that he began to write his “Dialogues” -after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he said -nothing about it in obtaining the <i>imprimatur</i> of the censors; -thus the special prohibition was treated as an established fact—on -the one hand, his disobedience to an injunction of the -ecclesiastical authorities was proved, and on the other, the -<i>imprimatur</i> was obtained on false pretences, and was null -and void.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span></p> - -<p>After a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so -unedifying to posterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, -the sentence proceeds to the discussion of an authentic -document which formed the chief defence of the accused: the -certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine. The -authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult -task to perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability -of the “note” of 26th February, 1616—this main -support of the whole indictment—and by no means to make -this attestation appear at variance with the actual circumstances, -or it would have become an important argument in -favour of the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for -the accusation had to be found in the words of the certificate -itself. And thus we find this document, which, as Wohlwill -pertinently remarks,<a name="FNanchor_399" id="FNanchor_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> by the words “but only” directly denies -the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616, singularly enough, -thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers, forming a -weighty argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: “But -this certificate,” it says, “produced by you in your defence, -has only aggravated your delinquency; since although it is -there stated that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, -you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it, -and to argue its probability.”</p> - -<p>But as here they again had to refer to the protecting -<i>imprimatur</i> of the ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: -“nor does the licence, artfully and cunningly extorted by -you, avail you anything, since you did not notify the command -imposed upon you.”</p> - -<p>One cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the -attestation of Cardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, “the -command imposed” did not exist, and of course could not -be communicated by Galileo to the censors.</p> - -<p>In the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, -a passage is dexterously interwoven, which ascribes the -decree of 5th March, 1616, to the Pope; while, as we know,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span> -it belongs officially to the Congregation alone. The words -are these: “But merely that the declaration made by his -Holiness (<i>fatta da nostro Signore</i>), and published by the -Holy Congregation of the Index, had been announced to -you.”</p> - -<p>Undoubtedly Pope Paul V. wished the decree made and -privately instigated it, as Urban VIII. did the sentence -against Galileo; and in this sense the former may be attributed -to the one and the latter to the other, and the -condemnation of the Copernican theory to both. But in -this they acted as private persons, and as such they were -not (nor would they now be), according to theological -rules, “infallible.” The conditions which would have made -the decree of the Congregation, or the sentence against -Galileo, of dogmatic importance, were, as we have seen, -wholly wanting. Both Popes had been too cautious to endanger -this highest privilege of the papacy by involving -their infallible authority in the decision of a scientific -controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their -sanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the -measures taken, at their instigation, by the Congregation -“to suppress the doctrine of the revolution of the earth.” -Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman Catholic posterity -can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. -were in error “as men” about the Copernican system, but -not “as Popes.” For us there remains the singular deduction, -that the sentence on Galileo rests again and again, -even on the principles of the ecclesiastical court itself, on -an illegal foundation.</p> - -<p>After a brief mention of the rigid examination of 21st -June, the sentence comes to formulate the judgment more -particularly. According to this Galileo is, (1) “in the judgment -of this Holy Office, vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, -of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and -contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures ... and -that an opinion may be held and defended as probable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span> -after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to -Holy Scripture;” (2) and that consequently he has incurred -all the censures and penalties imposed in the sacred canons -against such delinquents. “From which we are content -that you be absolved, provided that first you abjure, curse, -and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies in the form -to be supplied by us.”</p> - -<p>Point 1, according to Romish regulations about making -an opinion an article of faith, in its relation to heresy -appears to be illegal and incorrect. Galileo had not laid -himself open to suspicion of heresy because he had inclined -to a doctrine discovered to be contrary to Scripture -by the fallible Congregation of the Index. Point 2 must -also, therefore, be illegal, which says that Galileo had -“consequently” incurred all the censures and penalties adjudged -to such criminals by the canon law.</p> - -<p>Galileo could never have been legally condemned on suspicion -of heresy from his “Dialogues.” In the first place, -because neither he nor any other Catholic was bound by the -decree of 5th March, 1616, to regard the confirmation of the -old system or the rejection of the new as an article of faith; -in the second place, because the <i>imprimatur</i> of the ecclesiastical -authorities relieved him from all responsibility. But he -could be condemned for disobedience to the assumed special -prohibition of 26th February, 1616. In the sentence this -forms the only legal basis of the indictment and condemnation. -How far this prohibition is historically credible, we -think we have sufficiently demonstrated in the course of our -work.</p> - -<p>And when we consider the penalties which follow from this -sentence, based partly upon incorrect, and partly upon false -accusations, we find that the Inquisition, by compelling -Galileo to recant with a threat of other and severer penalties, -<i>far exceeded its powers</i>. The Holy Tribunal was empowered -to punish the “disobedience” of the philosopher with imprisonment -and ecclesiastical penances, and to forbid him to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span> -discuss the opinion in writing or speaking, but it had no -authority to extort from Galileo, or any one else, such a -confession on an opinion which had not been defined by -“infallible” authority.</p> - -<p>This is openly admitted even by high theological authority: -“<i>In fact an excess of authority and an injustice did take place</i>;” -“but,” the reverend gentleman hastens to add, “certainly not -from malice, but from a mistake,”<a name="FNanchor_400" id="FNanchor_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a>—a lenient opinion which -we are unable to share.</p> - -<p>Whether any scruples were expressed, or any dissentient -voices heard in this ecclesiastical court about the manifold -illegalities in the proceedings against the famous accused, we -do not know, no notes having come down to us of the private -discussions and transactions of the Holy Tribunal. But there -is one fact which leads us to conclude that all the judges did -not consent to this procedure, and that the sentence was not -unanimous: <i>at the head of the sentence ten Cardinals are -enumerated as judges, but the document is signed by seven only, -and besides this there is the express remark: “So we, the -undersigned cardinals, pronounce”</i>! Singularly enough, two -hundred and thirty-one years passed by, during which much -that is valuable was written about Galileo, and a great deal -more that was fabulous, before this significant circumstance -was noticed by any author. The merit of having first -called attention to it belongs to Professor Moritz Cantor, in -1864.<a name="FNanchor_401" id="FNanchor_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> The three cardinals who did not sign were, Caspar -Borgia, Laudivio Zacchia, and Francesco Barberini, the Pope’s -nephew, whom we have repeatedly found to be a warm patron -and protector of Galileo.</p> - -<p>Professor Berti offers as an explanation of the absence of -the three signatures, that the Congregation in the name of -which the sentence was passed consisted of ten members, but -that at the last sitting seven only were present, so that seven -only could sign, and adds, as it appears to us unwarrantably,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span> -“that it by no means follows that the three absentees were of -a contrary opinion.”<a name="FNanchor_402" id="FNanchor_402"></a><a href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a></p> - -<p>Pieralisi does not find the matter so simple, and devotes -seven large pages to account for the absence of the three -prelates from the Congregation. “Cardinal Borgia,” he says, -“was on very bad terms with Urban VIII., because he had -addressed the Pope in a loud voice in a consistory, and the -Pope had imperiously told him to be quiet and to go away.”<a name="FNanchor_403" id="FNanchor_403"></a><a href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a> -But it has been proved that even after this scene the cardinal -appeared at the consistories up to 12th February, 1635, -although there were complaints that he took walks in Rome -instead of attending the sittings of the Propaganda and the -Holy Office. But it is not likely that this cardinal, whose -name stands at the head of the sentence, would have absented -himself from the final sitting without some good reason. -Pieralisi thinks that he was more friendly to Galileo than -the other cardinals, an opinion for which there is no evidence -and which proves nothing. Even Pieralisi confesses that he -can find no reason for the absence of Cardinal Zacchia, but -assigns the following motive for that of Cardinal Francesco -Barberini: “He probably wished to uphold the right enjoyed -by the cardinal nephews, and afterwards by the secretaries of -state, of sometimes abstaining from voting in order to reserve -to themselves greater freedom in the treatment of public, -private, and political affairs.” The insufficiency of this explanation -is too obvious to need comment. Pieralisi himself -comes to the conclusion that these dignitaries did not wish -to append their signatures to the famous sentence, which is -much the same thing as the conjecture that they did not -agree to it.</p> - -<p>In accordance with this sentence, certainly not passed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span> -unanimously by the members of the Holy Tribunal, which -forms one of the foulest blots in the melancholy annals -of the Inquisition, Galileo was compelled immediately -after hearing it to make the following degrading recantation, -humbly kneeling, before the whole assembly:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged -seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling -before you, most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors -general against heretical depravity throughout the whole Christian -Republic, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy -Gospels swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by -God’s help will for the future believe, all that is held, preached, and -taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But whereas—after -an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy -Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that -the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is -not the centre of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, -or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said doctrine, -and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary -to Holy Scripture—I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this -doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in -its favour, without presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I -have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of -heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the -centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre -and moves:—</p> - -<p>Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and -of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived -against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and -detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error -and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that -in future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything -that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that -should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce -him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the place -where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfil and observe in -their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed -upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, -(which God forbid!) any of these my promises, protestations, and oaths, I -submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in -the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against -such delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which I -touch with my hands.</p> - -<p>I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[244]</a></span> -myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own -hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it -word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second -day of June, 1633.</p> - -<p class="center">I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.”<a name="FNanchor_404" id="FNanchor_404"></a><a href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Certain Catholic writers express the hope, at the expense -of truth, for the sake of Galileo’s salvation and honour, that -he really had, from conviction, renounced the opinion which -he had been labouring for and advocating up to old age. -Indeed, the super-Catholic author of an essay, called “The -Holy See against Galileo Galilei and the Astronomical System -of Copernicus,”<a name="FNanchor_405" id="FNanchor_405"></a><a href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> does not hesitate to say: “Probably -the physical absurdities of his (Galileo’s) doctrine had achieved -a victory for the voice of reason and religion.”<a name="FNanchor_406" id="FNanchor_406"></a><a href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a> Undoubtedly -there were many physical difficulties in the way of a general -acceptance of the new doctrines (especially the prevailing -incorrect ideas about the specific gravity of the air),<a name="FNanchor_407" id="FNanchor_407"></a><a href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a> and -they were only finally overcome by the discovery of the law -of gravitation by the genius of Newton; but they were not -so great as to prevent men, like Kepler, Descartes, Gassendi, -Diodati, Philip Landsberg, Joachim Rhäticus, and others, -and above all, the great Italian reformer of physics and -astronomy, from, even at that time, recognising the truth of -the new theory. It does not appear, either, that the author -of that article had much faith in his own conjecture, for he -proceeds to a demonstration, from opposite premises, which -was for a time much in vogue with the Jesuitical defenders<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[245]</a></span> -of the Inquisition against Galileo, and which must therefore -be briefly mentioned.</p> - -<p>This was nothing less than an attempt to show that even -if Galileo held the Copernican system to be the only true -one, he could, thanks to the wording of the formula of recantation, -utter it without doing violence to his conscience; or, -what is now known to be truth.<a name="FNanchor_408" id="FNanchor_408"></a><a href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a> Galileo swore that he never -had believed and never would believe (1) “that the sun was -the centre of the earth and immovable.” That he could easily -do, says our author, for, in relation to the fixed stars, the sun -by no means forms the centre; and heavy bodies on the -earth fall towards its centre and not towards the sun, which, -also, in this sense, was not the centre! There was no difficulty -for Galileo in recanting that the sun was immovable, -for he had himself concluded from the motion of the spots -that it revolved on its own axis.<a name="FNanchor_409" id="FNanchor_409"></a><a href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a> As to the earth, he abjured -it as an error (2) that “the earth is not the centre;” quite -right, for it is the centre for heavy bodies: and it was not said—“the -centre of the universe;” (3) “that the earth moves;” -vast efforts of sophistry were necessary to make this desperately -precise proposition square with the arguments of this curious -casuist. He therefore says, that as, according to the wording, -it is not the diurnal motion of the earth that is in question, -this proposition has quite a different meaning, in which, on -the one hand, it must be said that the earth is immovable, -and on the other, that it is only motion through the air from -one place to another that is excluded. The earth may certainly, -both in relation to its physical conformation and in -contrast to what goes on upon it, be called immovable!<a name="FNanchor_410" id="FNanchor_410"></a><a href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">[410]</a> At -the time when these lines were written, in 1875, the author -of this article in the “Historisch-politischen Blättern” was -unknown to us. Afterwards, through the liberality of the -Bavarian Government, among other works relating to Galileo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[246]</a></span> -in the Royal Library, the following were lent to us:—(1) -“Di Copernico e di Galileo, scritto postumo del P. Maurizio-Benedetto -Olivieri, Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario -della S. Rom. ed Univ. Inquisizione ora per la prima -volta messo in luce sull’ autografo per cura d’un religioso -dello stesso istituto. Bologna, 1872”; (2) “Il S. Officio, -Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un opusculo postumo del -P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento apunti di Gilberto Govi. -Torino, 1872.” To our no small surprise we found, on reading -the former, that it had by no means “seen the light” -for the first time in 1872, but had appeared thirty-one years -before in a literal German translation, as the article above -mentioned in the “Historisch-politischen Blättern,” with a few -insignificant alterations, and a different title, the old one -being given in a note. Neither the editor of the first Italian -work of Olivieri, the Dominican monk, Fra. Tommaso Bonora, -nor the author of the above rejoinder,<a name="FNanchor_411" id="FNanchor_411"></a><a href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> Gilberto Govi, had, as -appears from what they say, the least idea of this singular -fact. In Germany, Professor Clemens of Bonn, was universally -believed to be the author of this article, which excited -great attention; so firmly was it held, that Professor Moritz -Cantor, in a notice of the present work, gave no credence to -our discovery, but stated in his critique, “The anonymous -writer was not Olivieri, but Professor Clemens of Bonn.”<a name="FNanchor_412" id="FNanchor_412"></a><a href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a> -Upon this we sent Professor Cantor the essay from the -“Historisch-politischen Blättern” and Bonora’s work for -examination, when he was constrained to be convinced by -the sight of his own eyes.</p> - -<p>The wretched attempt thus to clear the Inquisition, by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[247]</a></span> -Olivieri’s method, of the reproach of having extorted an oath -from Galileo entirely against his convictions, is unworthy of -refutation. By impartial posterity the oath is and must be -regarded as perjury, and is all the more repulsive because the -promise was coupled with it that, “if he met with a heretic, or -person suspected of heresy,” he would denounce him to the -authorities of the Church; that is, the master would denounce -his disciples—for by a “heretic, or any one suspected of -heresy,” the adherents of the Copernican system must be -chiefly understood—to the persecution of the Inquisition! -The taking of this degrading oath may, under the circumstances, -be excused, but it never can be justified.</p> - -<p>After this painful act of world-wide interest had been completed, -Galileo was conducted back to the buildings of the -Holy Office. Now that he and the Copernican system had -been condemned with becoming solemnity by the Holy -Office, Urban VIII. magnanimously gave the word for mercy; -that is, Galileo was not, as the sentence prescribed, detained -in the prisons of the Inquisition, but a restricted amount of -liberty was granted him. The Roman curia never entirely -let go its hold upon him as long as he lived. On the day -after the sentence was passed, the Pope exchanged imprisonment -for temporary banishment, to the villa of the Grand -Duke of Tuscany at Trinita de’ Monti, near Rome,<a name="FNanchor_413" id="FNanchor_413"></a><a href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a> whither -Niccolini conducted his unfortunate friend on the evening -of 24th June, as we find from the despatch before quoted -from him to Cioli of 26th of the month.<a name="FNanchor_414" id="FNanchor_414"></a><a href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a></p> - -<p>We learn from the same source that while Galileo took -the prohibition of his book, of which he was aware beforehand, -with tolerable composure, the unexpected proceedings -of the Holy Office against him personally, affected him most -deeply. Niccolini did his best to rouse him from his deep -depression, but at first with little success.<a name="FNanchor_415" id="FNanchor_415"></a><a href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a> Galileo longed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[248]</a></span> -to leave Rome, where he had suffered so much, and therefore -addressed the following petition to Urban VIII.:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Most Holy Father! Galileo Galilei most humbly begs your Holiness -to exchange the place assigned to him for his prison near Rome, for some -other in Florence, which may appear suitable to your Holiness, in consideration -of his poor health, and also because the petitioner is expecting -a sister with eight children from Germany, to whom no one can afford -help and protection so well as himself. He will receive any disposition -of your Holiness as a great favour.”<a name="FNanchor_416" id="FNanchor_416"></a><a href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But in the Vatican the opinion prevailed that to allow -Galileo to return to Florence already would be a superfluity -of indulgence. The Pope said to Niccolini: “We must -proceed gently, and only rehabilitate Galileo by degrees.”<a name="FNanchor_417" id="FNanchor_417"></a><a href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a> -Still Urban was disposed to grant the ambassador’s request, -and to alter the penalty so far as to allow the exile to go to -Siena, to the house of the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, -whom we know as a warm friend of Galileo’s. Niccolini’s -urgent entreaties succeeded in obtaining a papal decree of -30th June, ordering Galileo to go by the shortest route to -Siena, to go to the Archbishop’s at once, to remain there, and -strictly to obey his orders; and he was not to leave that city -without permission from the Congregation.<a name="FNanchor_418" id="FNanchor_418"></a><a href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a> Galileo was -informed of this decree on 2nd July by the Commissary-General -of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani di -Firenzuola, in person.<a name="FNanchor_419" id="FNanchor_419"></a><a href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> On 10th July, Niccolini reported -to Cioli: “Signor Galileo set out early on Wednesday, -6th July, in good health, for Siena, and writes to me from -Viterbo, that he had performed four miles on foot, the -weather being very cool.”<a name="FNanchor_420" id="FNanchor_420"></a><a href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[249]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="II_CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>CURRENT MYTHS.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si Muove.”—The -Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only detained twenty-two -Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—Refuted in 18th Century.—Torture -based on the words, “<i>examen rigorosum</i>.”—This shown to be untenable.—Assertion -that the Acts have been falsified refuted.—False -Imputation on Niccolini.—Conclusive Evidence against Torture.—Galileo -not truly a “Martyr of Science.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Before following Galileo’s fate to the end, so far as his -relations with the curia are concerned, it seems desirable -to glance at the fables and exaggerations, mostly originating -in malice and fierce partisanship, which, in defiance -of the results of the latest historical research, are not only -circulated among the public at large, but introduced, to -some extent, even in works which profess to contain history.</p> - -<p>According to these legends, Galileo languishes during -the trial in the prisons of the Inquisition; when brought -before his judges, he proudly defends the doctrine of the -double motion; he is then seized by the executioners of -the Holy Office, and subjected to the horrors of torture; -but even then—as heroic fable demands—he for a long -time remains steadfast; under pain beyond endurance he -promises obedience, that is, the recantation of the Copernican -system. As soon as his torn and dislocated limbs -permit, he is dragged before the large assembly of the Congregation, -and there, kneeling in the penitential shirt, with -fierce rage in his heart, he utters the desired recantation. -As he rises he is no longer able to master his indignation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[250]</a></span> -and fiercely stamping with his foot, he utters the famous -words: “E pur si muove!” He is, therefore, thrown into -the dank dungeons of the dreaded tribunal, where his eyes -are put out!</p> - -<p>The blinding of Galileo is a creation of the lively popular -mind, which, with its love of horrors, embellishes tragical -historical events by fictitious additions of this kind, -just suited to the palates of people accustomed to coarse -diet. Galileo’s subsequent loss of sight may have given -rise to the fable, which first appeared in the “History of -Astronomy” by Estevius.<a name="FNanchor_421" id="FNanchor_421"></a><a href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a> It is not known who was the -inventor of the assumed exclamation, “E pur si muove,” -which sounds well, and has become a “winged word;” but -besides not being historic, it very incorrectly indicates the -old man’s state of mind; for he was morally completely -crushed. Professor Heis, who has devoted a treatise to the -origin of this famous saying, thinks that he has discovered -its first appearance in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” Caen, -1789;<a name="FNanchor_422" id="FNanchor_422"></a><a href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a> Professor Grisar tells us, however, in his studies on -the trial of Galileo, that in the “Lehrbuch der philosophischen -Geschichte,” published at Würzburg, 1774, fifteen -years earlier, by Fr. N. Steinacher, the following edifying -passage occurs:—</p> - -<p>“Galileo was neither sufficiently in earnest nor steadfast -with his recantation; for the moment he rose up, when his -conscience told him that he had sworn falsely, he cast his -eyes on the ground, stamped with his foot, and exclaimed, -‘E pur si muove.’”<a name="FNanchor_423" id="FNanchor_423"></a><a href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a></p> - -<p>Besides the fact that these words are not attributed to -Galileo by any of his contemporaries, not even the best<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[251]</a></span> -informed, the fallacy of the whole story is obvious; for the -witnesses of this outbreak, his judges, in fact, would assuredly -not have allowed so audacious a revocation of his -recantation to escape unpunished; it is, indeed, impossible -to conjecture what the consequences would have been; the -recusant would certainly not have been released two days -afterwards from the buildings of the Holy Office.</p> - -<p>Although this dramatic scene is not mentioned as worthy -of credit by any modern historian,<a name="FNanchor_424" id="FNanchor_424"></a><a href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> it is different with the -hair shirt in which Galileo is said to have performed the -humiliating act. Libri, Cousin, Parchappe, and very recently -Louis Combes,<a name="FNanchor_425" id="FNanchor_425"></a><a href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> all gravely relate that the philosopher had -to recant “en chemise.”</p> - -<p>The official document, although it goes very much into -detail as to the way in which the oath was performed, -says nothing of the shirt, and these authors should have -said nothing either. The doubtful source in which this -fable originated is an anonymous and very confused note -on a MS. in, the Magliabechiana Library at Florence, where -among other nonsense we find: “the poor man (Galileo), -appeared clad in a ragged shirt, so that it was really -pitiable.”<a name="FNanchor_426" id="FNanchor_426"></a><a href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a> We agree with Epinois,<a name="FNanchor_427" id="FNanchor_427"></a><a href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a> that history requires -more authentic testimony than that of an anonymous note.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[252]</a></span></p> - -<p>But upon what testimony, then, do a large number of -authors speak with much pathos of the imprisonment which -Galileo had to undergo? No sort of documents are referred -to as evidence of the story; this is quite intelligible, for -none exist. Or is the rhetorical phrase, “Galileus nunc -in vinculis detinetur,”<a name="FNanchor_428" id="FNanchor_428"></a><a href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a> contained in a letter of May, 1633, -from Rome, from Holstein to Peiresc, to be taken as evidence -that Galileo was really languishing in the prisons of -the Inquisition? One glance at the truest historical source -for the famous trial,—the official despatches of Niccolini to -Cioli, from 15th August, 1632, to 3rd December, 1633, from -which we have so freely quoted,—would have convinced any -one that Galileo spent altogether only twenty-two days -(12-30th April, and afterwards 21-24th June, 1633) in the -buildings of the Holy Office; and even then, not in a -prison cell with grated windows, but in the handsome and -commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. -But such writers do not seem to have been in the habit -of studying authorities; thus, for example, in the “Histoire -des Hérésies,” by P. Domenico Bernini, and in the “Grande -Dictionnaire Bibliographique” of Moreri, we find it stated -that Galileo was imprisoned five or six years at Rome! -Monteula, in his “Histoire des Mathematiques,” and Sir -David Brewster, in his “Martyrs of Science,” reduce the -period, perhaps from pity for the poor “martyr,” to one -year; Delambre, however, felt no such compassion, and -says in his “Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne,” that -Galileo was condemned to an imprisonment which lasted -“several years”! Such an error is the more surprising from -the last celebrated author, as we know that trustworthy -extracts from the original acts of the Vatican MS. were -in his hands.<a name="FNanchor_429" id="FNanchor_429"></a><a href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a> Even in a very recent work, Drager’s -“Geschichte der Conflicte zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft,” -Leipzig, 1875 (“History of the Conflicts between<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[253]</a></span> -Religion and Science”), it is seriously stated that Galileo -was detained three years in the prisons of the Inquisition!</p> - -<p>Thus we see that the fable of Galileo’s imprisonment -has been adopted by several authors without any historical -foundation, and this is to a far greater extent the case -with the famous story of the torture to which he is said -to have been subjected. As it has held its ground, although -only sporadically, even up to the most recent times,<a name="FNanchor_430" id="FNanchor_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> -it seems incumbent on us to go more deeply into this -disputed question.</p> - -<p>Curiously enough, it is towards the end of the eighteenth -century that we find the first traces of this falsehood, and -from the fact that three <i>savans</i>, Frisi,<a name="FNanchor_431" id="FNanchor_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> Brenna,<a name="FNanchor_432" id="FNanchor_432"></a><a href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a> and Targioni,<a name="FNanchor_433" id="FNanchor_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a> -who wrote lives of Galileo at that time, raised a -protest against it. Although they were not then able, as -we are now, to base their arguments upon the Acts of the -trial, they had even then authentic materials in their hands—the -despatches between Niccolini and Cioli,<a name="FNanchor_434" id="FNanchor_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> then recently -published by Fabroni—which rendered it utterly improbable -that the old man had been placed upon the rack. These -materials were thoroughly turned to account eighty years -later by T. B. Biot, in his essay, “La verité sur le procès -de Galilei.”<a name="FNanchor_435" id="FNanchor_435"></a><a href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a> He clearly showed from the reports of the -ambassador that Galileo had neither suffered torture during -his first stay in the buildings of the Holy Office, from -12-30th April, when he daily wrote to Niccolini,<a name="FNanchor_436" id="FNanchor_436"></a><a href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> and was -in better health when he returned to the embassy than -when he left it;<a name="FNanchor_437" id="FNanchor_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> nor during the three days of his second<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[254]</a></span> -detention, from 21-24th June, at the end of which he was -conducted by Niccolini, on the evening of the 24th, to the -Villa Medici.<a name="FNanchor_438" id="FNanchor_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> On 6th July he set out thence, “in very -good health,” for Siena, and in spite of his advanced age -performed four miles on foot for his own pleasure,<a name="FNanchor_439" id="FNanchor_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a> which -an infirm old man of seventy, if he had suffered torture -a fortnight before, would surely not have been able to do.</p> - -<p>But all these plain indications go for nothing with some -historians, whose judgment is warped by partisanship, and -who are not willing to give up the notion that Galileo did -suffer the pangs of torture. And so we find this myth, at -first mentioned by a few authors as a mere unauthentic -report, assuming a more and more distinct form, until it is -brought forward, with acute and learned arguments, as, to -say the least, very probable, by Libri, Brewster, Parchappe, -Eckert, and others.</p> - -<p>These writers base their assertion on the following passage -in the sentence:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth -with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a -rigorous examination (<i>examen rigorosum</i>), at which (without prejudice -however, to the matters confessed by you, and set forth as above with -regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>These writers assert, on the one hand, that the expression -“<i>examen rigorosum</i>,” in the vocabulary of the Inquisition -could mean nothing but torture; and on the other, they -take the expression that Galileo had “answered as a good -Catholic” under <i>examen rigorosum</i>, to mean that they -had extorted from him a confession as to his intention, and -conclude that torture had been resorted to. But on closer -scrutiny of the wording of the passage, the meaning appears -to be exactly the contrary; for the sentence in parenthesis -says plainly that Galileo had “answered as a good Catholic”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[255]</a></span> -“<i>without prejudice</i>” to his previous depositions or the conclusions -which his judges had previously arrived at as to -his intention, and which Galileo persistently denied. His -Catholic answer consisted in his repeated assurance that he -did not hold the opinion of Copernicus, and had not held it -after the command to renounce it had been intimated to him. -The Inquisition could but call this a Catholic answer, as -Galileo thereby entirely renounced the condemned doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_440" id="FNanchor_440"></a><a href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a></p> - -<p>We turn now to the other assertion of these writers, that -“<i>examen rigorosum</i>” means torture. This is in a general -sense correct, if by torture the actual application of it is not -intended. But they take the passage in the sentence for -decisive evidence that torture was actually carried out, in -which they are mistaken, as the following passage from the -“Sacro Arsenale” undoubtedly proves: “If the culprit who -was merely taken to the torture chamber, and there undressed, -or also bound, without however being lifted up, confessed, -it was said that he had confessed under torture and -under <i>examen rigorosum</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_441" id="FNanchor_441"></a><a href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a> The last expression then by no -means always implies the actual application of torture. Dr. -Wohlwill knows this passage, and the sentence therefore -only proves to him that Galileo was taken into the torture -chamber; what took place there, whether the old man was -actually tortured, or whether they contented themselves with -urging him to speak the truth, and threatening him with the -instruments they were showing him (a degree of torture -called <i>territio realis</i>), appears shrouded in mystery to Dr. -Wohlwill. In spite of his acquaintance with the literature of -the Inquisition, he has fallen into a mistake. He thinks that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[256]</a></span> -the <i>territio realis</i> was the first degree of torture.<a name="FNanchor_442" id="FNanchor_442"></a><a href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a> But this -was not the case. Limborch’s work, “Historia Inquisitionis,” -with which Wohwill does not seem to be acquainted, contains -definite information on the point. He says that there were -five grades of torture, which followed in regular order, and -quotes the following passage verbatim from Julius Clarus: -“Know then that there are five degrees of torture: First, -the threat of the rack; second, being taken into the torture -chamber; third, being undressed and bound; fourth, being -laid upon the rack; fifth, turning the rack.”<a name="FNanchor_443" id="FNanchor_443"></a><a href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> The <i>territio -realis</i> was therefore by no means the first degree of torture; -the first was the threat of torture, still outside the torture -chamber in the ordinary court, called <i>territio verbalis</i>,<a name="FNanchor_444" id="FNanchor_444"></a><a href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a> which -proceeding we find in the examination of Galileo on 21st June. -The expression “<i>examen rigorosum</i>” in the sentence, appears -therefore, taking it to indicate torture in a general sense, fully -justified by historical facts.</p> - -<p>It would be more difficult to prove that “<i>examen rigorosum</i>” -in the sentence meant actual torture, or <i>territio realis</i>. -According to the rules of the Holy Office, a number of strict -regulations were prescribed for the procedure, which began -with taking the accused into the torture chamber, and the -neglect of any one of them made the whole examination -null and void. The most important were as follows: First,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[257]</a></span> -a short final examination had to take place outside the -torture chamber, at which the accused was told that he had -better confess, or recourse will be had to torture. (This -took place precisely according to the rules of the Holy Office -at Galileo’s trial at the examination on 21st June.) If the -accused persisted, and if in a special Congregation for this -case the necessity of recourse to torture had previously been -agreed upon<a name="FNanchor_445" id="FNanchor_445"></a><a href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> (this must have taken place in the Congregation -of 16th June), the judge had to order the removal -of the accused, to the torture chamber by a special formal -decree, as follows:—“Tunc D.D. sedentes ... visa pertinacia -et obstinatione ipsius constitati, visoque et mature -considerato toto tenore processus ... decreverunt, ipsum -constituum esse torquendum tormento funis pro veritate -habendo.... Et ideo mandaverunt ipsum constitutum -duci ad locum tormentorum.”<a name="FNanchor_446" id="FNanchor_446"></a><a href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a></p> - -<p>Second, a notary of the Inquisition had to be present in the -torture chamber, and the judges had to see “that he noted -down not only all the answers of the accused, but all his -expressions and movements, every word that he uttered on -the rack, even every sigh, cry, and groan.”<a name="FNanchor_447" id="FNanchor_447"></a><a href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a></p> - -<p>Third, within twenty-four hours after his release from the -torture chamber, the accused had to ratify all his utterances -under the torments of the rack, or under threat of them, in -the usual court. Otherwise the whole proceeding was null -and void.<a name="FNanchor_448" id="FNanchor_448"></a><a href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a></p> - -<p>Of all these documents, which must have existed if actual -torture had been employed, or even if Galileo had been taken -into the torture chamber, there is not a trace in the Acts -of the trial in the Vatican. Dr. Wohlwill<a name="FNanchor_449" id="FNanchor_449"></a><a href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> and Dr.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[258]</a></span> -Scartazzini<a name="FNanchor_450" id="FNanchor_450"></a><a href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a> assert, with more boldness than evidence, that most -of these documents did exist, but that afterwards, and in -the present century, as the whole of the documents have -been tampered with for a special purpose, these compromising -papers have been withdrawn! The Vatican MS. -contains one document which, one would think, is indisputable -evidence that only the <i>territio verbalis</i> was employed -against Galileo. We allude to the Protocol of the last -examination of 21st June. Up to the final answer of the -accused the questions of the Inquisitor agree <i>verbatim</i> with -the formula of examination which the “Sacro Arsenale” gives -for questioning as to the Intention;<a name="FNanchor_451" id="FNanchor_451"></a><a href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a> but when, if it was -intended to proceed to torture or even to take Galileo into -the torture chamber, the decree about it should follow, we -find instead the concluding sentence: “<i>Et cum nihil aliud -posset haberi in executionem decreti habita eius subscriptione -remissus fuit ad locum suum.</i>” This is, up to the words “<i>in -executionem decreti</i>,” the usual concluding sentence of the -last examination when it ended without torture.<a name="FNanchor_452" id="FNanchor_452"></a><a href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> These -exceptional words refer to the decree of 16th June, 1633, -which minutely described the judicial proceedings to be -taken against Galileo, and by which certainly the <i>threat</i> of -torture, but by no means actual recourse to it, was ordained -by the Pope and the Sacred Congregation.<a name="FNanchor_453" id="FNanchor_453"></a><a href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[259]</a></span></p> - -<p>The concluding sentence of the last examination of Galileo -being on the one hand in exact agreement with the -decree of 16th June, and on the other being a precise and -definite statement, is a strong proof of the correctness of -the opinion long defended by calm and impartial historians, -like Albèri, Reumont, Biot, Cantor, Bouix, Troussart, -Reusch, and even the passionate opponent of Rome, Prof. -Chasles, that Galileo’s feeble frame was never subjected -to the horrors of torture. Wohlwill also acknowledges the -force of this concluding sentence—if it be genuine. He -thinks these words are a falsification in the present century, -while originally Galileo’s last answer was followed by the -necessary decree for proceeding to torture, and then by the -protocol about the proceedings in the torture chamber. -Dr. Scartazzini goes even further than Wohlwill, and maintains -that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole -protocol of the examination of 21st June, as now found in -the Vatican MS., is a later falsified insertion. We shall -see why he thinks so by and by.</p> - -<p>We may remark in passing, from our own experience, -that it is always venturesome to affirm that there are falsifications -in a MS. without even having seen it, to say -nothing of having examined it. Thus, for instance, a glance -at the original shows on material grounds that there can -be no suspicion of falsification or later insertion in the protocol -of 21st June. Both pages on which it is written, fols. -452, 453, are second pages to fols. 413 and 414, on which -the protocol of Galileo’s trial of 12th April begins. A later<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[260]</a></span> -insertion is therefore an impossibility. Besides, the protocol -of 21st June ends in the middle of fol. 435 ro, and, -after a space of scarcely two fingers’ breadth follows an -annotation of 30th June, 1633, in exactly the same handwriting -as the annotations of 16th June, 1633, 23rd September, -9th and 30th December, 1632. This really seems to -render the bold conjecture of falsification wholly untenable.</p> - -<p>The unquestioned genuineness of Galileo’s signature, which -concludes this as well as all the other protocols, is also a -guarantee of its authenticity. Dr. Scartazzini has taken -advantage of our information that this signature, unlike all -Galileo’s others, is in a very trembling hand, to assert that -it is not genuine. We are of opinion that a forger would -have taken every pains to make the signature as much -like the others as possible, and certainly would not have -written in remarkably trembling characters. No; this -signature, which is unmistakably like the rest, reflects his -fearful agitation, and is by no means a forgery of the nineteenth -century.</p> - -<p>Let us see now why Dr. Scartazzini insists that not only -the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol of 21st -June, is a falsification. The reason is not far to seek. As -we have seen, according to the rules of the Inquisition, if -Galileo had really suffered torture, or if they had only proceeded -to <i>territio realis</i> against him, within twenty-four -hours of leaving the torture chamber he would have had -to confirm the depositions made there, in the ordinary court. -But the passing of the sentence and the recantation took place -on the 22nd, on the day therefore on which the tortured Galileo -would have had to ratify these depositions, and not till after -this could the sentence be legally drawn up. Dr. Scartazzini -sees plainly enough that Galileo’s ratification, the drawing up -and passing of the sentence, and the recantation, could not -possibly all have taken place in one morning. But he -finds his way out of this <i>cul-de-sac</i> in a remarkably simple -manner; he boldly asserts that the date is false, that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[261]</a></span> -last examination was not on 21st June, but earlier, perhaps -on the 17th! The whole protocol, therefore, must be -false. Of course Dr. Scartazzini has not a shadow of evidence -to give for his assertion. He contents himself with -the singular reason that the papal decree of 16th June did -not admit of a delay of five or six days, but would be at -once carried out.<a name="FNanchor_454" id="FNanchor_454"></a><a href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> This arbitrary assertion is contradicted -by the official report of Niccolini to Cioli of 26th June, -1633, in which he says that Galileo was summoned on -Monday evening to the Holy Office, and went on Tuesday -morning to learn what was wanted of him; he was detained -there, and taken on Wednesday to the Minerva.<a name="FNanchor_455" id="FNanchor_455"></a><a href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> The dates -given by Niccolini agree precisely with those of the protocol -of Galileo’s last hearing, which is assumed to be false! -In face of this evidence, so conclusive for any serious historian, -Dr. Scartazzini remarks: “the Tuscan ambassador’s -memory must have failed him, whether involuntarily or -voluntarily.”<a name="FNanchor_456" id="FNanchor_456"></a><a href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> We leave all comment on this kind of historical -evidence to the reader.</p> - -<p>But we must raise a decided protest, in the name of impartial -history, against the way in which Dr. Scartazzini, -in order to lend some probability to the above remark, -afterwards tries to make out that Niccolini had repeatedly -sent romances to Florence, in order to represent to the -Grand Duke, who was so anxious about Galileo, how much -he (Niccolini) had exerted himself for him, and had actually -achieved. Thus Dr. Scartazzini comes to the conclusion, -which must excite the ire of every right-minded -person, that “the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, is a liar.”<a name="FNanchor_457" id="FNanchor_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> -Niccolini then, Galileo’s noblest, most devoted, and indefatigable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[262]</a></span> -friend, who was at his side in every difficulty, and -certainly did more for him at Rome than was ordered at -Florence, and perhaps even more than was approved,—this -historical figure, worthy of our utmost reverence,—was a -liar! Happily it is with Dr. Scartazzini alone that the -odium of the accusation rests; in the annals of <i>history</i>, the -name of Niccolini stands untarnished, and every Italian, -every educated man, will think with gratitude of the man -who nobly and disinterestedly stood by the side of Galileo -Galilei at the time of his greatest peril. Honour be for ever -to his memory!</p> - -<p>We give, in conclusion, one more instance of a curious -kind of evidence that Galileo really was subjected to torture. -Professor Eckert thinks he knows with “almost geometrical -certainty that Galileo suffered torture during the -twenty-four hours which he spent before the Inquisition.” -In proof of this assertion the author says: “In conclusion, -the two hernias which the unfortunate old man had after -his return is a proof that he must have endured that kind -of torture called <i>il tormento della corda</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_458" id="FNanchor_458"></a><a href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> This shrewd -conclusion falls to the ground in face of the medical certificate -of 17th December, 1632, wherein among the rest we -find: “We have also observed a serious hernia, with rupture -of the peritoneum.”<a name="FNanchor_459" id="FNanchor_459"></a><a href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> And further, this certificate -affords indisputable evidence that both his age<a name="FNanchor_460" id="FNanchor_460"></a><a href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> and his -state of health, in consequence of the rupture, were sufficient -to protect him against torture according to the rules -of the Holy Office.<a name="FNanchor_461" id="FNanchor_461"></a><a href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> Galileo would have had to be professionally -examined by a physician and surgeon, and, according -to their written report, he would either have been -subjected to torture, or a dispensation would have been -granted against it, and all this would have been minutely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[263]</a></span> -recorded in the Acts of the trial.<a name="FNanchor_462" id="FNanchor_462"></a><a href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a> It is needless to say -that among these papers there is not a trace either of any -protest of Galileo’s, nor of the certificates of the physicians -of the Holy Office; and that according to the protocol of -the hearing of 21st June, it never went so far, and the -Pope himself, as the decree of 16th June undoubtedly -proves, never intended that it should.</p> - -<p>No, Galileo never suffered bodily torture, nor was he even -terrified by being taken into the torture chamber and shown -the instruments; he was only mentally stretched upon the -rack, by the verbal threat of it in the ordinary judgment hall, -while the whole painful procedure, and finally the humiliating -public recantation, was but a prolonged torture for the -old man in his deep distress. Libri, Brewster, and other rhetorical -authors have desired to stamp Galileo as a “martyr of -science” in the full sense of the words. But this will not do -for two reasons, as Henri Martin<a name="FNanchor_463" id="FNanchor_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> justly points out. In the -first place, Galileo did not suffer torture; and in the second, -a true martyr, that is, a witness unto blood, never under any -circumstances, not even on burning coals, abjures his opinions, -or he does not deserve the name.</p> - -<p>For the sake of Galileo’s moral greatness, his submission -may be regretted, but at all events greater benefit has accrued -from it to science, than if, in consequence of a noble steadfastness -which we should have greeted with enthusiasm, he -had perished prematurely at the stake or had languished in -the dungeons of the Inquisition. It was after the famous -trial that he presented the world with his immortal “Dialoghi -delle Nuove Scienze.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[264]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[265]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="PART_III">PART III.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>GALILEO’S LAST YEARS.</i></span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[266]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[267]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="III_CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany to ask for his -release.—Postponed on the advice of Niccolini.—Endeavours at Rome -to stifle the Copernican System.—Sentence and Recantation sent to all -the Inquisitors of Italy.—Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate -against the Publication of any New Work of Galileo’s or New Edition.—Curious -Arguments in favour of the Old System.—Niccolini asks for -Galileo’s release.—Refusal, but permission given to go to Arcetri.—Anonymous -accusations.—Death of his Daughter.—Request for permission -to go to Florence.—Harsh refusal and threat.—Letter to -Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention of the Count de Noailles on -his behalf.—Prediction that he will be compared to Socrates.—Letter -to Peiresc.—Publication of Galileo’s Works in Holland.—Continued -efforts of Noailles.—Urban’s fair speeches.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo arrived safely at Siena on 9th July, and was most -heartily welcomed by Ascanio Piccolomini.<a name="FNanchor_464" id="FNanchor_464"></a><a href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> But neither his -devoted kindness, nor stimulating converse with his friend, -who was well versed in science, and the learned Alessandro -Marsili, who lived at Siena, could make him forget that he -was still a prisoner of the Inquisition, and that his residence -there was compulsory. He longed for liberty, the highest -earthly good, and next to this for Florence, which had -become a second home to him. In order to attain this -fervent desire, on 23rd July he addressed a letter to Cioli,<a name="FNanchor_465" id="FNanchor_465"></a><a href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a> -with an urgent request that his Highness the Grand Duke, -to please whom Urban VIII. had done so much, would be -graciously pleased to ask the Pope, on whose will alone it -depended, for his release. Only five days afterwards, Galileo -received tidings from Cioli that Ferdinand II. had in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[268]</a></span> -kindest manner consented to make the attempt, and that -Niccolini was already commissioned to petition at the -Vatican, in the name of the Grand Duke, for a full pardon -for his chief philosopher.<a name="FNanchor_466" id="FNanchor_466"></a><a href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> But the ambassador had good -reasons for thinking that it was too soon, and that it would -certainly be in vain to ask for Galileo’s entire release, and -replied to this effect to Cioli, adding the advice not to do -anything in it till autumn.<a name="FNanchor_467" id="FNanchor_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> It was therefore decided at -Florence, in consideration of Niccolini’s doubts and his intimate -knowledge of affairs at Rome, not to intervene with the -Pope in favour of Galileo for two months, which decision -was communicated by Bocchineri to the prisoner at Siena -in a letter of 13th August.<a name="FNanchor_468" id="FNanchor_468"></a><a href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a></p> - -<p>While Galileo was bearing his banishment in Siena, which -Ascanio Piccolomini did all in his power to ameliorate, -with resignation, and was even diligently at work on his -“Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” war was being waged with -great vigour against the Copernican doctrine at Rome, and -the utmost efforts were being made to stifle it in Catholic -countries in general, and in Italy in particular. Urban VIII. -first visited with severe punishment all those dignitaries of -the Church who, in virtue of their official position, had conduced -to the publication of the “Dialogues.” Father Riccardi -was deprived of his office, and the Inquisitor at Florence was -reprimanded for having given permission to print the work.<a name="FNanchor_469" id="FNanchor_469"></a><a href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a> -In accordance with a decree passed in the sitting of the -Congregation of 16th June, 1633, the sentence on, and -recantation of, Galileo were sent to all the nunciatures of -Europe, as well as to all archbishops, bishops, and inquisitors -of Italy. The form in which this commission was issued<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[269]</a></span> -to the ecclesiastical dignitaries is of great historical interest. -One of the letters which accompanied the decree and ordered -its publication has been preserved to us by Father Polacco -in his “Anti-Copernicus Catholicus,” published at Venice in -1644.<a name="FNanchor_470" id="FNanchor_470"></a><a href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a> It was addressed to the Inquisitor at Venice, and was -as follows; the rest were probably similar:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">Most Reverend Father,—</p> - -<p>Although the treatise of Nicholas Copernicus, ‘De Revolutionibus -Orbium Celestium,’ had been suspended by the Congregation of the -Index, because it was therein maintained that the earth moves, but not -the sun, but that it stands still in the centre of the world (which opinion -is contrary to Holy Scripture); and although many years ago, Galileo -Galilei, Florentine, was forbidden by the Congregation of this Holy Office -to hold, defend, or teach the said opinion in any way whatsoever, either -verbally or in writing; the said Galileo ventured nevertheless to write a -book signed Galileo Galilei Linceus; and as he did not mention the said -prohibition, he extorted licence to print, and did then actually have it -printed. He stated, in the beginning, middle, and end of it, that he intended -to treat the said opinion of Copernicus hypothetically, but he did -it in such a manner (though he ought not to have discussed it in any way) -as to render himself very suspicious of adhering to this opinion. Being -tried on this account, and in accordance with the sentence of their -Eminences, my Lords, confined in the prison of the Holy Office, he was -condemned to renounce this opinion, to remain in prison during their -Eminences’ pleasure, and to perform other salutary penances; as your -Reverences will see by the subjoined copy of the sentence and abjuration, -which is sent to you that you may make it known to your vicars, and that -you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge -of it; that they may know why they proceeded against the said -Galileo, and recognise the gravity of his error in order that they may -avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer -in case they fell into the same.</p> - -<p class="center">Your Reverences, as brother,</p> - -<p class="right">Cardinal of St. Onufrius.</p> - -<p>Rome, 2nd July, 1633.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Again it is worthy of note, that even in this letter it was -deemed necessary to lay special stress on the circumstance -that Galileo had acted contrary to a special prohibition issued -several years before. But then, to be sure, this formed the -only <i>legal</i> ground for the proceedings against him.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[270]</a></span></p> - -<p>From a letter from Guiducci to Galileo from Florence of -27th August,<a name="FNanchor_471" id="FNanchor_471"></a><a href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a> we learn the manner in which the publication -had taken place there, on the 12th. Both the documents -were read aloud in a large assembly of counsellors of the -Holy Office, canons and other priests, professors of mathematics -and friends of Galileo, such as Pandolfini, Aggiunti, -Rinuccini, Peri, and others, who had been invited to the -ceremony. This proceeding was followed in all the more -important cities of Italy, as well as in the larger ones of -Catholic Europe. It is characteristic of the great split -which existed in the scientific world about the Copernican -system, that Professor Kellison, Rector of the University of -Douai, wrote in reply to a letter of the Nuncio at Brussels, -who had sent the sentence and recantation of Galileo to that -academy: “The professors of our university are so opposed -to that fanatical opinion (<i>phanaticæ opinioni</i>), that they have -always held that it must be banished from the schools.... -In our English college at Douai this paradox has never been -approved, and never will be.”<a name="FNanchor_472" id="FNanchor_472"></a><a href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a></p> - -<p>The Roman curia, however, did not confine itself to trying -to frighten all good Catholics from accepting the Copernican -doctrine by as wide a circulation as possible of the sentence -against Galileo; but in order to suppress it altogether as far -as might be, especially in Italy, all the Italian Inquisitors -received orders neither to permit the publication of a new -edition of any of Galileo’s works, nor of any new work.<a name="FNanchor_473" id="FNanchor_473"></a><a href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> On -the other hand, the Aristotelians, who had been very active -since the trial, were encouraged to confute the illustrious dead, -Copernicus and Kepler, and the now silenced Galileo, with -tongue and pen. Thus in the succeeding decades the book -market was flooded with refutations of the Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_474" id="FNanchor_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[271]</a></span></p> - -<p>In fighting truth with falsehood very curious demonstrations -were sure now and then to come to light on the -part of the adherents of the wisdom of the ancients. We will -here only mention a book dedicated to Cardinal Barberini, -which appeared in 1633: “Difesa di Scipione Chiaramonti da -Cesena al suo Antiticone, e libro delle tre nuove stelle, dall’ -opposizioni dell’Autore de’ due massimi sistemi Tolemaico e -Copernicano,” in which such sagacious arguments as the -following are adduced against the doctrine of the double -motion of the earth:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no -limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move.</p> - -<p>“It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, etc., turn round. If -the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in the centre to set it in -motion; but only devils live there, it would therefore be a devil who -would impart motion to the earth.</p> - -<p>“The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one species; namely, -that of stars—they therefore all move or all stand still.</p> - -<p>“It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the earth, which -is a sink of impurity, among the heavenly bodies, which are pure and -divine things.”<a name="FNanchor_475" id="FNanchor_475"></a><a href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But although Galileo was condemned to silence, there were -courageous and enlightened men who, in spite of the famous -sentence of the Inquisition, not only rejected such absurdities -but made energetic advance along the new paths. At the -Vatican, however, they seemed disposed, as we shall soon see, -to make Galileo answerable for the defence of the Copernican -system in Italy. For instance, at the beginning of November -the Tuscan ambassador thought the time was come to take -steps for obtaining pardon for Galileo with some prospect of -success; and at an audience of the Pope on 12th November -he asked, on behalf of the Grand Duke, for the prisoner’s -release. Urban replied somewhat ungraciously, that he -would see what could be done, and would consult with the -Congregation of the Holy Office; but he remarked that it had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[272]</a></span> -come to his ears that some people were writing in defence of -the Copernican system. Niccolini hastened to assure him -that Galileo was not in the least implicated in it, and that it -was done entirely without his knowledge. Urban answered -drily, that he had not been exactly informed that Galileo had -anything to do with it, but he had better beware of the Holy -Office. In spite of reiterated urgent entreaty, Niccolini could -get nothing more definite about Galileo’s release than the -above evasive promise, and he communicated the doubtful -success of his mission to Cioli in a despatch of 13th November,<a name="FNanchor_476" id="FNanchor_476"></a><a href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a> -in rather a depressed state of mind.</p> - -<p>Urban was not disposed to grant a full pardon to Galileo, -and therefore made a pretext of the Congregation to the -ambassador, as if the decision depended upon it, whereas -it rested entirely with himself. Niccolini, however, still persisted -in his efforts. He went to Cardinal Barberini and -other members of the Holy Office, warmly recommending -him to their protection.<a name="FNanchor_477" id="FNanchor_477"></a><a href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a> Meanwhile an indisposition of the -Pope, which lasted fourteen days, delayed the decision, as the -Congregation did not venture to come to any without his -concurrence. At length he made his appearance in the -sitting of the Congregation of 1st December, and through -the mediation of Cardinal Barberini, the petition for Galileo’s -release was at once laid before him.<a name="FNanchor_478" id="FNanchor_478"></a><a href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a> It was refused; but he -was to be permitted to retire to a villa at Arcetri, a <i>miglio</i> -from Florence, where he was to remain until he heard -further; he was not to receive any visits, but to live in the -greatest retirement.<a name="FNanchor_479" id="FNanchor_479"></a><a href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a> Niccolini informed him of this amelioration -of his circumstances in a letter of 3rd December,<a name="FNanchor_480" id="FNanchor_480"></a><a href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> with -the expression of great regret that he could not at present -obtain his entire liberation. He added that the Pope had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[273]</a></span> -charged him to say that Galileo might go to Arcetri at once, -that he might receive his friends and relations there, but not -in large numbers at one time, as this might give rise to the -idea that he was giving scientific lectures. A few days after -the receipt of this letter Galileo set out for Arcetri.<a name="FNanchor_481" id="FNanchor_481"></a><a href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a></p> - -<p>No sooner had he reached his villa, called “il Giojello,” -which was pleasantly situated, than he made it his first care -to thank Cardinal Barberini warmly for his urgent intercession, -which had, however, only effected this fresh alleviation -of his sad fate.<a name="FNanchor_482" id="FNanchor_482"></a><a href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a> Some rhetorical historians make Galileo’s -two daughters leave the Convent of St. Matteo, which was -certainly within gunshot of “Giojello,” in order to tend their -old and suffering father with childlike and tender care; a -touching picture, but without any historical foundation. On -the contrary, it was really one of Galileo’s greatest consolations -to pay frequent visits to his daughters, to whom he -was tenderly attached, at St. Matteo, when permitted to do -so by the Holy Office. It was also a great satisfaction to -him that on a very early day after his arrival at Arcetri the -Grand Duke came from Florence, and paid the convict of -the Inquisition a long visit.<a name="FNanchor_483" id="FNanchor_483"></a><a href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a></p> - -<p>But while Galileo was once more partaking of some pleasures, -the implacable malice of his enemies never slumbered.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[274]</a></span> -There were even some who would have been glad to know -that he was for ever safe in the dungeons of the Inquisition. -As, however, he gave them no pretext on which they could, -with any shadow of justice, have seized him, they had recourse -to the most disgraceful means—to lying, anonymous -denunciation, in which his enlightened and therefore disliked -friend, the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, was ingeniously -involved. On 1st February, 1634, the following communication, -without signature, was received at the Holy Office at -Rome from Siena:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">Most Reverend Sirs,—</p> - -<p><i>Galileo has diffused in this city opinions not very Catholic</i>, urged -on by this Archbishop, his host, who has suggested to many persons -that Galileo had been unjustly treated with so much severity by the Holy -Office, and that he neither could nor would give up his philosophical -opinions which he had defended with irrefragable and true mathematical -arguments; also that he is the first man in the world, and will live for -ever in his works, to which, although prohibited, all modern distinguished -men give in their adherence. Now since seeds like these, sown by a prelate -of the Church, might bring forth evil fruit, a report is made of them.<a name="FNanchor_484" id="FNanchor_484"></a><a href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Although this cowardly denunciation did not bear any -immediate consequences either to Piccolomini or Galileo, -events which took place soon after show most clearly the -unfavourable impression it produced at the Vatican. Galileo, -who was very unwell, asked permission of the Pope, through -the mediation of his faithful friend Niccolini, to move into -Florence for the sake of the regular medical treatment which -he required, and which he could not well have at the villa -outside the city.<a name="FNanchor_485" id="FNanchor_485"></a><a href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a> As if to dye his tragic fate still darker, -just while he was awaiting the result of Niccolini’s efforts, his -favourite daughter Polissena, or by her conventual name -Marie Celeste, was taken so ill that her life was soon despaired -of.</p> - -<p>It was on one of the last days of March that Galileo was -returning to his villa with a physician from a visit to his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[275]</a></span> -dying daughter at the Convent of St. Matteo, in deep -depression of spirits. On the way the physician had prepared -him for the worst by telling him that the patient would -scarcely survive till the morning, which proved to be the case. -On entering his house in anguish of soul, he found the messenger -of the Inquisition there, who in the name of the Holy -Office gave him a strict injunction to abstain from all such -petitions in future, unless he desired to compel the Inquisition -to imprison him again. This unmerciful proceeding had -been ordered by a papal mandate of 23rd March.<a name="FNanchor_486" id="FNanchor_486"></a><a href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a> The -Inquisitor at Florence reported on it on 1st April to Cardinal -Barberini, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I have communicated to Galileo what was commanded by your -Eminence. He adduced as an excuse that he had only done it on -account of a frightful rupture. But the villa he lives in is so near the -city that he can easily have the physicians and surgeons there, as well -as the medicines he requires.”<a name="FNanchor_487" id="FNanchor_487"></a><a href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>A passage in a letter from Galileo to Geri Bocchineri at -Florence, of 27th April, shows that the excuse was no empty -pretext, and that he urgently needed to have medical aid -always at hand. He says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I am going to write to you about my health, which is very bad. I -suffer much more from the rupture than has been the case before; my -pulse intermits, and I have often violent palpitation of the heart; then -the most profound melancholy has come over me. I have no appetite, and -loathe myself; in short, I feel myself perpetually called by my beloved -daughter. Under these circumstances I do not think it advisable that -Vincenzo should set out on a journey now, as events might occur at any -time which might make his presence desirable, for besides what I have -mentioned, continued sleeplessness alarms me not a little.”<a name="FNanchor_488" id="FNanchor_488"></a><a href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>A letter to Diodati at Paris, from Galileo, of 25th July, -is also of great interest; an insight may be gained from it, -not only into his melancholy state of mind, but it also contains -some remarkable indications of the motives for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[276]</a></span> -fierce persecution on the part of Rome. We give the portions -of the letter which are important for our subject:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I hope that when you hear of my past and present misfortunes, and -my anxiety about those perhaps still to come, it will serve as an excuse to -you and my other friends and patrons there (at Paris), for my long delay -in answering your letter, and to them for my entire silence, as they can -learn from you the unhappy turn which my affairs have taken. According -to the sentence pronounced on me by the Holy Office, I was condemned -to imprisonment during the pleasure of his Holiness, who was -pleased, however, to assign the palace and gardens of the Grand Duke -near the Trinità dei Monti, as my place of imprisonment. As this was -in June of last year, and I had been given to understand that if I asked -for a full pardon after the lapse of that and the following month, I should -receive it, I asked meanwhile, to avoid having to spend the whole summer -and perhaps part of the autumn there, to be allowed, on account of the -season, to go to Siena, where the Archbishop’s house was assigned to me -as a residence. I staid there five months, when this durance was exchanged -for banishment to this little villa, a <i>miglio</i> from Florence, with -a strict injunction not to go to the city, and neither to receive the visits -of many friends at once, nor to invite any. Here, then, I was living, -keeping perfectly quiet, and paying frequent visits to a neighbouring -convent, where two daughters of mine were living as nuns; I was very -fond of them, especially of the eldest, who possessed high mental gifts, -combined with rare goodness of heart, and she was very much attached -to me. During my absence, which she considered very perilous for me, -she fell into a profound melancholy, which undermined her health, and -she was at last attacked by a violent dysentery, of which she died after -six days’ illness, just thirty-three years of age, leaving me in the deepest -grief, which was increased by another calamity. On returning home -from the convent, in company with the doctor who visited my sick -daughter shortly before her death, and who had just told me that her -situation was desperate, and that she would scarcely survive till the next -day, as indeed it proved, I found the Inquisitor’s Vicar here, who informed -me of a mandate from the Holy Office at Rome, which had just -been communicated to the Inquisitor in a letter from Cardinal Barberini, -that I must in future abstain from asking permission to return to -Florence, <i>or they would take me back there (to Rome), and put me in the -actual prison of the Holy Office</i>. This was the answer to the petition, -which the Tuscan ambassador had presented to that tribunal after I had -been nine months in exile! From this answer it seems to me that, in -all probability, my present prison will only be exchanged for that narrow -and long-enduring one which awaits us all.</p> - -<p>From this and other circumstances, which it would take too long to -repeat here, it will be seen that the fury of my powerful persecutors continually -increases. They have at length chosen to reveal themselves to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[277]</a></span> -me; for about two months ago, when a dear friend of mine at Rome was -speaking of my affairs to Father Christopher Griemberger, mathematician -at the college there, this Jesuit uttered the following precise words:—‘<i>If -Galileo had only known how to retain the favour of the fathers of this -college, he would have stood in renown before the world, he would have -been spared all his misfortunes, and could have written what he pleased -about everything, even about the motion of the earth.</i>’ From this you -will see, honoured Sir, that it is not this opinion or that which has -brought, and still brings about my calamities, <i>but my being in disgrace -with the Jesuits</i>.</p> - -<p>I have also other proofs of the watchfulness of my persecutors. One -is that a letter from some foreigner, I do not know from whom, addressed -to me at Rome, where he supposed me still to be, was intercepted, and -delivered to Cardinal Barberini. It was fortunate for me, as was afterwards -written to me from Rome, that it did not purport to be an answer -to one from me, but a communication containing the warmest praises -of my “Dialogues.” It was seen by many persons, and, as I hear, copies -of it were circulated at Rome. I have also been told that I might see -it. To add to all this, there are other mental disquietudes and many -bodily sufferings oppressing me at the age of over seventy years, so that -the least exertion is a torment and a burden to me. In consideration of -all this, my friends must be indulgent to me for omissions which look -like neglect, but really arise from inability.”<a name="FNanchor_489" id="FNanchor_489"></a><a href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This deep dejection, however, could not last long with a -man of so active a mind as Galileo. The impulse which -had been implanted in him to investigate the problems of -nature was too strong to be repressed by either mental or -bodily sufferings. So far from it, it was this which, ever -re-asserting itself with its normal energy, helped him to bear -them with resignation, and he often forgot his painful -situation in his scientific speculations. Thus, but a few -months after his daughter’s death, we find him rousing himself -and eagerly at work again on his masterpiece, the -“Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.”<a name="FNanchor_490" id="FNanchor_490"></a><a href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a> He also resumed his extensive -scientific correspondence, of which unfortunately, and -especially of the following year, 1635, the letters of his -correspondents only have mostly come down to us.<a name="FNanchor_491" id="FNanchor_491"></a><a href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[278]</a></span></p> - -<p>While the prisoner of Arcetri was thus eagerly fulfilling -his great mission to his age, his friends were exerting themselves -in vain to obtain at least an extension of his liberty. -The Count de Noailles, French ambassador at Rome, had -once attended Galileo’s lectures at Padua, and had become -so enthusiastic an adherent, that he afterwards told Castelli -that he must see Galileo once more before leaving Italy, even -if he walked fifty miles on purpose.<a name="FNanchor_492" id="FNanchor_492"></a><a href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> He therefore united his -efforts with Niccolini’s to obtain some amelioration for -Galileo. But in vain. At an audience which Niccolini had -on 8th December, 1634, Urban said indeed that he esteemed -Galileo very highly, and was well disposed towards -him; but all remained as before.<a name="FNanchor_493" id="FNanchor_493"></a><a href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a></p> - -<p>In the year 1634 the band of dauntless men, who again -and again ventured to attempt to obtain Galileo’s liberty -from the papal chair, was increased by the celebrated officer -of state and man of learning, Fabri von Peiresc. Like -Noailles, he had attended Galileo’s lectures at Padua,<a name="FNanchor_494" id="FNanchor_494"></a><a href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a> -had since been one of his most ardent admirers, and had -long maintained friendly intercourse with Cardinal Francesco -Barberini. Peiresc now interceded eagerly with this prelate -for Galileo, and even ventured openly to say, in a long and -pressing letter of 5th December, 1634, to Barberini:—<a name="FNanchor_495" id="FNanchor_495"></a><a href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a> ... -“Really such proceedings will be considered very harsh, and -far more so by posterity than at present, when no one, as it -appears, cares for anything but his own interests. Indeed, -it will be a blot upon the brilliance and renown of the pontificate -of Urban VIII., unless your Eminence resolves to -devote your special attention to this affair....” On<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[279]</a></span> -2nd January, 1635, Barberini wrote a long letter in reply,<a name="FNanchor_496" id="FNanchor_496"></a><a href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a> -in which he was prolix enough on many subjects, but about -Galileo he only made the dry remark, towards the end of the -letter, that he would not fail to speak to his Holiness about -it, but Peiresc must excuse him if, as a member of the Holy -Office, he did not go into the subject more particularly. In -spite of this, however, only four weeks later, Peiresc again -urged Barberini, in a letter of 31st January,<a name="FNanchor_497" id="FNanchor_497"></a><a href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a> to exert his -powerful influence on behalf of Galileo. Peiresc justified -his zeal by saying, “that it arose as much from regard for -the honour and good name of the present pontificate, as from -affection for the venerable and famous old man, Galileo; for -it might well happen, by a continuance of the harsh proceedings -against him, that some day posterity would compare -them with the persecutions to which Socrates was subjected.”<a name="FNanchor_498" id="FNanchor_498"></a><a href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a></p> - -<p>Galileo, who had received copies of these letters, thanked -Peiresc most warmly in a letter of 21st February, 1635, for -his noble though fruitless efforts, and added the following -remarkable words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“As I have said, I do not hope for any amelioration, and this because -I have not committed any crime. I might expect pardon and favour if -I had done wrong, for wrong-doing affords rulers occasion for the exercise -of clemency and pardon, while towards an innocent man under -condemnation, it behoves them to maintain the utmost severity, in order -to show that they have proceeded according to law. But believe me, -revered sir, and it will console you to know it, this troubles me less than -would be supposed, for two grounds of consolation continually come to -my aid: one of these is, that in looking all through my works, no one -can find the least shadow of anything which deviates from love and -veneration for the Holy Church; the other is my own conscience, which -can only be fully known to myself on earth and to God in heaven. He<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[280]</a></span> -knows that in the cause for which I suffer, many might have acted and -spoken with far more learning and knowledge, but no one, not even -among the holy fathers, with more piety and greater zeal for the Holy -Church, nor altogether with purer intentions. My sincerely religious, -pious spirit would only be the more apparent if the calumnies, intrigues, -stratagems, and deceptions, which were resorted to eighteen years ago -to deceive and blind the authorities, were brought to the light of day.”<a name="FNanchor_499" id="FNanchor_499"></a><a href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>If the issue of the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616 -were admitted, this letter would be a piece of hypocrisy -as glaring as it was purposeless; for in that case Galileo -would not have been an innocent man under condemnation, -who had committed no crime, and his conscience could not -have consoled him in his painful situation. What he wrote -to Peiresc about his religious spirit was also quite true, -Galileo really was a truly religious man; his own revolutionary -discoveries had not for a moment given rise to -any doubts in his mind of supernatural mysteries as taught -by the Roman Catholic Church. All his letters, even to -his most intimate friends, proclaim it indisputably. He also -perfectly well knew how to make his researches and their -results agree with the dogmas of his religion, as is clear -from his explanations to Castelli, Mgr. Dini, and the Grand -Duchess Christine. The strangest contradictions were continually -arising from this blending of a learned man striving -to search out the truths of nature, and a member of the -only true Church bound in the fetters of illusive credulity. -Thus, at the end of 1633, he did not hesitate to act in -opposition to his solemn oath, literally construed, by secretly -sending a copy of his condemned and prohibited “Dialogues” -to Diodati, at Paris, that they might be translated -into Latin, and thus be more widely circulated. In 1635 -the work really appeared in a Latin translation, from the -press of the Elzevirs, in Holland, edited by a Strasburg -professor, Mathias Bernegger, in order that no suspicion -might rest upon Galileo of having had anything to do with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[281]</a></span> -it.<a name="FNanchor_500" id="FNanchor_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> Such an act was very improper for a pious Catholic, -and Galileo really was one. In the following year, however, -he told his old friend, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, at Venice, -with great delight, that Bernegger had brought out by the -same publishers the Apology to the Grand Duchess Christine -of 1615, in Italian with a Latin translation. The secret -translator, concealed under the pseudonym of Ruberto -Robertini Borasso, was also Diodati.<a name="FNanchor_501" id="FNanchor_501"></a><a href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a> In a letter to -Micanzio, as well as in another of 12th July, Galileo expressed -an ardent wish that a large number of copies of it -might be introduced into Italy, “to shame his enemies and -calumniators.”<a name="FNanchor_502" id="FNanchor_502"></a><a href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> As we know, this letter to the Grand -Duchess contained nothing but a theological apology for -the Copernican system, so that what gratified Galileo so -much in its publication, was that the world would now -learn that he, who had been denounced as a heretic, had -always been an orthodox Christian, into whose head it had -never entered, as his enemies gave out, to attack the holy -faith. Martin is quite justified in saying that “the reputation -of a good Christian and true Catholic was as dear -to Galileo as that of a good astronomer.”<a name="FNanchor_503" id="FNanchor_503"></a><a href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a></p> - -<p>While Galileo was enjoying the twofold satisfaction of -seeing his “Dialogues” attain a wider circulation (they had -meanwhile been translated into English),<a name="FNanchor_504" id="FNanchor_504"></a><a href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a> and yet of being -acknowledged as a pious subject of the Roman Catholic -Church, the Count de Noailles continued his efforts at -Rome, before his approaching departure from Italy, to -obtain pardon for Galileo. Castelli, who, in consequence -of his too great devotion to Galileo and his system, had -been banished for three years from Urban’s presence, had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[282]</a></span> -at length, by the end of 1635, been taken into favour -again,<a name="FNanchor_505" id="FNanchor_505"></a><a href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> and reported faithfully to Galileo all the steps taken -to procure his liberty. The utmost caution had been exercised -in order to attain this end.<a name="FNanchor_506" id="FNanchor_506"></a><a href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a> Count Noailles and -Castelli had persuaded Cardinal Antonio Barberini, in -repeated interviews, that nothing had been further from -Galileo’s intention than to offend or make game of Urban -VIII., upon which the cardinal, at the request of the French -ambassador, promised to intercede with his papal brother -for Galileo. On 11th July Noailles made the same assurances -to the Pope at an audience, whereupon he exclaimed: -“Lo crediamo, lo crediamo!” (We believe it), and again said -that he was personally very well disposed to Galileo, and -had always liked him; but when Noailles began to speak -of his liberation, he said evasively that <i>this affair was of -the greatest moment to all Christendom</i>. The French diplomatist, -who knew Urban’s irritable temper, did not think -it advisable to press him further, and consoled himself for -the time, even after this cool reply, with the thought that -the brother cardinal had promised to use his good offices for -Galileo.</p> - -<p>Castelli informed Galileo in a letter of 12th July<a name="FNanchor_507" id="FNanchor_507"></a><a href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a> of all -this, and advised him to write a letter of thanks to Cardinal -Antonio for his kind intercession, which he at once did.<a name="FNanchor_508" id="FNanchor_508"></a><a href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a> -Noailles placed all his hopes on a farewell audience with -the Pope, in which he meant to ask for Galileo’s pardon. -On 8th August he drove for the last time to the Vatican. -Urban was very gracious, and when Galileo’s affairs were -introduced he even promised at last to bring the subject<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[283]</a></span> -before the Holy Congregation.<a name="FNanchor_509" id="FNanchor_509"></a><a href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a> Noailles told Cardinal -Antonio of this most favourable result with joyful emotion, -who said at once: “Good! good! and I will speak to all -the cardinals of the Holy Congregation.”<a name="FNanchor_510" id="FNanchor_510"></a><a href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a> They were apparently -justified in entertaining the most sanguine hopes, -but the future taught them that all this was nothing but -fair speeches with which Urban had taken leave of the -French ambassador. For there can be no doubt that if -the Pope, with his absolute power, had been in earnest -about Galileo’s liberation, the Congregation would not have -been slow to comply with his wishes. Galileo, however, -remained as before, a prisoner in his villa at Arcetri, which -he had meanwhile bought, and the papal favour, of which -a promise had been held out, was limited to allowing him, -at the end of September, to accept an invitation from the -Grand Duke to visit him at his Villa Mezzomonte, three -miles from Florence,<a name="FNanchor_511" id="FNanchor_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a> and on 16th October to leave his -place of exile for one day to greet the Count de Noailles, -at Poggibonsi, in passing through it on his way to France.<a name="FNanchor_512" id="FNanchor_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> -This was the extent of the papal clemency for the present, -and it was not till the old man was quite blind and -hopelessly ill, with one foot in the grave, that any humane -feeling was awakened for him at the Vatican.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[284]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="III_CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle Nuove -Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method of taking -Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered to Holland.—Discovery -of the Libration and Titubation of the Moon.—Visit from -Milton.—Becomes Blind.—Letter to Diodati.—On a hint from Castelli -petitions for his Liberty.—The Inquisitor to visit him and report to -Rome.—Permitted to live at Florence under Restrictions.—The -States-General appoint a Delegate to see him on the Longitude -Question.—The Inquisitor sends word of it to Rome.—Galileo not to -receive a Heretic.—Presents from the States-General refused from -fear of Rome.—Letter to Diodati.—Galileo supposed to be near his -End.—Request that Castelli might come to him.—Permitted under -Restrictions.—The new “Dialoghi” appear at Leyden, 1638.—They -founded Mechanical Physics.—Attract much Notice.—Improvement of -Health.—In 1639 goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo was unceasingly active in his seclusion at Arcetri. -In the year 1636 he completed his famous “Dialoghi delle -Nuove Scienze.”<a name="FNanchor_513" id="FNanchor_513"></a><a href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a> He also exerted himself, like a loving -father who wishes to see his children provided for before -he dies, about the preservation and republication of his -works which were quite out of print. But all these efforts -were frustrated by envy, ecclesiastical intolerance, and the -unfavourable times. His cherished scheme of bringing out -an edition of his collected works could neither be carried -out by the French mathematician, Carcavy, who had warmly -taken up the subject,<a name="FNanchor_514" id="FNanchor_514"></a><a href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a> nor by the Elzevirs through the -mediation of Micanzio.<a name="FNanchor_515" id="FNanchor_515"></a><a href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a> He had also to give up his project<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[285]</a></span> -of dedicating his “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze” to the -German Emperor, Ferdinand II., and of publishing them -at Vienna, as he learnt from his friend and former pupil -there, Giovanni Pieroni, that his implacable foes, the Jesuits, -were all-powerful; that Ferdinand himself was entirely under -their influence; and moreover that his bitterest foe, Father -Scheiner, was just then at Vienna.<a name="FNanchor_516" id="FNanchor_516"></a><a href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a> In the following year, -however (1637), Pieroni succeeded by his prudent and untiring -efforts, during the temporary absence of Scheiner, in -obtaining a licence for Galileo’s latest work,<a name="FNanchor_517" id="FNanchor_517"></a><a href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a> and afterwards -one at Olmütz also; but meanwhile he had sent the MS. -by Micanzio<a name="FNanchor_518" id="FNanchor_518"></a><a href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a> to be printed by the Elzevirs at Leyden, -and, under the circumstances described by Pieroni, he did -not prefer to bring out his book at a place where his -bitterest enemies were in power.</p> - -<p>He was at this time also deeply interested in a subject -which originated as far back as 1610. It had occurred to -him soon after the discovery of Jupiter’s moons, by a -series of observations of them, to make astronomical calculations -and tables which would enable him to predict every -year their configurations, their relative positions and occasional -eclipses with the utmost precision; this would furnish -the means of ascertaining the longitude of the point of observation -at any hour of the night, which appeared to be -of special importance to navigation. For hitherto the -eclipses of the sun and moon had had to be employed for -the purpose, which, however, on account of their rarity and -the want of precise calculation, were neither entirely to be -relied on nor sufficient. Galileo had offered his discovery,—the -practical value of which he overrated,—in 1612, to -the Spanish Government, and in 1616 tedious negotiations -were carried on about it, which however led to no result,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[286]</a></span> -were then postponed till 1620, and in 1630 entirely given -up.<a name="FNanchor_519" id="FNanchor_519"></a><a href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a> Now (August, 1636,) as he heard that the Dutch merchants -had even offered a premium of thirty thousand scudi -to any one who should invent a sure method of taking -longitudes at sea, he ventured, without the knowledge of -the Inquisition, to offer his invention to the Protestant -States-General. Diodati at Paris was the mediator in these -secret and ceremonious negotiations. On 11th November, -Galileo’s offer was entertained in the most flattering manner -in the Assembly of the States-General, and a commission -was appointed, consisting of the four <i>savans</i>, Realius, -Hortensius, Blavius, and Golius, to examine into the subject -and report upon it.<a name="FNanchor_520" id="FNanchor_520"></a><a href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a></p> - -<p>While Galileo was impatiently waiting for the decision -that was never come to, he made his last great telescopic -discovery, although suffering much in his eyes, that of -the libration and titubation of the moon, about which he -wrote his remarkable letter to Alfonso Antonini, bearing -the signal date: “Della mia carcere di Arcetri li 10 febbrajo -1637.”<a name="FNanchor_521" id="FNanchor_521"></a><a href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a></p> - -<p>The complaint in Galileo’s eyes grew rapidly worse. By -the end of June the sight of the right eye was gone, and -that of the other diminished with frightful rapidity from a -constant discharge.<a name="FNanchor_522" id="FNanchor_522"></a><a href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a> But in spite of this heavy calamity, -combined with his other sufferings, his interest in science -did not diminish for a moment. Even at this sad time -we find him carrying on a brisk correspondence with the -learned men of Germany, Holland, France, and Italy, continuing -his negotiations with the States-General with great -zest,<a name="FNanchor_523" id="FNanchor_523"></a><a href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a> as well as occupying himself perpetually with astronomy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[287]</a></span> -and physics. He was indeed often obliged to employ -the hand of another;<a name="FNanchor_524" id="FNanchor_524"></a><a href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a> but his mind worked on with -undiminished vigour, even though he was no longer able -to commit to paper himself the ideas that continually -occupied him.</p> - -<p>On 2nd September he received a visit from his sovereign, -who came to console and encourage him in his pitiable -situation.<a name="FNanchor_525" id="FNanchor_525"></a><a href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a> A few months later an unknown young man, -of striking appearance from his handsome face and the unmistakable -evidences which genius always exhibits, knocked -at the door of the solitary villa at Arcetri: it was Milton, -then twenty-nine years of age, who, travelling in Italy, -sought out the old man of world-wide fame to testify his -veneration.<a name="FNanchor_526" id="FNanchor_526"></a><a href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a></p> - -<p>In December of the same year Galileo became permanently -quite blind, and informed Diodati of his calamity -on 2nd January, 1638, in the following words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In reply to your very acceptable letter of 20th November, I inform -you, in reference to your inquiries about my health, that I am somewhat -stronger than I have been of late, but alas! revered sir, Galileo, your devoted -friend and servant, has been for a month totally and incurably blind; -so that this heaven, this earth, this universe, which by my remarkable observations -and clear demonstrations I have enlarged a hundred, nay, a -thousand fold beyond the limits universally accepted by the learned men -of all previous ages, are now shrivelled up for me into such narrow compass -that it only extends to the space occupied by my person.”<a name="FNanchor_527" id="FNanchor_527"></a><a href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Up to the time when Galileo entirely lost his sight, absolutely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[288]</a></span> -nothing had been able to be done for his liberation -at Rome. Even the faithful Castelli wrote on 12th September, -to Galileo’s son Vincenzo, that he had not been -able to do anything whatever for his father; but he piously -adds, “I do not fail every morning at holy mass to pray -the Divine Majesty to comfort him, to help him, and to -grant him His Divine grace.”<a name="FNanchor_528" id="FNanchor_528"></a><a href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a> This precisely indicates the -hopeless state of Galileo’s affairs. Just then, during the -first few days of December of the same year, darkness closed -round him for ever; and not long afterwards, 12th December, -Castelli suddenly wrote to him, that he had been -given to understand that Galileo had not been forbidden -in 1634 to send petitions <i>direct</i> to the Holy Office, but -only through other persons.<a name="FNanchor_529" id="FNanchor_529"></a><a href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> When the decided papal rescript -of 23rd March, 1634,<a name="FNanchor_530" id="FNanchor_530"></a><a href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> is compared with this curious -interpretation of it, there can be no doubt that it was intended -to enable the curia to take a more lenient view -without direct collision with a former mandate. Galileo -at once sent Castelli’s letter to the Tuscan Court, with -a request for instructions, as he did not wish to do anything -without the concurrence of his sovereign.<a name="FNanchor_531" id="FNanchor_531"></a><a href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a> He was -informed that he had better draw up a petition to the -Holy Office, and get it handed in at Rome through Castelli.<a name="FNanchor_532" id="FNanchor_532"></a><a href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a> -The latter had meanwhile informed himself under -what formalities Galileo should make his request, and sent -him on 19th January, 1638,<a name="FNanchor_533" id="FNanchor_533"></a><a href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a> a draught of the petition, with -the remark that it must be sent, together with a medical -certificate, direct to the assessor of the Congregation of the -Holy Office; this Galileo immediately did. The petition -was as follows:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[289]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Galileo Galilei, most humble servant of your most worthy Eminence, -most respectfully showeth that whereas, by command of the Holy Congregation, -he was imprisoned outside Florence four years ago, and after -long and dangerous illness, as the enclosed medical certificate testifies, -has entirely lost his eyesight, and therefore stands in urgent need of -medical care: he appeals to the mercy of your most worthy Eminences, -urgently intreating them in this most miserable condition and at his -advanced age to grant him the blessing of his liberty.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The utmost caution was exercised at Rome before granting -this petition. No confidence was placed in the medical -certificate; but the Inquisitor-General of Florence, -Father Fanano, was instructed to visit Galileo and to make -an exact report of his health, and whether it was to be -feared, if he lived at Florence, that he would promote the -propagation of his errors.<a name="FNanchor_534" id="FNanchor_534"></a><a href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a> Fanano at once conscientiously -executed his commission, and on 13th February, 1638, sent -the following report to Cardinal Francesco Barberini:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In order the better to execute his Holiness’s commission, I went myself, -accompanied by a strange physician, an intimate friend of mine, to see -Galileo, quite unexpectedly, at his villa at Arcetri, to find out the state he -was in. My idea was not so much by this mode of proceeding to put myself -in a position to report on the nature of his ailments, as to gain an insight -into the studies and occupations he is carrying on, that I might be -able to judge whether he was in a condition, if he returned to Florence, -to propagate the condemned doctrine of the double motion of the earth -by speeches at meetings. I found him deprived of his eyesight, entirely -blind; he hopes for a cure, as the cataract only formed six months ago, -but at his age of seventy the physician considers it incurable. He has -besides a severe rupture, and suffers from continual weariness of life -and sleeplessness, which as he asserts, and it is confirmed by the inmates -of his house, does not permit him one hour’s sound sleep in the -twenty-four. He is besides so reduced that he looks more like a corpse -than a living man. The villa is a long way from the city, and the access -is inconvenient, so that Galileo can but seldom, and with much inconvenience -and expense, have medical aid.<a name="FNanchor_535" id="FNanchor_535"></a><a href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a> His studies are interrupted by his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[290]</a></span> -blindness, though he is read to sometimes; intercourse with him is not -much sought after, as in his poor state of health he can generally only -complain of his sufferings and talk of his ailments to occasional visitors. -I think, therefore, in consideration of this, if his Holiness, in his boundless -mercy, should think him worthy, and would allow him to live in Florence, -he would have no opportunity of holding meetings, and if he had, he is -so prostrated that I think it would suffice, in order to make quite sure, to -keep him in check by an emphatic warning. This is what I have to -report to your Eminence.”<a name="FNanchor_536" id="FNanchor_536"></a><a href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This report at last opened the eyes of Urban VIII. as -to Galileo’s real condition. The cry of distress from the -blind old man, approaching dissolution, was too well justified -to be wholly ignored, and a partial hearing was given -to it at all events, at a sitting of the Congregation held on -25th February, under the presidency of the Pope.<a name="FNanchor_537" id="FNanchor_537"></a><a href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a> But a -full release, in spite of the information that Galileo was -more like a corpse than a living man, still appeared too -dangerous to be ventured on. On 9th March Galileo received -from the Inquisitor-General, Father Fanano, the following -communication:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“His Holiness is willing to allow you to remove from your villa to the -house which you own in Florence, in order that you may be cured of your -illness here. But on your arrival in the city you must immediately repair, -or be taken, to the buildings of the Holy Office, that you may learn from -me what I must do and prescribe for your advantage.”<a name="FNanchor_538" id="FNanchor_538"></a><a href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo availed himself of the permission to return to his -little house, Via della Costa, at Florence, on the very next -day. Here the Inquisitor-General, as charged by the Holy -Office, informed him, “for his advantage,” of the order, <i>not -to go out in the city under pain of actual imprisonment for -life and excommunication, and not to speak with any one -whomsoever of the condemned opinion of the double motion of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[291]</a></span> -the earth</i>.<a name="FNanchor_539" id="FNanchor_539"></a><a href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a> It was also enjoined upon him not to receive -any suspicious visitors.</p> - -<p>It is characteristic of the mode of proceeding of the Inquisition, -that Fanano set Galileo’s own son, who was nursing -him with the tenderest affection, to watch over him. The Inquisitor -enjoined upon Vincenzo to see that the above orders -were strictly obeyed, and especially to take care that his -father’s visitors never stayed long. He remarks, in a report -to Francesco Barberini of 10th March, that Vincenzo could -be trusted, “for he is very much obliged for the favour -granted to his father to be medically treated at Florence, -and fears that the least offence might entail the loss of it; -but it is very much to his own interest that his father -should behave properly and keep up as long as possible, -for with his death a thousand scudi will go, which the -Grand Duke allows him annually.” In the opinion of the -worthy Father Fanano, then, the son must be anxious for -his father’s life for the sake of the thousand scudi! In the -same letter the Inquisitor assured Barberini that he would -himself keep a sharp look out that his Holiness’s orders -were strictly obeyed, which, as we shall soon see, he did -not fail to do.</p> - -<p>Galileo’s confinement in Florence was so rigorous that -at Easter a special permission from the Inquisition was -required to allow him to go to the little Church of San -Giorgio, very near his house, to confess, to communicate, -and to perform his Easter devotions,<a name="FNanchor_540" id="FNanchor_540"></a><a href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a> and even this permission -only extended expressly to the Thursday, Good -Friday, Saturday, and Easter Sunday.<a name="FNanchor_541" id="FNanchor_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> On the other hand, -as appears from the dates of his letters,<a name="FNanchor_542" id="FNanchor_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> he was allowed,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[292]</a></span> -during June, July, and August, to go several times to and -fro between his villa at Arcetri and Florence.</p> - -<p>Galileo was now once more to discover how rigidly he was -watched by the Inquisition. His negotiations with the -States-General, in spite of the urgent intercession of such -men as Diodati, Hortensius, Hugo Grotius, Realius, Constantine -Huyghens (Secretary of the Prince of Orange, and -father of the celebrated Christian Huyghens), and others, had -not led to any result. His proposed method of taking longitudes -at sea, well worked out as it was theoretically, presented -many difficulties in practical application. His methods -of precisely determining the smallest portions of time, and -of overcoming the obstacles occasioned by the motion of the -vessel, did not prove to be adequate.<a name="FNanchor_543" id="FNanchor_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a> He had endeavoured, -in a long letter to Realius of 6th June, 1637,<a name="FNanchor_544" id="FNanchor_544"></a><a href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a> to dismiss or -refute all the objections that had been made; but this did -not suffice, and although the States-General acknowledged -his proposal in the main in the most handsome terms, even -accepted it, and offered him a special distinction (of which -presently), it appeared necessary to have some personal consultation -on the subject with the inventor. For this purpose, -Hortensius, who had also a great desire to make Galileo’s -acquaintance, was to go to Florence.<a name="FNanchor_545" id="FNanchor_545"></a><a href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a> The Inquisitor-General -heard that a delegate was coming from Germany -to confer with Galileo on the subject. He at once reported -this on 26th June to Rome,<a name="FNanchor_546" id="FNanchor_546"></a><a href="#Footnote_546" class="fnanchor">[546]</a> whence he received instructions -under date of 13th July from the Congregation of the Holy -Office, that Galileo <i>must not receive the delegate if he were of -a heretical religion, or from a heretical country</i>, and the Inquisitor -will please communicate this to Galileo; on the -other hand, there was nothing to prevent the interview <i>if the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[293]</a></span> -person came from a Catholic country, and himself belonged to -the Catholic religion</i>; only, in accordance with the previous -regulations, the doctrine of the double motion of the earth -must not be spoken of.<a name="FNanchor_547" id="FNanchor_547"></a><a href="#Footnote_547" class="fnanchor">[547]</a></p> - -<p>A few days after the Inquisitor had delivered his instructions -to Galileo, the German merchants of the name of Ebers -residing in Florence, presented him in the name of the Dutch -Government with a very flattering letter, and a heavy gold -chain, as a recognition of his proposals and a pledge of the -ultimate adjustment of the negotiations. The envoys of the -States-General found Galileo very ill in bed, his blinded eyes -continually running and very much inflamed. He <i>felt</i> the -gold chain, which he could not see, and had the letter read -to him. He then handed the chain back to the merchants, -on the plea that he could not keep it now, as the negotiations -had been interrupted by his illness and loss of sight, and he -did not at all know whether he should ever be in a position -to carry them through.<a name="FNanchor_548" id="FNanchor_548"></a><a href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a> The real motive, however, was nothing -but fear of the Inquisition,<a name="FNanchor_549" id="FNanchor_549"></a><a href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a> and as the sequel showed, -he was quite right. Fanano sent a report on 25th July of -all these circumstances to Cardinal Barberini at Rome. It -is so characteristic that we cannot refrain from giving it:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The person who was to come to see Galileo has neither appeared in -Florence, nor is likely to appear, so far as I am informed; but I have -not yet been able to learn whether in consequence of some hindrance on -the journey or from some other cause. I know, however, that presents -for Galileo and a letter to him have come to some merchants here. A -highly estimable person, who is in my confidence, and has spoken with the -person who has the presents and letter in charge, told me that both bear -the seal of the Dutch Government; the presents are in a case, and -may be gold or silver work. Galileo has steadily refused to accept -either the letter or the presents, whether from fear of incurring some -danger, on account of the warning I gave him on the first news of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[294]</a></span> -expected arrival of an envoy, or whether because he really could not -perfect his method of taking longitudes at sea, and is not in a state to do -it; for he is now quite blind, and his head is more in the grave than fit -for mathematical studies. Insurmountable difficulties had also occurred -in the use of the instruments indicated by him. Besides, it is said here, -that if he had fully brought his plan to perfection, his Highness (Ferdinand -II. of Tuscany) would never have permitted it to pass into the -hands of renegades, heretics, or enemies of the allies of his house. This -is what I have to report to your Eminence.”<a name="FNanchor_550" id="FNanchor_550"></a><a href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The news that Galileo had not accepted the distinction -offered him by the Dutch Government gave great satisfaction -at Rome; and Urban VIII. even charged the Inquisitor -at Florence, by a mandate of 5th August, to express to -Galileo the gratification of the Holy Congregation at his -conduct in this affair.<a name="FNanchor_551" id="FNanchor_551"></a><a href="#Footnote_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a></p> - -<p>About this time he was sunk so low, physically as well -as mentally, that he and every one thought his dissolution -was at hand. In a letter to Diodati of 7th August, in which -he told him of his interview with the German merchants at -Florence, he expressed the fear that “if his sufferings increased -as they had done during the last three or four days, -he would not even be able to dictate letters.”<a name="FNanchor_552" id="FNanchor_552"></a><a href="#Footnote_552" class="fnanchor">[552]</a> He added, -perhaps in reference to the Inquisitor’s intimation of 13th -July: “It would be a fruitless undertaking if Signor Hortensius -were to take the trouble to come and see me, for -if he found me living (which I do not believe), I should -be quite unable to give him the least satisfaction.”</p> - -<p>His profound vexation about the regulations imposed -upon him in this matter by the Roman curia is very -evident in a letter to Diodati of 14th August. He writes:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“As ill luck would have it, the Holy Office came to know of the negotiations -I was carrying on about the geographical longitude with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[295]</a></span> -States-General, which may do me the greatest injury. I am extremely -obliged to you for having induced Signor Hortensius to give up his -intended journey, and thereby averted some calamity from me which -would probably have been in store for me if he had come. It is indeed -true that these negotiations ought not to do me any harm, for the just -and obvious reasons that you mention, but rather to bring me fame and -honour, if my circumstances were but like those of other men, that is, if -I were not pursued by misfortune more than others. But having been -often and often convinced by experience of the tricks fate plays me, I -can but expect from its obstinate perfidy, that what would be an advantage -to any one else will never bring anything but harm to me. But even -in this bitter adversity I do not lose my peace of mind, for it would be -but idle audacity to oppose inexorable destiny.”<a name="FNanchor_553" id="FNanchor_553"></a><a href="#Footnote_553" class="fnanchor">[553]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Galileo, who thought his hours were numbered, dictated -his will on 21st August, in the presence of a notary and -witnesses, and directed that he should be buried in the -family vault of the Galilei in the Church of Santa Croce -at Florence.<a name="FNanchor_554" id="FNanchor_554"></a><a href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a> On 8th September the Grand Duke paid the -dying astronomer, as was supposed, a visit of two hours, -and himself handed him his medicine.<a name="FNanchor_555" id="FNanchor_555"></a><a href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a></p> - -<p>It had been for a long time a cherished wish of Galileo’s -to have with him during the evening of his days his most -devoted and favourite disciple, Father Castelli.<a name="FNanchor_556" id="FNanchor_556"></a><a href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a> But the -professorship which he held at Rome made the attainment -of this wish difficult. As it was now supposed that a speedy -death would deprive the world of the great philosopher, -the Grand Duke requested through Niccolini at Rome that -Castelli might come to Florence, for a few months at least, -that he might yet receive from the lips of his dying master -many ideas of importance for science, which he might not -perhaps confide to any but his trusted friend.<a name="FNanchor_557" id="FNanchor_557"></a><a href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a> After some -difficulties were surmounted, he actually received the papal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[296]</a></span> -consent, but only on condition that a third person should -always be present during the conversations with Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_558" id="FNanchor_558"></a><a href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a> -Early in October Castelli arrived in Florence, where the -Inquisitor-General, as charged by the Holy Office, gave -him permission to visit Galileo, with the express prohibition, -<i>under pain of excommunication, to converse with him on the -condemned doctrine of the earth’s double motion</i>.<a name="FNanchor_559" id="FNanchor_559"></a><a href="#Footnote_559" class="fnanchor">[559]</a> The permission, -however, to visit Galileo seems to have been very -limited, for Castelli repeatedly wrote to Cardinal Francesco -Barberini, with the most urgent entreaties to obtain an -extension of it for him from the Pope. Castelli protests in -this letter that he would rather lose his life than converse -with Galileo on subjects forbidden by the Church. He -gives as a reason for the need of more frequent interviews -that he had received from the Grand Duke the twofold -charge to minister to Galileo in spiritual matters, and to -inform himself fully about the tables and ephemerides of -the Medicean stars, because the Prince Giovanni Carlo, Lord -High Admiral, was to take this discovery to Spain.<a name="FNanchor_560" id="FNanchor_560"></a><a href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a> The -cardinal replied that in consideration of these circumstances, -Urban VIII. granted permission for more frequent visits -to Galileo, under the known conditions;<a name="FNanchor_561" id="FNanchor_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a> but the official -permission, was not issued until about November.<a name="FNanchor_562" id="FNanchor_562"></a><a href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a> -Nothing is known in history, however, of the Lord High -Admiral’s having ever taken Galileo’s method of taking -longitudes to the Peninsula.</p> - -<p>During the same year (1638), the Elzevirs at Leyden -issued Galileo’s famous work: “Discourses on and Demonstrations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[297]</a></span> -of Two New Sciences appertaining to Mechanics -and Motion.”<a name="FNanchor_563" id="FNanchor_563"></a><a href="#Footnote_563" class="fnanchor">[563]</a> This work, known under the abridged title, -“Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” was dedicated to the Count -de Noailles, in grateful remembrance of the warm interest -which he had always shown in the author.<a name="FNanchor_564" id="FNanchor_564"></a><a href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a> It is the most -copious and best of all Galileo’s writings, and he himself -valued it more highly than any of the others.<a name="FNanchor_565" id="FNanchor_565"></a><a href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a> In it he -created the new sciences of the doctrine of cohesion in -stationary bodies, and their resistance when torn asunder; -also that of phoronomics, and thereby opened up new -paths in a field of science that had been lying fallow. He -must, indeed, be regarded as the real founder of mechanical -physics. It is not our province to enter farther into the -contents of this work, or its importance for science. It -has, however, some significance in our historical review of -Galileo’s relations with the curia, for it excited immense -attention in all learned circles, and increasingly attracted -the notice of the scientific world to the prisoner of the -Inquisition. This was by no means agreeable to the Romanists, -who would have been glad to see him sink into -oblivion. Galileo now again received communications from -all countries, some of them expressing the highest admiration -of his new work, and others asking more information -on many of the theories expounded. And we now behold -the shattered old man of seventy-four, only partially recovered -from his severe illness, carrying on an extensive -correspondence full of the most abstruse problems in physics -and mathematics.<a name="FNanchor_566" id="FNanchor_566"></a><a href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a></p> - -<p>In January, 1639, as his health had so far improved as to -allow the hope to be indulged that he might be spared some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[298]</a></span> -time longer, he returned to his villa at Arcetri, not to leave it -again alive. Was this move a voluntary one? We have no -document which finally settles the question. But we hold -ourselves justified in doubting it. Not only because it is -difficult to reconcile a voluntary return to Arcetri with his -previous efforts to obtain permission to reside in Florence, -but there is a later letter from him bearing the expressive -date: “From the Villa Arcetri, my perpetual prison and -place of exile from the city.”<a name="FNanchor_567" id="FNanchor_567"></a><a href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a> And when the wife of -Buonamici, who was distinguished for her mental powers, -gave him a pressing invitation to Prato, which is only four -miles from Florence, he reminds her in his reply of 6th April, -1641, that “he was still a prisoner here for reasons which -her husband was well aware of”; he then presses her to visit -him at Arcetri, adding: “Do not make any excuses, nor fear -that any unpleasantness may accrue to me from it, for I do -not trouble myself much how this interview may be judged -by certain persons, as I am accustomed to bearing many -heavy burdens as if they were quite light.”<a name="FNanchor_568" id="FNanchor_568"></a><a href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a> From such -utterances it is clear that Galileo had little pleasure in -residing at Arcetri, and that therefore his second banishment -from Florence was not voluntary, but was the result -of a papal order.<a name="FNanchor_569" id="FNanchor_569"></a><a href="#Footnote_569" class="fnanchor">[569]</a></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[299]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="III_CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>LAST YEARS AND DEATH.</i></span></h3> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p>Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious Resignation.—Continues -his scientific Researches.—His pupil Viviani.—Failure of attempt -to renew Negotiations about Longitudes.—Reply to Liceti and Correspondence -with him.—Last Discussion of the Copernican System in -reply to Rinuccini.—Sketch of its Contents.—Pendulum Clocks.—Priority -of the discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from Castelli.—Torricelli -joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his Deathbed.—Death, 8th Jan., -1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian Burial.—Monument objected to -by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. fears to offend him.—Buried quietly.—No -Inscription till thirty-two years later.—First Public Monument -erected by Viviani in 1693.—Viviani directs his Heirs to erect one in -Santa Croce.—Erected in 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican -System.—In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the Clause in Decree forbidding -Books which teach the new System to be expunged.—In 1820 -permission given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s Work and others -not expunged from the Index till 1835.</p> - -</div> - -<p>We now come to the last three years of Galileo’s life.</p> - -<p>From two documents published by Professor Gherardi,<a name="FNanchor_570" id="FNanchor_570"></a><a href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a> we -learn that in 1639 Galileo once more asked at Rome for some -favours not specified, but that they were absolutely refused -by the Pope. From this time Galileo came no further into -direct contact with the Roman curia. He had been compelled -to give up all hope of any amelioration of his lot from -the implacable Urban VIII. So he ended his days quietly -and resigned, as the prisoner of the Inquisition, in his villa at -Arcetri. Castelli also, who (as his letters to Galileo of 1639 -bear witness)<a name="FNanchor_571" id="FNanchor_571"></a><a href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a> had warmly exerted himself on his behalf with -Cardinal Barberini and other influential persons, had probably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[300]</a></span> -come to the conclusion that nothing more could be -done for his unfortunate friend, for from this time we find -nothing in his letters to Galileo but scientific disquisitions -and spiritual consolations.<a name="FNanchor_572" id="FNanchor_572"></a><a href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a></p> - -<p>This indicates the two interests which occupied the latest -period of Galileo’s life—deep piety and scientific meditations. -His utter hopelessness and pious resignation are very clearly -expressed in the brief sentence he used often to write to -Castelli: “Piace cosi a Dio, dere piacere cosi ancora a Noi.”<a name="FNanchor_573" id="FNanchor_573"></a><a href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a> -(If it please God, it ought also to please us.) He never -omitted in any letter to his old friend and pupil to commend -himself in conclusion to his prayers,<a name="FNanchor_574" id="FNanchor_574"></a><a href="#Footnote_574" class="fnanchor">[574]</a> and in his letter of 3rd -December, 1639, he added: “I remind you to persevere in -your prayers to the all-merciful and loving God, that He will -cast out the bitter hatred from the hearts of my malicious -and unhappy persecutors.”</p> - -<p>The lofty genius with which nature had endowed Galileo -never displayed itself in so striking and surprising a manner -as during these last three years. No sooner were his physical -sufferings in some measure relieved, than he occupied himself -in scientific speculations, the results of which he partly communicated -to his great pupil and subsequent biographer, -Viviani, by word of mouth, and partly dictated them to some -of those about him. The society of young Viviani, then -eighteen years of age, who, by permission of the Inquisition, -spent the last two years and a half of the old master’s life -near him,<a name="FNanchor_575" id="FNanchor_575"></a><a href="#Footnote_575" class="fnanchor">[575]</a> was the greatest comfort to him, and he conceived -a fatherly affection for the talented youth. We owe it partly -to the assistance and stimulus given by Viviani that the aged -Galileo worked on to the end in improving and enlarging his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[301]</a></span> -“Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,” made a number of additions, -and added new evidence of great importance to science in two -supplementary dialogues.<a name="FNanchor_576" id="FNanchor_576"></a><a href="#Footnote_576" class="fnanchor">[576]</a></p> - -<p>During this last period of his life also, he again took up the -negotiations with the States-General, broken off by his severe -illness in 1638. After he became blind he had given up all -his writings, calculations, and astronomical tables relating to -the Medicean stars, to his old pupil, Father Vincenzo Renieri, -in order that he might carry them further; he was well adapted -for the task, and executed it with equal skill and zeal.<a name="FNanchor_577" id="FNanchor_577"></a><a href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a> -The new ephemerides were just about to be sent to Hortensius, -when Diodati informed Galileo of his sudden death in a -letter of 28th October, 1639.<a name="FNanchor_578" id="FNanchor_578"></a><a href="#Footnote_578" class="fnanchor">[578]</a> The three other commissioners -charged by the States-General with the investigation of -Galileo’s proposal having also died one after another, in -quick succession, it was difficult to resume the negotiations. -The interest of the Netherlanders in Galileo’s scheme (perhaps -from its acknowledged imperfection) had also evidently -cooled, and his proposal to replace the commissioners was -not carried out, although he offered to send Renieri to -Holland to give all needful explanations by word of mouth. -Galileo’s death then put an end to these fruitless negotiations.<a name="FNanchor_579" id="FNanchor_579"></a><a href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a></p> - -<p>At the beginning of 1640 Fortunio Liceti, a former pupil of -Galileo’s, published a book on the phosphorescent Bolognian -stone. In the fiftieth chapter of this work he treats of the -faint light of the side of the moon not directly illuminated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[302]</a></span> -by the sun, and rejects the view advocated by Galileo in his -“Sidereus Nuntius,” that it arises from a reflection of the -sun’s rays striking our earth, which the earth reflects to our -satellite, who again reflects them to us. Galileo was undecided -whether it were not best to take no notice of Liceti’s -objections, the scientific value of which he did not estimate -very highly, when a letter from Prince Leopold de’ Medici, -brother of the reigning Grand Duke, relieved him of his -doubts.<a name="FNanchor_580" id="FNanchor_580"></a><a href="#Footnote_580" class="fnanchor">[580]</a> This prince, who has gained a permanent name in -the history of science by founding the celebrated “Accadémia -del Cimento,” invited Galileo to give him his views on -Liceti’s objections.<a name="FNanchor_581" id="FNanchor_581"></a><a href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a> This challenge sufficed to rouse all the -blind old man’s dialectic skill, though he was then seventy-six -and bowed down by mental and bodily sufferings. He -dictated a reply, in the form of a letter to Prince Leopold, -which occupies fifty large pages in the extant edition of his -“Opere,” and in fire, spirit, mastery of language, and crushing -argument, it is quite a match for the most famous controversial -works of his manhood.<a name="FNanchor_582" id="FNanchor_582"></a><a href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a></p> - -<p>A most interesting direct correspondence then ensued between -Galileo and Liceti, which was carried on from June, -1640, to January, 1641, in which not this question only was -discussed, but Galileo took occasion to express his opinions, -with great spirit and learning, on the modern Peripatetic -school and philosophy, on Aristotle himself, and his fanatical -followers. These letters of the venerable hero of science are -characterised by ostensible politeness pervaded by cutting -irony, which makes them instructive and stimulating reading.<a name="FNanchor_583" id="FNanchor_583"></a><a href="#Footnote_583" class="fnanchor">[583]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[303]</a></span></p> - -<p>Ten months before his death, thanks to an indiscreet -question from one of his former pupils, a last opportunity -occurred of speaking of the Copernican system. Francesco -Rinuccini, Tuscan resident at Venice, and afterwards Bishop -of Pistoja, having apparently forgotten that the master had -solemnly abjured that opinion, and had even been compelled -to promise to denounce its adherents wherever he met with -them to the Inquisition, informed him in a letter of 23rd -March, 1641,<a name="FNanchor_584" id="FNanchor_584"></a><a href="#Footnote_584" class="fnanchor">[584]</a> that the mathematician Pieroni asserted that -he had discovered by means of the telescope a small parallax -of a few seconds in some of the fixed stars, which -would place the correctness of the Copernican system -beyond all question. Rinuccini then goes on to say, in -the same breath, that he had lately seen the manuscript -of a book about to appear, which contained an objection -to the new doctrine, and made it appear very doubtful. It -was this: because we see exactly one half of the firmament, -it follows inevitably that the earth is the centre of the -starry heavens. Rinuccini begs Galileo to clear up these -doubts for him, and to help him to a more certain opinion.</p> - -<p>This was the impulse to Galileo’s letter of 29th March, -1641,<a name="FNanchor_585" id="FNanchor_585"></a><a href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a> which, as Alfred Von Reumont truly says,<a name="FNanchor_586" id="FNanchor_586"></a><a href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a> whether -jest or mask, had better never have been written. There is -no doubt that it must not be taken in its literal sense. -Precisely the same tactics are followed as in the letter which -accompanied the “Treatise on the Tides,” to the Grand Duke -of Austria in 1618, and in many passages of the “Dialogues -on the Two Systems.” Galileo conceals his real -opinions behind a thick veil, through which the truth is -only penetrable by the initiated. The cautious course he -pursued in this perilous answer to Rinuccini is as clever -as it is ingenious, and appears appropriate to his circumstances; -but it does not produce a pleasant impression,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[304]</a></span> -and for the sake of the great man’s memory, one would -prefer to leave the subject untouched.</p> - -<p>We will now examine this interesting letter more closely. -When we call to mind the disquisitions on the relation -of Scripture to science, which Galileo wrote to Castelli in -1613, and to the Grand Duchess Christine in 1615, the -very beginning is a misrepresentation only excusable on -the ground of urgent necessity. He says: “The incorrectness -of the Copernican system should not in any case -be doubted, especially by us Catholics, for the inviolable -authority of Holy Scripture is opposed to it, as interpreted -by the greatest teachers of theology, whose unanimous -declaration makes the stability of the earth in the centre, -and the revolution of the sun round it, a certainty. The -grounds on which Copernicus and his followers have maintained -the contrary fall to pieces before the fundamental -argument of the Divine omnipotence. For since this is -able to effect by many, aye, endless means, what, so far -as we can see, only appears practicable by one method, -we must not limit the hand of God and persist obstinately -in anything in which we may have been mistaken.<a name="FNanchor_587" id="FNanchor_587"></a><a href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a> And -as I hold the Copernican observations and conclusions to -be insufficient, those of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and their followers -appear to me <i>far more delusive and mistaken, because -their falsity can clearly be proved without going beyond the -limits of human knowledge</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_588" id="FNanchor_588"></a><a href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">[588]</a></p> - -<p>After this introduction Galileo proceeds to answer Rinuccini’s -question. He treats that argument against the Copernican -system as delusive, and says that it originates in -the assumption that the earth stands still in the centre, and -by no means from precise astronomical observation. <i>He<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[305]</a></span> -refutes, therefore, the scientific objection to the new doctrine.</i> -Speaking of the assumed discovery of Pieroni, he says, -that if it should be confirmed, however small the parallax -may be, <i>human science must draw the conclusion from it -that the earth cannot be stationary in the centre</i>. But in -order to weaken this dangerous sentence, he hastens to add, -that if Pieroni might be mistaken in thinking that he had -discovered such a parallax of a few seconds, those might -be still more mistaken who think they can observe that -the visible hemisphere never varies, not even one or two -seconds; for such an exact and certain observation is utterly -impossible, partly from the insufficiency of the astronomical -instruments, and partly from the refraction of the rays of -light.</p> - -<p>As will be seen, Galileo takes great care to show the -futility of the new arguments brought into the field against -the Copernican system. It therefore seems very strange -that some writers, and among them the well-known Italian -historian, Cesare Cantu, suppose from this letter that at -the close of his life Galileo had really renounced the prohibited -doctrine from profound conviction!<a name="FNanchor_589" id="FNanchor_589"></a><a href="#Footnote_589" class="fnanchor">[589]</a> The introduction, -and many passages thrown in in this cautious refutation, -must, as Albèri and Henri Martin justly observe, -be regarded as fiction, the author having the Inquisition in -view; it had recently given a striking proof of its watchfulness -by forbidding the author of a book called “De -Pitagorea animarum transmigratione,” to apply the epithet -“clarissimus” to Galileo, and it had only with great difficulty -been persuaded to permit “notissimus Galileus”!<a name="FNanchor_590" id="FNanchor_590"></a><a href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">[590]</a></p> - -<p>A short time before the close of Galileo’s brilliant scientific -career, in spite of age, blindness, and sickness, he once more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[306]</a></span> -gave striking evidence of the genius which could only be -quenched by death. It will be remembered that the inadequacy -of his proposed chronometer had been the chief -obstacle to the acceptance by the States-General of his -method of taking longitudes at sea. Now, in the second half -of the year 1641, it occurred to him, as is confirmed beyond -question by Viviani, who was present,<a name="FNanchor_591" id="FNanchor_591"></a><a href="#Footnote_591" class="fnanchor">[591]</a> though the idea is -generally ascribed to Christian Huyghens, of adding a -pendulum to the then very imperfect clocks, as regulator -of their motion. As this was sixteen years before Huyghens -made known his invention of pendulum clocks, priority -indisputably belongs to Galileo. But it was only permitted -to the blind master to conceive the great idea—he was not -to carry it out. It was his intention to employ the eyes -and hands of his son Vincenzo, a very clever mechanician, -to put his idea in practice, and he told him of his plan. -Vincenzo was to make the necessary drawings according -to his father’s instructions, and to construct models accordingly. -But in the midst of these labours Galileo fell ill, -and this time he did not recover.<a name="FNanchor_592" id="FNanchor_592"></a><a href="#Footnote_592" class="fnanchor">[592]</a> His faithful pupil, Castelli, -who probably foresaw the speedy dissolution of the -revered old man, came to see him about the end of September, -1641. In October, on the repeated and urgent -invitation of Galileo, Torricelli joined Castelli and Viviani, -not to leave the Villa Arcetri until they left it with Galileo’s -coffin. Torricelli was then thirty-three, and the old master -had discerned his eminent talents from a treatise on the -theory of motion which he had sent him.<a name="FNanchor_593" id="FNanchor_593"></a><a href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">[593]</a> Castelli was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[307]</a></span> -not permitted to stay till the close. At the beginning of -November he had to return to Rome, leaving Galileo, Torricelli, -and Viviani eagerly occupied with the completion of -the “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.”</p> - -<p>On 5th November Galileo was attacked by an insidious -hectic fever, which slowly but surely brought him to the -grave.<a name="FNanchor_594" id="FNanchor_594"></a><a href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">[594]</a> Violent pains in his limbs threw him on a sick -bed, from which he did not rise again. In spite of all -these sufferings, which were augmented by constant palpitation -of the heart and almost entire sleeplessness, his active -mind scarcely rested for a moment, and he spent the long -hours of perpetual darkness in constant scientific conversation -and discussions with Torricelli and Viviani, who noted -down the last utterances of the dying man with pious care. -As they chiefly related to the “Dialoghi delle Nuove -Scienze,” they are to be found in the two supplementary -Dialogues added to that work.</p> - -<p>On 8th January, 1642, the year of Newton’s birth, having -received the last sacraments and the benediction of Urban -VIII., Galileo breathed his last, at the age of nearly seventy-eight -years. His son Vincenzo, his daughter-in-law Sestilia -Bocchineri, his pupils Torricelli and Viviani, and the parish -priest, were around his bed.<a name="FNanchor_595" id="FNanchor_595"></a><a href="#Footnote_595" class="fnanchor">[595]</a> And when Vincenzo closed -his father’s sightless eyes for their last long sleep, they gave -not a thought at Rome to the severe loss sustained by -science by Galileo’s death, but only prepared in hot haste -to guard the interests of the Church, and as far as it lay -in their power, to persecute the Cæsar of science even -beyond the grave. The aim was now, as far as possible,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[308]</a></span> -to extinguish his memory, with which so many perils for -Rome were bound up.</p> - -<p>Even around his bier the struggle began. Some pettifogging -theologians went so far as to wish that Christian -burial should be denied him, and that his will should be -declared null and void, for a man condemned on suspicion -of heresy, and who had died as a prisoner of the Inquisition, -had no claim to rest in consecrated ground, nor could he possess -testamentary rights. A long consultation of the ecclesiastical -authorities in Florence, and two circumstantial opinions -from them were required to put these fanatics to silence.</p> - -<p>Immediately after Galileo’s death his numerous pupils -and admirers made a collection for a handsome monument -to the famous Tuscan. The Inquisitor, Fanano, at once -sent word of this to Rome, and received a reply by order -of the Pope, dated 23rd January, that he was to bring it -in some way to the ears of the Grand Duke that it was -not at all suitable to erect a monument to Galileo, who was -sentenced to do penance by the tribunal of the Holy Office -and had died during that sentence; good Catholics would -be scandalised, and the reputation of the Grand Duke for -piety might suffer. But if this did not take effect, the -Inquisitor must see that there was nothing in the inscription -insulting to the reputation of the holy tribunal, and exercise -the same care about the funeral sermon.<a name="FNanchor_596" id="FNanchor_596"></a><a href="#Footnote_596" class="fnanchor">[596]</a></p> - -<p>Besides this, Urban VIII. seized the next opportunity of -giving the Tuscan ambassador to understand that “it would -be a bad example for the world if his Highness permitted -such a thing, since Galileo had been arraigned before the -Holy Office for such false and erroneous opinions, had also -given much trouble about them at Florence, and had altogether -given rise to the greatest scandal throughout Christendom -by this condemned doctrine.”<a name="FNanchor_597" id="FNanchor_597"></a><a href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">[597]</a> In the despatch in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[309]</a></span> -which Niccolini reported these remarks of the Pope to his -Government, he advised that the matter be postponed, and -reminded them that the Pope had had the body of the -Duchess Matilda, of Mantua, removed from the Carthusian -convent there, and buried at St. Peter’s at Rome, without -saying a word to the Duke about it beforehand, excusing -himself afterwards by saying that all churches were papal -property, and therefore all the bodies buried in them belonged -to the clergy! If, therefore, they did not wish to -incur the danger of perhaps seeing Galileo’s bones dragged -away from Florence, all idea must be given up for the -present of suitably celebrating his memory.</p> - -<p>Niccolini received an official reply that there had been a -talk of erecting a monument to Galileo, but that his Highness -had not come to any decision, and proper regard would -certainly be paid to the hints received from the Pope.<a name="FNanchor_598" id="FNanchor_598"></a><a href="#Footnote_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a> The -weak Ferdinand II. did not venture to act in the least -against the heartless Pope’s wishes. Even Galileo’s desire -in his will to be buried in the vault of his ancestors in the -Church of Santa Croce, at Florence, was not respected. His -mortal remains were placed in a little obscure room, in a -side chapel belonging to the Church, called “the Chapel -of the Novitiate.” He was buried according to the desire -of Urban VIII., very quietly, without any pomp. No -monument nor inscription marked his resting place; but -though Rome did all she could to obliterate the memory -of the famous philosopher, she could not effect that the -immortal name of Galileo Galilei should be buried in the -grave with his lifeless remains.</p> - -<p>It was not till thirty-two years later, when Urban VIII. -had long been in his grave, and more lenient views were -entertained about Galileo at the Vatican, that Fra Gabriel -Pierozzi, Rector of the Novices of the Convent of Santa -Croce, ventured to adorn Galileo’s grave with a long bombastic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[310]</a></span> -inscription.<a name="FNanchor_599" id="FNanchor_599"></a><a href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> In 1693 Viviani, whose greatest pride it -was to sign himself “Discépolo ultimo di Galileo,” erected -the first public monument to his immortal master. The -front of his handsome house in the Via San Antonio was -made to serve for it, for he placed the bronze bust of -Galileo, after the model of the famous sculptor, Giovanni -Caccini, over the door. A long eulogy on Galileo was -engraved over and on both sides of it.<a name="FNanchor_600" id="FNanchor_600"></a><a href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a></p> - -<p>But Viviani was not content with thus piously honouring -the memory of the master; in his last will he enjoined on -his heirs to erect a splendid monument to him, which was -to cost about 4000 scudi, in the Church of Santa Croce.<a name="FNanchor_601" id="FNanchor_601"></a><a href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a> -Decades, however, passed after Viviani’s death before his -heirs thought of fulfilling his wishes. At length, in 1734, -the preliminary steps were taken by an inquiry from the -Convent of Santa Croce, whether any decree of the Holy -Congregation existed which would forbid the erection of -such a monument in the Church? The Inquisitor at Florence -immediately inquired of the Holy Office at Rome whether -it would be permitted thus to honour a man “who had -been condemned for notorious errors.”<a name="FNanchor_602" id="FNanchor_602"></a><a href="#Footnote_602" class="fnanchor">[602]</a> The opinion of -the counsellors of the Holy Office was taken. They said -that there was nothing to prevent the erection of the monument, -provided the intended inscription were submitted to -the Holy Congregation, that they might give such orders -about it as they thought proper.<a name="FNanchor_603" id="FNanchor_603"></a><a href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">[603]</a> This opinion was confirmed -by the Congregation of the Holy Office on 16th -June, 1734.<a name="FNanchor_604" id="FNanchor_604"></a><a href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">[604]</a> And so the pompous monument to Galileo, -which displayed the tastelessness of the age, and was not -completed till four years later, could be raised in the Church<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[311]</a></span> -of Santa Croce, this pantheon of the Florentines, where -they bury their famous dead, and of which Byron finely -sings in “Childe Harold”:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“In Santa Croce’s holy precincts lie</div> -<div class="verse">Ashes which make it holier, dust which is</div> -<div class="verse">Even in itself an immortality,</div> -<div class="verse">Though there were nothing save the past, and this,</div> -<div class="verse">The particle of those sublimities</div> -<div class="verse">Which have relapsed to chaos:—here repose</div> -<div class="verse">Angelo’s, Alfieri’s bones, and his,</div> -<div class="verse">The starry Galileo, with his woes;</div> -<div class="verse">Here Machiavelli’s earth returned to whence it rose.”<a name="FNanchor_605" id="FNanchor_605"></a><a href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">[605]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>On 12th March, 1737, Galileo’s remains were removed, in -presence of all the professors of the University of Florence, -and many of the learned men of Italy, with great solemnity -and ecclesiastical pomp, from their modest resting-place to -the new mausoleum in a more worthy place in the Church -of Santa Croce itself, and united with those of his last -pupil, Viviani.<a name="FNanchor_606" id="FNanchor_606"></a><a href="#Footnote_606" class="fnanchor">[606]</a></p> - -<p>It had long been perceived at Rome that, in spite of every -effort, it was vain to try to bury the Copernican system with -Galileo in the grave. It could no longer greatly concern the -Roman curia that Galileo’s memory was held in high honour, -when the cause for which he suffered had decidedly gained -the victory. It was by a singular freak of nature that in -the very same year which closed the career of this great -observer of her laws, another who was to complete the work -begun by Copernicus and carried on by Galileo, entered -upon his. He it is, as we all know, who gave to science -those eternal forms now recognised as firmly established, -and whose genius, by the discovery of the law of gravitation, -crowned the edifice of which Copernicus laid the foundations -and which Galileo upreared. During the lifetime of the latter, -and the period immediately succeeding his death, the truth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[312]</a></span> -of the system of the earth’s double motion was recognised -by numerous learned men; and in 1696, when Newton -published his immortal work, “Philosophiæ naturalis principia -Mathematica,” it became thoroughly established. All -the scientific world who pursued the paths of free investigation -accepted the Copernican system, and only a few ossified -devotees of the old school, in common with some theological -philosophers, still raised impotent objections to it, which -have been continued even up to this day by some wrong-headed -people.<a name="FNanchor_607" id="FNanchor_607"></a><a href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">[607]</a></p> - -<p>At Rome they only accommodated themselves to the -new system slowly and reluctantly. In 1757, when it was -no longer doubted by any one but a few fanatics, the Congregation -of the Index thought the time was come for proposing -to Pope Benedict XIV. to expunge the clause from the -decree of 5th March, 1616, prohibiting all books which teach -that the sun is stationary and the earth revolves. This -enlightened pontiff, known as a patron of the arts and -sciences, entirely agreed, and signified his consent on 11th -May, 1757.<a name="FNanchor_608" id="FNanchor_608"></a><a href="#Footnote_608" class="fnanchor">[608]</a> But there still remained on the Index the -work of Copernicus, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” -Diego di Zuñiga’s “Commentary on the Book of Job” (these -two works, however, only “donec corrigantur,” but this was -quite worthless for strict Catholics as far as the work of -Copernicus was concerned, as since the announcement of -these “corrections” by the decree of 15th May, 1620, no -new edition had appeared), Foscarini’s “Léttera sópra l’opinione -de i Pittagorici e del Copernico della mobilità della<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[313]</a></span> -Terra et stabilità del Sole, e il nuove Pittagorico Sistéma -del Mondo,” Kepler’s “Epitome astronomiæ Copernicæ,” -and finally, Galileo’s “Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistémi -del Mondo.” This last work had indeed been allowed to -appear in the edition of Galileo’s collected works,<a name="FNanchor_609" id="FNanchor_609"></a><a href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">[609]</a> undertaken -at Padua in 1744, which had received the prescribed -ecclesiastical permission; but the editor, the Abbot Toaldo, -had been obliged expressly to state in an introduction that -the theory of the double motion can and must be regarded -only as a mathematical hypothesis, to facilitate the explanation -of certain natural phenomena. Besides this, the “Dialogues -on the Two Principal Systems” had to be preceded -by the sentence on and recantation of Galileo, as well as -by an Essay “On the System of the Universe of the Ancient -Hebrews,” by Calmet, in which the passages of Scripture -bearing on the order of the world were interpreted in the -traditional Catholic fashion.<a name="FNanchor_610" id="FNanchor_610"></a><a href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">[610]</a></p> - -<p>The celebrated French astronomer Lalande, as he himself -relates,<a name="FNanchor_611" id="FNanchor_611"></a><a href="#Footnote_611" class="fnanchor">[611]</a> tried in vain when at Rome, in 1765, to get Galileo’s -works expunged from the Index. The Cardinal Prefect of -the Congregation of the Index objected that there was a -sentence of the Congregation of the Holy Office in existence -which must first be cancelled, but this was not done, and -all remained as before; and even in the edition of the Index -of 1819, strange to say, the five works mentioned above -were to be found as repudiated by the Roman curia!</p> - -<p>It then happened in the following year, 1820, that Canon -Joseph Settele, professor of optics and astronomy at the -Archive-gymnasium at Rome, wrote a lesson book, “Elementi -d’astronomia,” in which the Copernican system, in accordance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[314]</a></span> -with the results of science, was treated <i>ex professo</i>. The -Master of the Palace, Philip Anfossi, to whom in his capacity -of chief censor of the press the book was submitted, demanded -under appeal to the decree of 5th March, 1616, -still in force, that the doctrine of the double motion should -be only treated hypothetically, and refused the <i>imprimatur</i> -until the MS. had been altered. Canon Settele, however, -was not disposed to make himself ridiculous in face of the -whole scientific world by compliance with these antiquated -conditions, and appealed to Pope Pius VII., who referred -the matter to the Congregation of the Holy Office. Here at -last some regard was had to the times, and in the sitting -of 16th August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might -treat the Copernican system as established, which was approved -by Pius VII. without hesitation. Father Anfossi -could not, after this decision, prevent the work from publication -as it was, but he resolutely pointed out the contradiction -between this permission and the decree of 5th March, -1616, and published a treatise entitled: “Can any one who -has made the Tridentine Confession, defend and teach as a -thesis, and as an absolute truth and not a mere hypothesis, -that the earth revolves and the sun is stationary?”<a name="FNanchor_612" id="FNanchor_612"></a><a href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">[612]</a> This -gave rise to discussions in the College of Cardinals of the -Holy Inquisition as to the attitude to be adopted by -ecclesiastical authority towards the Copernican system, which -had been universally adopted for more than a century. In -the sitting of 11th September, 1822, they finally agreed, -with express reference to the decree of the Index Congregation -of 10th May, 1757, and 16th August, 1820, “that -the printing and publication of works treating of the motion -of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance -with the general opinion of modern astronomers is permitted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[315]</a></span> -at Rome.”<a name="FNanchor_613" id="FNanchor_613"></a><a href="#Footnote_613" class="fnanchor">[613]</a> This decree was ratified by Pius VII. on 25th -September.</p> - -<p>But full thirteen years more went by until, in 1835, when -the new edition of the catalogue of prohibited books appeared, -the five works in which the theory of the double -motion was maintained and defended were expunged from -the list.</p> - -<p>It was not until 1835, therefore, that the last trace was -effaced of the memorable warfare so long and resolutely -waged by ecclesiastical power against the superior insight of -science. If it is denied to history to surround the head of -Galileo, the greatest advocate of the new system, with the -halo of the martyr, ready to die for his cause, posterity will -ever regard with admiration and gratitude the figure of the -man, who, though he did not heroically defend the truth, -was, by virtue of his genius, one of her first pioneers, and -had to bear for her sake an accumulation of untold suffering.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[316]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[317]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[318]</a></span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[319]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_I">I.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.</i><a name="FNanchor_614" id="FNanchor_614"></a><a href="#Footnote_614" class="fnanchor">[614]</a></span></h3> - -<p>We know next to nothing of the history of the Vatican -MS. up to the time when Napoleon I. took possession of -the papal city. During this period, when proud Rome had -sunk so low as to be a department of France, in 1811, -by the mandate of the then ruler of the world, the treasures -of the Vatican archives were removed from Rome to Paris. -Among them was the volume containing the Acts of Galileo’s -trial. It is not known how Napoleon’s special attention -came to be directed to them; but it is certain that he -requested Alexander Barbier, then State Librarian, to furnish -him with a detailed report about them.<a name="FNanchor_615" id="FNanchor_615"></a><a href="#Footnote_615" class="fnanchor">[615]</a> Barbier handed -it to the Minister of Worship and Instruction. He also -proposed that the whole of the documents should be printed, -in the interests of historical truth, in the original Latin -and Italian, with a French translation. The proposal was -approved by the Emperor, and the volume was handed -over to Barbier that he might have the translation made.</p> - -<p>When the convulsions of 1814 had swept Napoleon out -of Paris, and transported him to Elba, and the Bourbons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[320]</a></span> -again ruled France, the Roman curia repeatedly took steps -to regain possession of the volume.</p> - -<p>After the return of Pius VII. to Rome in 1814, after -his compulsory residence at Fontainebleau, Mgr. Marini -was staying at Paris as Papal Commissary, in order to -demand from the new French Government the restitution -of the archival treasures taken by Napoleon from the Holy -See. He first applied for the Acts of Galileo’s trial to the -Minister of the Interior, who referred him to the Count -de Blacas, Minister of the Royal Household.<a name="FNanchor_616" id="FNanchor_616"></a><a href="#Footnote_616" class="fnanchor">[616]</a> He assured -Marini that he would have a search instituted in the royal -library.<a name="FNanchor_617" id="FNanchor_617"></a><a href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">[617]</a> He wrote on the same day to Barbier charging -him to search for the documents, and to report to him on -their historical value.<a name="FNanchor_618" id="FNanchor_618"></a><a href="#Footnote_618" class="fnanchor">[618]</a> Barbier’s answer is too characteristic -not to be given.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right">“A Son Excellence le Ministre de la Maison du Roi,<br /> -Paris, 5 Decembre, 1814.</p> - -<p class="noindent">Monseigneur,</p> - -<p>Je m’empresse de répondre à la lettre par laquelle votre -Excellence me fait l’honneur de me demander s’il existe, dans le dépôt -général des bibliothèques de S.M. ou dans l’une de ses Bibliothèques -particulières, des pièces qui faisaient partie des Archives Pontificales et -qui sont reclamées par le garde de ces Archives, savoir le procès de -Galilée.</p> - -<p><i>Il y a plus de trois aus que je possède le procès de Galilée.</i></p> - -<p>Rien n’est plus célèbre que ce procès dans l’histoire des Sciences et -dans celle de l’Inquisition. Aussi s’en est on occupé avec un grand zèle -jusqu’à ces derniers temps; ce qui est probablement cause qu’ après -l’avoir examiné avec tante l’attention qu’il merite, <i>je n’y ai remarqué -ancun détail qui ne soit connu</i> (sic). L’importance de ce recueil consiste -donc principalement dans la réunion des pièces qui ont motivé, dans le -XVIIᵉ siècle, la condamnation d’un habile astronome, pour une opinion -qui est généralement enseignée aujourd’hui dans toutes les écoles, même -ecclésiastiques.</p> - -<p class="center">Je suis, Monseigneur, etc.,</p> - -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Barbier</span>.”<a name="FNanchor_619" id="FNanchor_619"></a><a href="#Footnote_619" class="fnanchor">[619]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[321]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is clear that Barbier expected to find support in the -Acts of the trial for the assumed torture of Galileo; and -as they reported nothing of the kind, and could not report -anything consistently with the facts of history, the librarian -entirely overlooked the vast importance of the papers. -After this report Count Blacas felt no scruple about letting -the Papal Commissary have them. On 15th December the -minister wrote a note to Barbier, asking him for the volume -of documents, that he might himself hand it to Marini.<a name="FNanchor_620" id="FNanchor_620"></a><a href="#Footnote_620" class="fnanchor">[620]</a> -He also wrote to the Papal Commissary that the documents -had been found, and that it would give him great pleasure -to deliver them to him.<a name="FNanchor_621" id="FNanchor_621"></a><a href="#Footnote_621" class="fnanchor">[621]</a> Marini accordingly went three -times to the minister’s hotel, and once to the Tuileries, -but without success. He therefore begged, in a letter of -28th January, 1815, to have a day and hour appointed for -an audience.<a name="FNanchor_622" id="FNanchor_622"></a><a href="#Footnote_622" class="fnanchor">[622]</a> To his dismay he received in reply a letter -from Count Blacas of 2nd February, 1815, saying that the -King himself wished to look through the trial of Galileo, -that the MS. was in his majesty’s cabinet, and therefore -could not be given up immediately, but it should be done -as soon as the King had returned it.<a name="FNanchor_623" id="FNanchor_623"></a><a href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">[623]</a></p> - -<p>Marini was therefore on the track of the documents, -though he did not get them. But only twenty-four days -after he received this explanation the famous hundred days -occurred, and Louis XVIII. left his palace in the darkness -of night for Ghent. Napoleon had scarcely set out for -St. Helena, and the legitimate sovereign made his entry -into Paris, than we find the Papal Commissary again eagerly -trying to get back the precious MS.<a name="FNanchor_624" id="FNanchor_624"></a><a href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">[624]</a> But what must -have been his dismay when he was informed by Count -Pradel, temporary successor of Count Blacas, on 6th November, -1815, that the documents were no longer to be found<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[322]</a></span> -in the King’s cabinet, and that it was not known what -had become of them.<a name="FNanchor_625" id="FNanchor_625"></a><a href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">[625]</a> Further efforts were fruitless. All -that he could get from the French Government was the -doubtful promise that the papers should be restored when -found.</p> - -<p>Two years later, in August, 1817, he again attacked -Count Pradel on the subject,<a name="FNanchor_626" id="FNanchor_626"></a><a href="#Footnote_626" class="fnanchor">[626]</a> and was assured that they -were not in the cabinet of the royal palace; he might -have a search made among the archives in the Louvre, they -might have been put aside there.<a name="FNanchor_627" id="FNanchor_627"></a><a href="#Footnote_627" class="fnanchor">[627]</a> Marini suspected that -the papers had been purloined, and asked the minister of -police, Count Decazes, to help him in his search. He, -however, referred him to the Minister Of the Interior,<a name="FNanchor_628" id="FNanchor_628"></a><a href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">[628]</a> that -is, to the place where he had begun his inquiries three years -before. Afterwards he applied to the president of the -ministry, the Duke of Richelieu, and to the influential -M. de Lainé, but with no more success than before.</p> - -<p>In 1820 Venturi applied to Delambre, Secretary of the -Academy of Sciences, with the request to get for him, -if possible, extracts from and copies of the Acts of the -trial, as he was urgently in want of them for the second -volume of his “Memorie e lettere inedite fuora o disperse di -Galileo Galilei.” Delambre eagerly took up the question. -Some light is thrown on the steps he took by the following -note to Barbier of 27th June, only published a few months -ago:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Le secretaire perpétuel de l’Académie pour les Sciences Mathématiques -est venu pour avoir l’honneur de converser avec M. Barbier, sur un -article intéressant de biographie astronomique, le procés de Galilée et les -pièces originales dont M. Barbier a été longtemps dêpositaire. Il desire -cette conversation pour lui-même et pour M. Venturi, etc., Delambre.”<a name="FNanchor_629" id="FNanchor_629"></a><a href="#Footnote_629" class="fnanchor">[629]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Three days later Delambre wrote to Venturi that the -original Acts certainly had been at Paris some years ago,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[323]</a></span> -but had disappeared, and it was not now known whether -they were still there or had been taken away. He told -him that during the Empire the publication and translation -of the documents had been projected, but political events -had prevented it from being carried out; the extracts, however, -then made, and the French translation which had -been begun, were in existence. These, which M. Barbier had -placed at Delambre’s disposal, he sent to Venturi. Delambre -expressed his great regret that the material which he could -obtain was not complete; but he consoled himself with the -opinion that by the publication of the documents in Riccioli’s -“Almagestum novum,” 1651, and in the first volume of -Venturi’s work, nothing essential would be wanting; and -“that unfortunate business, which would be ridiculous if -it were not so repulsive, is now as widely known as can -be desired.” Delambre, as it seems, was only concerned -with the clearing up of the torture question; and as the -fragments which had come to his knowledge contained no -evidence of torture, and as he might have been informed -by Barbier that there was no trace of it in any of the -papers, he wrote as above in calm conviction to Venturi.</p> - -<p>Eight years afterwards Count Darü, who was intending -to bring out his work on astronomy, made inquiries of -Barbier about the existence of the Acts of Galileo’s trial. -The information he received must have been wholly unsatisfactory, -as appears from the following letter from the -Count to Barbier of 16th October, 1828:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“J’ai reçu Monsieur ... les deux lettres que vous m’avez fait -l’honneur de m’écrire. J’ai trouvé, joint à la seconde, le billet de -M. l’abbé Denina<a name="FNanchor_630" id="FNanchor_630"></a><a href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">[630]</a> qui prouve que la traduction du procès de Galilée a -existé au moins en partie. Du reste, nous en avions déjà la preuve par -l’extrait de M. Delambre. <i>Je suis persuadé que le procès existe quelque<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[324]</a></span> -part à Paris</i>, et ce me semble, il doit se trouver dans quelque bibliothèque -du roi, peut être même aux Archives de la liste civile. J’en parlerai a -M. le baron de la Bouillerie.</p> - -<p class="center">Recevez, etc.,</p> - -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Darü</span>.”<a name="FNanchor_631" id="FNanchor_631"></a><a href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">[631]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>But Darü’s further inquiries seem to have been unsuccessful; -anyhow, the long-sought-for volume remained concealed -for seventeen years longer. In 1845 Gregory XVI. -requested Pelegrino Rossi, French ambassador at Rome, -who was devoted to the papacy, to use his influence to -get the Acts restored, if they should be discovered at Paris. -This shows that it was disbelieved at Rome that they could -not be found. At first Rossi’s urgent mediation only obtained -the assurance from Louis Philippe that the Pope’s -cherished wish should be fulfilled, provided that the papers -should be found, but on the express condition that they -should be published entire at Rome. And as the curia, -of course, promised to comply, the MS. which had been -mysteriously concealed for thirty-one years was “found” and -restored.</p> - -<p>In 1848-9, when the Papal See was attacked by the revolutionary -spirit which pervaded Europe, the fugitive Pope, -Pius IX., confided the hardly-won documents to the prefect -of the Secret Archives, Marino Marini. He not only took -good care of them, but took the opportunity of fulfilling -the obligation to the French Government incurred on their -restoration. On 12th April, 1850, the Pope returned from -Gaeta to his capital under the protection of French -bayonets, and his thoughts must soon have recurred to -these documents, for on 8th May of the same year he -presented them to the Vatican Library. In the same year, -also, Marini’s work, “Galileo Galilei e l’Inquizione,” appeared -at Rome, intended to be the fulfilment of the French conditions.</p> - -<p>We purposely say “intended to be,” for they were not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[325]</a></span> -really so at all. The entire contents of the Vatican MS. -were thereby by no means given to the public, but such -a sight of it as the editor thought proper, and which was, -as far as possible, an apology for the Inquisition. Instead -of the full original text of the Acts, the world only received -disjointed extracts, arbitrary fragments—in many instances -nothing at all. Perhaps it was perceived at head-quarters -that a comparison of Marini’s work with the documents -would bring strange things to light, for they were suddenly -removed from the too public Vatican Library and placed -among the papal archives.</p> - -<p>And for a long time there seemed to be no disposition -to place these important historical materials at the disposal -of independent historians. Thus we learn from Albèri, -editor of “Le Opere di Galileo Galilei,” Florence, 1842-1856, -in 16 vols, in which all the materials for the history of -Galileo are collected, that Marini had made obliging offers -to him about the Vatican MS.; but his death put an end -to the hopes thus raised, and Albèri had to content himself -with reproducing the extracts and documents given by -Venturi and Marini. It is obvious that the MS. was not -accessible to him, or he would surely have included the -Acts in his great work. Professor Moritz Cantor, who asked -to see them ten years later, met with no better success. -He complains bitterly in his essay, “Galileo Galilei,” that -the attempts he made through the good offices of an -eminent <i>savant</i>, with Father Theiner, keeper of the Secret -Archives, had been without avail.</p> - -<p>However, though neither Albèri nor Cantor attained their -wish, Henri de L’Epinois, a few years later, was more successful. -In the introduction to his work, “Galilée, son procès -sa Condemnation,” 1867, he relates that in a conversation -with Theiner at Rome, he expressed his regret at the inadequacy -of Marini’s book, and his desire to see the subject -of Galileo’s trial cleared up. Theiner liberally responded -to this appeal by placing the documents at his disposal.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[326]</a></span> -But Epinois had only just made hasty copies of the most -important, and indices of others, when he was compelled -by urgent private affairs to return to France. The copies -of the Vatican MS. which he took with him were therefore -in many respects inaccurate and incomplete, and even the -indices left much to be desired. Nevertheless, historical research -will always be indebted to Epinois for publishing -his notes, in spite of their shortcomings, which were best -known to himself.<a name="FNanchor_632" id="FNanchor_632"></a><a href="#Footnote_632" class="fnanchor">[632]</a> The melancholy picture of Galileo’s trial -was first presented in faithful outline, and it became possible -to weave the story with approximate accuracy. Many details, -however, were still wanting; and though the fictitious stories -of many writers were considerably checked by Epinois’s -communications, some scope was still left for them. What -was wanted was the entire publication of the Vatican MS., -and if possible with diplomatic precision.</p> - -<p>Nine years again went by, during which Epinois seems -to have found no opportunity of completing his work. -Meanwhile, Professor Domenico Berti asked for the favour -of a sight of the papers, and in 1876 he was engaged in -Theiner’s room in copying the documents.<a name="FNanchor_633" id="FNanchor_633"></a><a href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">[633]</a> In the same -year his work, “Il Processo Originale di Galileo Galilei,” -appeared, bearing upon the title page the unwarranted -addition, “publicato per la prima volta da Domenico Berti.” -Epinois had been the first to publish the Vatican MS., -though only partially; the words would only have been -correct if Berti had published them complete. This he -professes to have done,<a name="FNanchor_634" id="FNanchor_634"></a><a href="#Footnote_634" class="fnanchor">[634]</a> but as five documents are wanting, -and the contents of fifty others only shortly given, it cannot -be regarded as complete.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[327]</a></span></p> - -<p>Besides these unfortunate lapses, Berti’s publication is very -disappointing to the historian. Instead of giving the reader -as good an idea as possible of this interesting MS., the -documents are taken out of all connection, and given -numbers and superscriptions of which there is not a trace -in the original, and the marking of the folios is omitted. -“Improvement” of the orthography, punctuation, etc., is -consistently carried out. One of the numberings is quite -left out (the oldest, upper paging), and, following Epinois, -he reads the second incorrectly.</p> - -<p>In the same year in which Berti’s book appeared, Sante -Pieralisi received an invitation from high quarters to inspect -the volume. He accepted the flattering offer with no small -satisfaction, but does not seem to have known how to turn -it to account. He confined himself to comparing the most -important documents in Epinois and Berti with the originals, -and to giving a list, by no means complete, of their deviations -from them.<a name="FNanchor_635" id="FNanchor_635"></a><a href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a></p> - -<p>In consequence of the controversy as to the genuineness -of the document of 26th February, 1616, we resolved in -the spring of 1877 to attempt to get a sight of the papers, -our sole reason being the desire to see for ourselves whether -external evidence was for or against falsification, or whether -any certain conclusions could be drawn from it. We had -then no idea whatever of publishing the Vatican MS. ourselves, -as we at that time considered Berti’s publication -of it to be nearly complete.</p> - -<p>Through the good offices of the Austrian ambassador, -we were promised that when we came to Rome, Cardinal -Simeoni, Secretary of State, would permit us to see the -documents. Two days afterwards we were on our way to -Rome, and soon had the volume in our hands. As we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[328]</a></span> -turned over the pages with a curiosity easy to be imagined, -and compared it with Berti’s publication, we discovered, -to our no small surprise, its many omissions and inaccuracies. -The idea then occurred to us of making a copy -of all the documents in the collection with the greatest -possible precision. Not the least “improvement” should -be made; the text should be reproduced exactly, with its -peculiar orthography, accentuation, and punctuation, its abbreviations, -errors, and special marks, so far as it was possible -by means of typography.</p> - -<p>We made known our intention to the first prefect of the -Vatican Library, Mgr. Martinuzzi, to whom Cardinal Simeoni -had referred us; he not only made not the slightest objection, -but showed great interest in our project. During -our long daily tarriance in the Vatican afterwards, he was -most obliging, and heaped attentions upon us which lightened -the labour.</p> - -<p>We might have been engaged about three weeks in copying -the MS., sending the pages copied during the day to -Messrs. Cotta, at Stuttgard, to be printed, when we were -surprised one morning by a visit in the Vatican from -M. de L’Epinois. He told us that he had been two months -at Rome, and had undertaken a correction of Berti’s book -from the original. We informed him of our enterprise, -which he spoke of as “quite a different thing”; and when -we returned his call, he again spoke of a correction of -Berti, and regretted that he had not copied the whole -MS. Of any intention of publishing it complete he said -not a word. We therefore contentedly went on with our -work; the copying was nearly finished and the printing -in progress, when one afternoon on our return from the -Vatican we found a letter from Epinois, in which he said -that he had not had time to call on us again, and informed -us of the speedy appearance of his complete publication -of the Vatican MS., and that we should receive a copy -in a few days. This announcement was most surprising.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[329]</a></span> -We went at once to seek M. de L’Epinois, but learnt that -he had left Rome early that morning.</p> - -<p>Our work was too far advanced to be given up, and so -we went on, in the hope that even now there might be -some little place in the world for it. By the time Epinois’s -book reached us the copying was finished, and we were -correcting the proofs by the originals. It was not without -value, even for our enterprise, for we compared our proofs -with it line by line and word by word, made notes of -deviations, and then went to the Vatican to see which was -right. We readily acknowledge that in this way we discovered -and corrected many errors which had crept into -our copy. The variations which still exist are all well -known to us, and are left, either because Epinois is mistaken, -or we consider our reading to be the best. This is -not the place for a criticism of his work; we will only bear -witness, after comparing it with the original, to its accuracy.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[330]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_II">II.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.</i></span></h3> - -<p>The Acts of the two trials of Galileo, of 1615-16 and -1632-33, which are stitched together, and to which several -other documents are added relating to the surveillance of -Galileo until his death, and the erection of his monument, -form a pretty thick quarto volume, twenty-two centimeters -broad and thirty high.</p> - -<p>It is done up in a loose sheet of white paper, which -can lay no claim to veneration from age, and is in an -equally loose green pasteboard cover, which may boast -of historic antiquity, as may also the faded and frail red -strings by which the volume is fastened. The cover is too -short and too narrow, so that the edges get mercilessly -rubbed. In this way, unfortunately, many a letter, word -and even signature in these precious papers have been lost, -and it is high time to protect them from further injury.</p> - -<p>The documents are only slightly fastened together in -places, and you can see from the outside how far the Acts -of the first trial extend. This slight fastening also enables -you to see that all the blank pages, of which there are -194, are partly reverse sides, partly second pages of documents, -and it may easily be discovered to which document -each blank page belongs. In some cases these second -pages have been cut away, as appears from the broad piece -left. The suspicion from this that important documents -have been withdrawn seems inadmissible, for the pages cut -out, as is seen from those left, which correspond with the -rest, belonged to finished documents, and the abstraction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[331]</a></span> -of a document would certainly not have been betrayed -by leaving a broad strip behind.</p> - -<p>The paging is in the greatest confusion. On the title -page, in the right hand corner, are the figures 949, and -under them 336. The historical introduction, by an unknown -hand, prefixed to the papers, is numbered 337-340. -The first document bears the double paging</p> - -<table summary="Page numbering"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">950</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">341,</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">the upper number being struck through. On folio</p> - -<table summary="Page numbering"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">951</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">342</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">a third paging begins with 1, on the right hand lower edge. The -triple numbering goes on regularly to</p> - -<table summary="Page numbering"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">959</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">350</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">9.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">After</p> - -<table summary="Page numbering"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">992</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">383</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">41</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="noindent">the uppermost -and oldest paging is discontinued. Folios 384-386, -blank pages of the Acts of the first trial, only bear the -double paging, probably because, being blank, they were -not paged until the papers of both trials were put together.</p> - -<p>The double paging may be thus explained. The old -numbering comprises all the documents belonging to 1616; -and as it is to be seen on the title page, as well as the -words: “Ex archivo S. Offij,” and Vol. 1181, it is clear that -these documents were originally comprised in a volume of -the Archives of the Holy Office numbered 1181. The Acts -of the second trial, 1632-33, must have belonged to another -volume, as appears from the paging, as the first document -bears the number 387, but the number of the volume is -not traceable. When the Acts of 1616 and 1632-33 were -bound together, in order to form a continuous paging, the -old numbers of the first trial were struck through, and -the paging continued backwards, reckoning from the first -folio of the second trial.</p> - -<p>The Introduction helps to determine the time when the -two parts were united. It only extends to the mention -of Galileo’s defence; it is clear, therefore, that it was written -after 10th May (the date of the defence), and before<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[332]</a></span> -21st June, the date of the last examination, while the -numbering, which is that of the second paging only, shows -that the union had taken place. The title page also is -included in the second paging. We may therefore conclude -that the authorship of the Introduction and the joining of -the Acts up to 10th May, 1633, is to be attributed to the -same person.</p> - -<p>The object of this report undoubtedly was to give the -Pope and Congregation, before their final verdict on Galileo; -a <i>résumé</i> of the whole affair from its beginning. The -united Acts were the vouchers. The drawing up of such -a <i>résumé</i> was part of the ordinary proceeding in every -trial before the Inquisition, and it had to be circulated -among the cardinals and qualifiers before the final sitting<a name="FNanchor_636" id="FNanchor_636"></a><a href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">[636]</a>. -As in Galileo’s case this final sitting took place on 16th -June, under the personal presidency of the Pope, it is in -exact agreement with this that both the summary and -paging referred to in it only extend to the events of 16th -June.</p> - -<p>As to the addition of the further documents, it may be -observed that after the papers were put together the collection -ended with six second pages, of which four, 448, -449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of Pasqualigus; and -two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of Galileo -of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of -16th June, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the -last second page, 451, forming part of the above-named -document, and the three previous pages were left blank. -The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June was -written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[333]</a></span> -space (half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes -were made—the first about the mandate of 30th June, to -send the sentence and recantation to all Inquisitors, etc., -and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second note -reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd -July. The rest of the documents which the Vatican MS. -now contains must have been added as they came in, or -when there were several to be added. The paging was, of -course, continuously carried out.</p> - -<p>The last document but one of the collection is a short -historical summary of the process. Berti says that this -must have been drawn up at least a year after its conclusion,<a name="FNanchor_637" id="FNanchor_637"></a><a href="#Footnote_637" class="fnanchor">[637]</a> -but Pieralisi<a name="FNanchor_638" id="FNanchor_638"></a><a href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">[638]</a> has pointed out that he should have -said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when -the inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, -1734, came in as to the erection of a monument in Santa -Croce, this <i>résumé</i> was drawn up to put the cardinals, who -might not know much about it, in possession of the chief -facts of Galileo’s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of -paper containing the <i>résumé</i> is stitched to the letter of -Fra. Ambr*** and the decision of the cardinals written on -the fourth page. If any doubts remain that this summary -was written in 1734, they will disappear on comparing it -with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol -of the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, -within parentheses, the most important part of the summary, -followed by the decision of the cardinals, in almost -verbatim translation from Italian into Latin. The date -and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[334]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_III">III.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.</i></span></h3> - -<p>We now proceed to the examination of the documents -contained in this famous volume. They differ in historical -value, for they are not all as Professor Berti says,<a name="FNanchor_639" id="FNanchor_639"></a><a href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">[639]</a> original -documents, but often copies, and more or less cursory -annotations. Those only can be considered original documents -which have autograph signatures; as all the letters -in the MS. with one exception,<a name="FNanchor_640" id="FNanchor_640"></a><a href="#Footnote_640" class="fnanchor">[640]</a> the protocol of the examination -of Caccini, and the protocols of the examinations -of Galileo; those of the depositions of Ximenes -and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor at Florence -to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of -their authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly -of annotations on the decrees relating to the trial, decrees -and mandates of the Pope and Holy Congregation, or -notices of their execution. <i>But the original Acts corresponding -with these annotations are not comprised in the -Vatican MS.</i> Moreover, a careful examination of the -Vatican Acts with Gherardi’s Documents shows, that especially -after the conclusion of the trial till Galileo’s death, -many papal decrees were issued of which there is no mention -in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must -be looked upon as an incomplete source. But on the other -hand, there is no doubt that the Acts of the trial itself -lie before us altogether.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[335]</a></span></p> - -<p>Dr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed -the suspicion that a short time before the MS. was removed -from the Archives of the Holy Office to France, the Acts -of the trial underwent alterations with a special purpose, -in the expectation that the Archives would be robbed, and -that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr. -Marino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations -were completed!<a name="FNanchor_641" id="FNanchor_641"></a><a href="#Footnote_641" class="fnanchor">[641]</a> Wohlwill takes all the preliminary -report—the origin of which is clear, and in accordance with -the rules of the Inquisition—for a forgery intended to influence -“readers outside the Vatican.” He also thinks that -the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head -of the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one -can make out, and Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory -reason for it. As he had only Epinois’s first edition -of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti’s imperfect publication -in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions. It is -hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill’s bold conjectures -turn out to be phantoms on an actual examination of the -papers, and this will certainly be confirmed by Epinois, -Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have seen them. This is not -the place to refute Wohlwill’s suspicions, as we have done -so elsewhere.<a name="FNanchor_642" id="FNanchor_642"></a><a href="#Footnote_642" class="fnanchor">[642]</a> It only remains for us to give the material -evidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of -26th February neither is nor can be a later falsification.</p> - -<p>As is well known, before we had inspected these documents -we had fully adopted the suspicion, expressed by -Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and Professor Gherardi in Italy, -that the “document” of 26th February, 1616, was of a -later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according to the -ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of -the “Dialogues on the Two Systems” to trial for disobedience -to an order of the Sacred Congregation, though<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[336]</a></span> -the work seemed to be protected by the ecclesiastical <i>imprimatur</i>. -We confess that we went to Rome with but -little hope of finding external evidence for or against the -genuineness of the document. It had been long in Professor -Berti’s hands, and he had defended it with learned dialectics, -while the controversy would have been closed by adducing -material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore, sufficient inducement -to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should -enable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document -was not a falsification, even though its genuineness -might not be capable of demonstration.</p> - -<p>Contrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, -and we may say, entirely objective examination, we must -pronounce <i>that the suspicion of a later origin is not tenable</i>.</p> - -<p>Now for the reasons. The note of 26th February begins -on the same page as that of the 25th, and they are in -precisely the same ink and handwriting. As, however, in -case of a forgery, the perpetrator would not have been so -unskilful as to add a note in different ink and writing -under another sixteen years old, but would have written -both on another sheet, and carefully incorporated them with -the Acts, we had to find out whether it was possible that -the pages on which the notes are found (folios 378 vo. and -379 ro.), could have been afterwards added to the Acts. -This was found to be impossible. It is excluded by two -circumstances.</p> - -<p>1. Folios 378 vo. and 379 ro. are <i>second</i> pages to existing -documents; and folio 378 belongs to 377, on which is written -the famous opinion of the Qualifiers of the Holy Office on -the two propositions of Galileo, taken from the work on -the Solar Spots. Folio 379 again belongs to folio 357, -which is a page of the protocol of the examination of -Caccini.</p> - -<p>2. In this collection of the Acts of the trial, all the -paper on which the documents of the Holy Office were -written at Rome, bears the same watermark,—a dove in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[337]</a></span> -a circle,—which is not found on any of the paper of later -date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing -the notes of 25th and 26th February.</p> - -<p>As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the -papers had to be given up, there was still one suspicion -left—that the two notes had been written in 1632 on blank -sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there are so many, and -the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But this -hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, -as a scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations -of 1616 are in the same hand as those of 25th and -26th February, while it is not to be found in any document -of the later trial.</p> - -<p>In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer -justifiable to maintain that the note of 26th February is a -<i>later</i> falsification. Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of -Heidelberg, has conjectured, and Dr. Scartazzini has told -us for certain, how the “falsifiers” went to work. In the -<i>Revista Europa</i>, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877, Dr. -Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which -is most convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. -And yet it is entirely upset by one simple practical -observation. His theory is that the page on which the -genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th February was -written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding the -edge the other way, while space was found for the existing -forgery by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: -Dr. Scartazzini quotes only the second paging, which -was done <i>after</i> the assumed forgery, and it therefore permitted -a transposition of pages according to the pleasure—not -of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632 there was -a regular numbering from 949-992, originating in 1616, and -no transposition of the Acts could have been made on -Scartazzini’s plan, without entirely disturbing it. His theory -therefore belongs to the realm of impossibilities.</p> - -<p>But firmly as it is now established that the document of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[338]</a></span> -26th February, 1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally -certain that the proceedings did not take place in the rigid -manner described in that annotation. In the course of this -work we have become acquainted with the various reasons -which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a -downright untruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To -all these reasons one more may now be added. Had the -course of events been that recorded in the annotation, so -important an act would have been made into a protocol, -and would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and -witnesses. Only a document of this kind would have -afforded conclusive evidence on another trial. We learn -from another document of the trial that such a proceeding -was a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, -in order that the accused might not be able to deny what -had happened. When on 1st October, 1632, Galileo was -summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence, who issued the -command to him to present himself at Rome in the course -of the month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had -received the order and would obey it; no sooner had he -left the room than it was entered by a notary and witnesses -who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment, and -affirmed under Galileo’s signature that they had been present -when he “promised, wrote, and signed the above.”<a name="FNanchor_643" id="FNanchor_643"></a><a href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">[643]</a></p> - -<p>If these measures were so strictly observed in the case -of this much less important act, we may be tolerably -certain that they would not have been omitted in the far -more important one of 1616, if the stringent command had -really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General -in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before -notary and witnesses, to maintain henceforth absolute -silence, in speaking and writing, about the Copernican system. -Such a document would have furnished the Holy -Office with legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in -case of his breaking his word, and for punishing his disobedience;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[339]</a></span> -in short, for subjecting him to the consequences -of this categorical injunction.</p> - -<p>Did such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact -of the stringent intimation, we did not believe that such a -document ever had existed. Nevertheless, when at Rome, -we eagerly sought to discover whether, contrary to all -expectation, this most important document was extant, or -to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the -Archives of the Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor -Gherardi had found such valuable notes about the trial -of Galileo. We therefore addressed a memorial to the then -Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which we made a -concise statement of the present state of the researches -relating to Galileo’s trial, remarking that though the suspicion -of a falsification was not tenable, the correctness of -the note of 26th February seemed doubtful, and could only -be acknowledged as trustworthy if either the original -protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were discovered in -the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four weeks -we received the following reply:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“Illm̃o Signore,</p> - -<p>In sequito della richiesta fattasi da V. S. Illm̃a di avere dei documenti -relativi a Galileo, mi recai a premura di commetterne le opportune -indagini. Praticatesi le più diligenti ricerche, vengo informato non -esistere affatto negli Archivi i documenti che si desideravano.</p> - -<p>Nel portare ciò a sua notizia, ho il piacere di dichiararle i sensi della -mia distinta stima—</p> - -<p>Di V. S. Illm̃a,</p> - -<p class="center">Affmo per servirla,</p> - -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Giovanni Card. Simeoni</span>.</p> - -<p>Roma 20 Luglio, 1877.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>By this decisive information it is established that <i>now</i>, at -any rate, <i>no other document is extant relating to the proceedings -of 26th February, 1616, than the well-known annotation</i>. Was -this also the case in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for -disobedience and signally punished? The history of the -trial, the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of the Interrogator -towards Galileo, are strongly in favour of an affirmative<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[340]</a></span> -answer. From his first examination to his defence, Galileo -persistently denies having received any other command than -the warning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor -defend the Copernican doctrine, while the Interrogator -maintains that a command was issued to him before a -notary and witnesses “not in any way to hold, teach, or -defend that doctrine.” The contradiction is obvious. In -confirmation of his deposition, Galileo brings an autograph -certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine which fully agrees with -it. One would then have expected to see the Interrogator -spare no pains to convict Galileo on this turning-point of -the trial. The production of a legal protocol about the -proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole -affair and annihilated Galileo’s defence. But as it was not -produced, and the Interrogator, singularly enough, omits all -further inquiry into Galileo’s ignorance of the absolute prohibition, -and simply takes it for granted, we may conclude -that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act of -26th February than this note without signature. It must -therefore be admitted by the historical critic that one of -the heaviest charges against Galileo was raised on a paper -of absolutely no legal value, and that sentence for “disobedience” -was passed entirely on the evidence of this -worthless document.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[341]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_IV">IV.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS.</i></span></h3> - -<p>In the course of this work we have always acknowledged -the authenticity of the documents first published by Gherardi -in his “Il Processo Galileo: Riveduto Sopra documenti di -nuove fonte,” in the <i>Rivista Europea</i>, vol. iii., 1870, and -our story has in many cases been based on them. It behoves -us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity -beyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin -of the collection; secondly, by comparing the documents -with others universally acknowledged to be authentic.</p> - -<p>On the first point we refer to the professor’s account -prefixed to the documents. In December, 1848, he came to -Rome, and was at first, though only for a short time, deputy -to the parliament summoned by Pius IX., then held, in quick -succession, the offices of member of the assembly for framing -a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister of Instruction -to the Revolutionary Government. These offices -greatly facilitated Gherardi’s historical researches, and he -pursued them with ardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. -His attention was specially directed to the discovery -of the original documents of Galileo’s trial. Even in December, -1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the -Archives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully -guarded by the soldiers and agents of the Provisional -Government to save these historical treasures from the fury -of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to get a sight of the complete -collection of the Acts, which had two years before been -brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, -for as we know, during the Revolution, these documents were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[342]</a></span> -in the hands of Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Secret -Archives. So Gherardi had to content himself with seeking -more or less evident traces of the trial among the Archives -left in the greatest confusion and partly hastily plundered by -the fugitive custodians. It was not without difficulty that -he discovered, what was before unknown, that the Acts of -the Inquisition were divided into two classes: the first -contains the protocols of the sittings and decrees of the Holy -Congregation, sometimes in full and sometimes merely -extracts. The folios containing these were marked Decreta. -The second class contains the protocols of the examinations -of accused persons and witnesses, all Acts relating to trials, -and finally the sentences passed. These folios were marked -Processus. There was a third register marked Rubricelle, -which served as an index to everything relating to any -person or cause.</p> - -<p>As there were not nearly so many gaps in the Decreta as -in the Processus, Gherardi turned his attention, the Rubricelle -in hand, to the former. He began to make extracts from the -documents relating to Galileo’s trial, and had already made -ten, when he came upon a collection of papers containing -thirty-two of such extracts, all relating to the trial. To these -papers was added an extract from a letter from Count -Blacas, from Prague, of 20th January, 1835, in which he -stated that he had repeatedly, but without success, instituted -a search for the Acts of Galileo’s trial, which had been -detained at Paris since 1815, and that nothing would give -him greater pleasure, should they come into his hands, -than to deliver them to his Holiness, but this was not a -suitable time to renew the demand for them.</p> - -<p>It is clear from this letter that the curia made at least -one attempt to regain possession of the Vat. MS. between -1820 and 1845, and Gherardi concludes from the circumstance -that this letter was found with the said collection -that a copy of it had been sent to the Count, perhaps -to show him that it was desired to put all the papers relating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[343]</a></span> -to Galileo’s cause together—a project intended to -urge the Count to renewed efforts for their recovery. Be -that as it may, the important thing is that Gherardi, having -convinced himself of the entire agreement of his ten extracts -(the most important), with the corresponding ones in the -collection, concluded that the other twenty-two were correct, -and did not make any more extracts.</p> - -<p>In April, 1849, in spite of the precautions taken, the -Archives of the Inquisition seemed no longer safe from the -mob, and were removed, with other ecclesiastical libraries, -to the Apollinarius church, where Gherardi was again able -to look at them. But it was but for a moment, as he -decidedly declined all responsibility for a collection of such -immense historical value. Moreover, the advance of the -French army to Rome to effect the restoration of Pius IX., -would have left him but little time for historical researches. -On 4th July, in consequence of the capitulation of the -municipal council, the French General Ouidinot marched at -the head of his troops into “liberated” Rome, while Garibaldi -left it on the other side with his 4000 volunteers, and -with him all the patriots who had specially distinguished -themselves in the service of the Republic during its short -existence. Among these was Gherardi, who turned his steps -towards Genoa, where he lived for his studies during his -exile. On leaving Rome he had only been able to take ten -extracts with him, and had now to wait for an opportunity -of completing them by those in the Archives of the Inquisition, -and he waited patiently twenty-one years. In -1870 the time at length came. He gives us no further -particulars as to how he succeeded in getting the collection -into his hands again, but simply says that he did so, and -no longer delayed to give this valuable historical material -to the world.</p> - -<p>The history of Gherardi’s Documents is of itself a pledge -of their authenticity, and it is absolutely confirmed by comparing -them with the corresponding documents of the Vatican<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[344]</a></span> -MS. We have compared them line for line and word for -word, and have found that they contain nothing Whatever -that in the least diverges from those Acts. On the contrary, -they throw light on and complete them, and in some cases -agree with them verbatim—perhaps the best possible proof -of the authenticity of both.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[345]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_V">V.<br /> -<span class="smaller">DECRETVM<a name="FNanchor_644" id="FNanchor_644"></a><a href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">[644]</a></span></h3> - -<p class="center">989. Fol. 380 ro. 38</p> - -<p>Sacræ Congregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium, -à S.D.N. PAVLO Papa V. Sanctàq. Sede Apostolica ad -Indicem Librorum, eorumdemq; permissionem, prohibitionem, -expurgationem, et impressionem, in vniuersa Republica Christiana -specialiter deputatorum, vbiquè publicandum.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="dropcap">Cvm ab aliquo tempore citra, prodierint in lucem inter -alios nonnulli Libri, varias hæreses, atq; errores continentes, -Ideo Sacra Congregatio Illustrissimorum S. R. -E. Cardinalium ad indicem deputatorum, nè ex eorum -lectione grauiora in dies damna in tota Republica -Christiana oriantur, eos omninò damnandos, atque prohibendos -esse voluit; Sicuti præsenti Decreto pœnitus -damnat, et prohibet vbicumq; et quouis idiomate impressos, -aut imprimendos. Mandans, vt nullus deinceps -cuiuscumque gradus, et conditionis, sub pœnis in Sacro Concilio Tridentino, -et in Indice Librorum prohibitorum contentis, eos audeat imprimere, -aut imprimi curare, vel quomodocumque apud se detinere, aut legere; Et -sub ijsdem pœnis quicumque nunc illos habent, vel habuerint in futurum, -locorum Ordinarijs, seù Inquisitoribus, statim à præsentis Decreti notitia -exhibere teneantur, Libri autem sunt infrascripti, videlicet.</p> - -<p class="hanging"><i>Theologiæ Calvinistarŭ Libri tres, auctore Conrado Schlufferburgio. | -Scotanus Rediuiuvs, siue Comentarius Erotematicus in tres prio- | res -libros, codicis, &.</i></p> - -<p class="hanging"><i>Grauissimæ quæstionis Christianarum Ecclesiarum in Occidentis’, | præfertim -partibus ab Apostolicis temporibus ad nostram vsque | ætatem -continua successione, &. statu: historica explicato, Au- | ctore Jacobo -Vsserio Sacræ Theologiæ in Dulbiniensi<a name="FNanchor_645" id="FNanchor_645"></a><a href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">[645]</a> Academia | apud Hybernos -professore.</i></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[346]</a></span></p> - -<p class="hanging"><i>Federici Achillis Ducis Vuertemberg. Consultatio de Pincipatu | inter -Provincias Europæ habita Tubingiæ in Illustri Collegio | Anno Christi -1613.</i></p> - -<p class="hanging"><i>Donnelli Enucleati, siue Commentarium Hugonis Donelli, de Iure | -Ciuili in compendium ita redactorum &.</i></p> - -<p>Et quia etiam ad notitiam præfatæ Sacræ Congregationis peruenit, -falsam illiam doctrinam Pithagoricam, diuinæq; scripturæ omnino aduersantem, -de mobilitate Terræ, et immobilitate Solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus -de reuolutionibus orbium cœlestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job -etiam docent, iam diuulgari et à multis recipi; sicuti videre est ex quadam -epistola impressa cuiusdam Patris Carmelitæ, cui titulus, Lettera del R. -Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de -Pittagorici, e del Copernico, della mobilità della Terra, e stabilità del -Sole, et il nuouo Pittagorico Sistema del Mondo, in Napoli per Lazzaro -Scoriggio 1615. in qua dictus Pater ostendere conatur, præfatam doctrinam -de immobilitate Solis in centro Mundi, et mobilitate Terræ, consonam -esse, veritati, et non aduersari Sacræ Scripturæ: Ideo nè vlteriùs -huiusmodi opinio in perniciem Catholicæ veritatis serpat, censuit dictos -Nicolaum Copernicum de reuolutionibus orbium, et Didacum Astvnica in -Job, suspendendos esse donec corrigantur. Librum verò Patris Pauli -Antonij Foscarini Carmelitæ omninò prohibendum, atque damnandum; -aliosq́; omnes Libros pariter idem docentes prohibendos, Prout præsenti -Decreto omnes respectiuè prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In quorum -fidem præsens Decretum manu, et sigillo Illustrissimi & Reuerendissimi -D. Cardinalis S. Cæciliæ Ep̃i Albaneñ signatum, et munitum fuit die -5. Martij 1616.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">P. Episc. Albanen. Card. S. Cæciliæ.</p> - -<p class="center">Locus † sigilli. <span class="spacer"><i>Registr. fol. 90.</i></span></p> - -<p class="center"><i>F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus Ord. Prædic. Secret.</i></p> - -<p class="center">ROME, Ex Typographia Cameræ Apostolicæ. M.DCXVI.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[347]</a></span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_VI">VI.<br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.</i><a name="FNanchor_646" id="FNanchor_646"></a><a href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">[646]</a></span></h3> - -<p>We give the Sentence and Recantation as given by Giorgio -Polacco in his work, “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de -terræ Statione, et de salis motu, contra systema Copernicanum, -Catholicæ Assertionis,” pp. 67-76, Venice, 1644. -Everything indicates that these are the only authentic copies -of the originals, while the opinion adopted by many authors -that the Latin texts published by P. Riccioli in his “Almagestum -Novum,” 1651, are the originals, is not tenable on -close examination, for it is obvious that they are translated -from the Italian. According to the rules of the Inquisition, -sentences and recantations were written in the mother -tongue,<a name="FNanchor_647" id="FNanchor_647"></a><a href="#Footnote_647" class="fnanchor">[647]</a> that they might be generally understood. P. Olivieri, -General of the Dominicans and Commissary of the -Inquisition, also says in his posthumous work, “Di Copernico -e di Galileo,” Bologna, 1872, p. 62, “We find the history -of it, etc., in the sentence passed on Galileo, which is given -in many works in a Latin translation. I take it from Venturi, -who gives it in the Italian original.”</p> - -<p>Professor Berti, in his “Il Processo originale di Galileo -Galilei,” etc., pp. 143-151, has given the Sentence and Recantation -in a Latin text which agrees precisely with Riccioli’s, -even in some misprints. He says that they are taken -from some MS. copies in the Archivio del Santo, at Padua, -and thinks that they are the very copies sent by the Cardinal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[348]</a></span> -of St. Onufrio, at the command of the Pope, to the Inquisitor -at Padua in 1633. Incited by this remark, when at Padua -we went to inspect these valuable MSS. But what was our -surprise on being told that these documents had already -been sought for in vain at the request of Dr. Wohlwill, -and that no one remembered to have seen them. Professor -Berti will perhaps have the goodness to clear the matter -up. The documents were probably only exact copies of -Riccioli’s text.</p> - -<h4><i>SENTENZA.</i></h4> - -<ul> -<li>Noi Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia.</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasis, detto d’Ascoli.</li> -<li class="isub1">Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio.</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona.</li> -<li class="isub1">Fra Antonio Barberina detto di S. Onofrio.</li> -<li class="isub1">Laudiviò Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di S. Sisto.</li> -<li class="isub1">Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi.</li> -<li class="isub1">Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna. Verospi, chiamato Prete.</li> -<li class="isub1">Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e</li> -<li class="isub1">Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi.</li> -</ul> - -<p>Perla misericordia di Dio della S. R. E. Cardinali in tutta la repubblica -cristiana contra l’eretica pravità Inquisitori Generali della S. Sede -Apostolica specialmente deputati.</p> - -<p>Essendo che tu Galileo, figliolo del qu. Vincenzo Galilei Fiorentino -dell’ età tua d’ anni 70 fosti denonciato del 1615 in questo S. Officio, che -tenessi come vera la falsa dottrina da molti insegnata, che il Sole sia centro -del mondo et immobile, e che la terra si muova anco di moto diurno: -Che avevi alcuni discepoli, a’ quali insegnavi la medesima dottrina: Che -circa l’ istessa tenevi corrispondenza con alcuni Matematici di Germania: -Che tu avevi dato alle stampe alcune lettere intitolate delle Macchie -Solari, nelle quali spiegavi l’ istessa dottrina, come vera: Et che all’ obbiezioni, -che alle volte ti venivano fatte, tolte dalla Sacra Scrittura rispondevi -glossando detta Scrittura conforme al tuo senso. E successivamente -fu presentata copia d’ una scrittura sotto forma di lettera, quale si diceva -essere stata scritta da te ad un tale già tuo discepolo, ed in essa seguendo -la posizione di Copernico, si contengono varie proposizioni contro il vero -senso, ed autorità della sacra Scrittura.</p> - -<p>Volendo per ciò questo S. Tribunale provvedere al disordine ed al danno, -che di quì proveniva, et andava crescendosi con pregiudizio della Santa<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[349]</a></span> -Fede; d’ ordine di Nostro Signore, e degli Emin. Signori Cardinali di -questa suprema, et universale Inquisizione, furono dalli Qualificatori -Teologi qualificate le due proposizioni della stabilità del Sole e del moto -della terra; cioè.</p> - -<p>Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile di moto locale, è proposizione -assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente eretica per essere -espressamente contraria alla sacra Scrittura.</p> - -<p>Che la terra non sia centro del mondo, nè immobile, ma che si move -etiandio di moto diurno, è parimenti proposizione assurda, e falsa in filosofia, -e considerata in teologia, ad minus erronea in fide.</p> - -<p>Ma volendosi per allora proceder teco con benignità, fu decretato nella -S. Congregazione tenuta avanti Nostro Signore à 25 Febbraro 1616. Che -l’ Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Bellarmino ti ordinasse che tu dovessi -onninamente lasciare la detta dottrina falsa, e ricusando tu di ciò fare, -che dal Commissario del S. Uffizio ti dovesse esser fatto precetto di lasciar -la detta dottrina, e che non potessi insegnarla ad altri, nè difenderla, nè -trattarne; al qual precetto non acquietandoti, dovessi esser carcerato; et -in esecuzione dell’ istesso decreto, il giorno seguente nel Palazzo, et alla -presenza del suddetto Eminentissimo Signore Cardinale Bellarmino, dopo -essere stato dall’ istesso Signor Cardinale benignamente avvisato et ammonito, -ti fu dal Padre Commissario del Santo Uffizio di quel tempo fatto -precetto, con notaro e testimonii, che onninamente dovessi lasciar la detta -falsa opinione, e che nell’ avvenire tu non la potessi, nè difendere, nè insegnare -in qual si voglia modo, nè in voce, nè in scritto; et avendo tu -promesso d’ obbedire fosti licenziato.</p> - -<p>Et acciocchè si togliesse affatto così perniciosa dottrina, e non andasse -più oltre serpendo, in grave pregiudizio della cattolica verità, usci decreto -della Sacra Congregazione dell’ Indice, col quale furono proibiti i libri, -che trattano di tal dottrina, et essa dichiarata falsa, et onninamente contraria -alla sacra e divina Scrittura.</p> - -<p>Et essendo ultimamente comparso quà un libro stampato in Fiorenza -l’ anno prossimo passato, la cui inscrizione mostra che tu ne fossi l’ autore, -dicendo il titolo: <i>Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delli due massimi sistemi del -Mondo, Tolemaico e Copernicano</i>. Et informata appresso la sacra Congregazione, -che con l’ impressione di detto libro ogni giorno più prendeva -piede la falsa opinione del moto della terra, e stabilità del Sole; fu il -detto libro diligentemente considerato, e in esso trovata apertamente la -transgressione del suddetto precetto che ti fu fatto, avendo tu nel medesimo -libro difesa la detta opinione già dannata, et in faccia tua per tale dichiarata, -avvenga che tu in detto libro con varii raggiri ti studii di persuadere, -che tu la lasci, come idecisa et espressamente probabile. Il che -pure è errore gravissimo, non potendo in modo niuno essere probabile un’ -opinione dichiarata e definita per contraria alla Scrittura divina.</p> - -<p>Che perciò d’ ordine nostro fosti chiamato a questo Santo Uffizio, nel -quale con tuo giuramento esaminato riconoscesti il libro come da to composto, -e dato alle stampe. Confessasti, che dieci o dodici anni sono in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[350]</a></span> -circa, dopo essersi fatto il precetto come sopra, cominciasti a scrivere -detto libro. Che chiedesti la facoltà di stamparlo, senza, però significare -a quelli che ti diedero simile facoltà, che tu avessi precetto di non tenere, -difendere, nè insegnare in qualsivoglia modo tal dottrina.</p> - -<p>Confessasti parimenti che la scrittura di detto libro è in più luoghi -distesa in tal forma, che il lettore potrebbe formar concetto, che gli argomenti -portati per la parte falsa fossero in tal guisa pronunciati, che più -tosto per la loro efficacia fossero potenti a stringere, che facili ad esser -sciolti; scusandoti d’ esser incorso in errore tanto alieno, come dicesti, -dalla tua intenzione, per aver scritto in Dialogo, e per la natural compiacenza, -che ciascuno ha delle proprie sottigliezze, e del mostrarsi più arguto -del comune degli uomini, in trovar, anco per le proposizioni false, ingegnosi -et apparenti discorsi di probabilità.</p> - -<p>Et essendoti stato assegnato termine conveniente a far le tue difese -producesti una fede scritta di mano dall’ Eminentissimo signor Cardinale -Bellarmino da te procurata come dicesti, per difenderti dalle calunnie de -tuoi nemici, da’ quali ti veniva opposto, che avevi abiurato, e fossi stato -penitenziato dal santo Offizio. Nella qual fede si dice, che tu non avevi -abiurato nè meno eri stato penitenziato, ma che ti era solo stata denunciata -la dichiarazione fatta da Nostro Signore e pubblicata dalla santa Congregazione -dell’ Indice, nella quale si contiene, che la dottrina del moto della -terra, e della stabilità del Sole sia contraria alle sacre Scritture, e però -non si possa difendere, nè tenere; e che perciò non si facendo menzione -in detta fede delle due particole del precetto, cioè <i>docere, et quovis modo</i> -si deve credere che nel corso di quattordici o sedici anni, ne avessi perso -ogni memoria; e che per questa stessa cagione avevi taciuto il precetto, -quando chiedesti licenza di poter dare il libro alle stampe. E tutto questo -dicevi non per scusar l’ errore, ma perchè sia attribuito non a malizia, ma -a vana ambizione. Ma da detta fede prodotta da te in tua difesa restasti -maggiormente aggravato, mentre dicendosi in essa, che detta opinione -è contraria alla sacra Scrittura, hai nondimeno ardito di trattarne, di -difenderla, e persuaderla probabile; nè ti suffraga la licenza da te artificiosamente, -e callidamente estorta, non avendo notificato il precetto che -avevi.</p> - -<p>E parendo a noi, che non avevi detta intieramente la verità circa la tua -intenzione, giudicassimo esser necessario venir contro di te al rigoroso -esame, nel quale (senza però pregiudizio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, -e contro di te dedotte come di sopra, circa la detta tua intenzione) rispondesti -cattolicamente. Per tanto visti, et maturamente considerati i meriti -di questa tua causa, con le suddette tue confessioni, e scuse, e quanto di -ragione si doveva vedere e considerare, siamo venuti contro di te all’ -infrascritta difinitiva sentenza.</p> - -<p>Invocato dunque il Santissimo Nome di Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo, e -della sua gloriosissima Madre sempre Vergine Maria, per questa nostra -difinitiva sentenza, la quale sedendo pro tribunali, di Conseglio e parere -dei Reverendi Maestri di sacra Teologia, et Dottori dell’ una e l’ altra<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[351]</a></span> -legge nostri Consultori, proferiamo in questi scritti, nella causa e cause -vertenti avanti di noi tra il Magnifico Carlo Sinceri dell’ una e dell’ altra -legge Dottore, Procuratore fiscale di questo Santo Offizio per una parte, -e te Galileo Galilei reo, quà presente processato, e confesso come sopra -dall’ altra. Diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, che tu -Galileo suddetto per le cose dedotte in processo, e da te confessate, come -sopra, ti sei reso a questo Santo Offizio veementemente sospetto d’ eresia, -cioè d’ aver creduto, e tenuto dottrina falsa, e contraria alle sacra, e divine -Scritture, che il Sole sia centro della terra, e che non si muova da oriente -ad occidente, e che la terra si muova, e non sia centro del mondo; e che -si possa tenere difendere per probabile una opinione dopo d’ esser stata -dichiarata, difinita per contraria alla sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente -sei incorso in tutte le censure, e pene da’ Sacri Canoni, et altre Constituzioni -generali, et particolari, contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate. -Dalle quali siamo contenti, che sii assoluto, pur che prima con -cuor sincero, et fede non finta avanti di noi abiuri, maledichi, et detesti li -suddetti errori, et eresie, e qualunque altro errore, et eresia contraria alla -cattolica et apostolica Romana Chiesa, nel modo che da noi ti sarà dato.</p> - -<p><i>Et acciocchè questo tuo grave, e pernicioso errore, e transgressione non -resti del tutto impunito</i>, e sii più cauto nell’ avvenire; et esempio agli -altri, che s’astenghino da simili delitti. Ordiniamo che per pubblico -editto sia proibito il libro de’ <i>Dialoghi di Galileo Galilei</i>.</p> - -<p>Ti condanniamo al carcere formale di questo S. Offizio per tempo ad -arbitrio nostro, e per penitenze salutari t’imponiamo, che per tre anni a -venire dichi una volta la settimana li sette Salmi Penitenziali.</p> - -<p>Riservando a noi facoltà di moderare, mutare, o levar in tutto o in parte -le suddette pene, e penitenze.</p> - -<p>E cosi diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, ordiniamo, -condenniamo, e riserviamo in questo, et in ogni altro miglior modo, e -forma, che di ragione potemo, e dovemo.</p> - -<p>Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinales infrascripti.</p> - -<ul> -<li>F. Cardinalis De Asculo.</li> -<li>G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.</li> -<li>F. Cardinalis De Cremona.</li> -<li>Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.</li> -<li>B. Cardinalis Gypsius.</li> -<li>F. Cardinalis Verospius.</li> -<li>M. Cardinalis Ginettus.</li> -</ul> - -<h4><i>ABJURA DI GALILEO.</i></h4> - -<p>Io Galileo Galilei figlio de q. Vincenzo Galilei da Fiorenza dell’ età -mia d’ anni 70 constituito personalmente in judicio, et inginocchio avanti -di voi Eminentissimi, e Reverendissimi Signori Cardinali in tutta la -Christiana Republica contro l’heretica pravità Generali Inquisitori<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[352]</a></span> -havendo avanti gli occhi miei li Sacrosanti Evangeli, quali sono con le -proprie mani, giuro che sempre ho creduto, credo adesso, e con l’aiuto di -Dio crederò per l’ avenire, tutto quello, che tiene, predica, et insegna la -Santa Cattolica, et Apostolica Romana Chiesa. Ma perche da questo S. -Officio per haverio doppo d’ essermi stato con precetto dall’ istesso -giuridicamente intimato, che omninamente dovessi lasciare la falsa -opinione, Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra -non sia Centro, e che si muova, e che non potessi tenere, difendere, ne -insegnare in qual si voglia modo, ne in voce, ne in scritto la detta falsa -dottrina, e dopò dessermi stato notificato, che detta dottrina è contraria -alla Sacra scrittura, scritto, e dato alle stampe un libro nel quale tratto -l’ istessa dottrina già dannata et apporto ragioni con molta efficacia a -favor d’essa, senza apportar alcuna solutione, son stato giudicato vehementemente -sospetto d’heresia, cioè d’haver tenuto, e creduto, che il -Solo sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia centro, e -si muova.</p> - -<p>Per tanto volendo io levare dalle menti dell’ Eminenze Vostre, e d’ ogni -fedel Christiano, questa vehemente sospittione, contro di me ragionevolmente -conceputa, con cuor sincero, e fede non finta, abiuro, maledico, e -detesto li sudetti errori, et heresie, e generalmente ogni e qualunque altro -errore, e setta contraria alla sudetta Santa Chiesa; E giuro che per -l’ avenire, non dirò mai più, ne asserirò in voce, ò in scritto cose tali, per -le quali si possi haver di me simil sospittione; ma se conoscero alcuno -heretico, ò che sia sospetto d’heresia lo denuntiarò à questo Santo Officio -ò vero all’ Inquisitore, et ordinario del luogo, ove me trovero.</p> - -<p>Giuro anco, e promesso d’adempire, et ossevra re intieramente, tutte le -penitenze, che mi sono state, ò mi saranno da questo Santo Officio imposte. -Et contravenendo io ad alcuna delle dette mie promesse, proteste, -ò giuramenti (il che Dio non voglia) mi sottopongo a tutte le pene, e -castighi, che sono da Sacri Canoni, et altri Constitutioni Generali, e -particolari contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate; Cosi Dio m’ -aiuti, e questi suoi santi Evangelij, che tocco con le proprie mani.</p> - -<p>Io Galileo Galilei sopradetto ho abiurato, giurato, e promesso, e mi -sono obligato come sopra, et in fede del vero di propria mia mano hò -sottoscritto la presente Cedola di mia abiuratione, e recitata di parola in -parola in Roma nel Convento della Minerva questo di 22 Giugno 1633.</p> - -<p class="center">Io Galileo Galilei hò abiurato come di sopra di mano propria.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="footnotes"> - -<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1" id="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen -Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard, 1877.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2" id="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> The above letter is adapted from a draft of one addressed to the -Italian Translator, the letter to myself not having, unfortunately, been sent -before the Author’s death, nor found among his papers afterwards. He -had written but a few weeks before that he would send it shortly, and as -it would probably have been almost exactly similar to the above, I have -availed myself of it, the Author’s father having sent me a copy with the -necessary alterations and authorised its use.—<span class="smcap">Tr.</span></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3" id="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> See Appendix IV.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4" id="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Riccioli, vol. i. part ii. pp. 496-500.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5" id="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> In the references the name only of the author is given. Albèri’s “Opere” is -designated Op. Those marked * are new for the English translation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6" id="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> This is the writing referred to when Gherardi is quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7" id="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Compare Nelli, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, and Opere xv. p. 384. The strange -mistake, which is without any foundation, that Galileo was an illegitimate -child, was set afloat soon after his death by Johann Victor Rossi (Janus -Nicius Erythræus) in his “Pinacotheca Illustrium Virorum,” Cologne, -Amsterdam, 1643-1648, and afterwards carelessly and sometimes maliciously -repeated. Salviati has published the marriage certificate of 5th -July, 1563, of Vincenzio di Michel Angelo di Giovanni Galilei and Giulia -degli Ammanati Pescia.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8" id="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Many of these essays, which have never been printed, are among the -valuable unpublished MSS. in the National Library at Florence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9" id="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Galileo had a younger brother, Michel Angelo, and three sisters, -Virginia, Elenor, and Livia. The former married a certain Benedetto -Landucci, the latter Taddeo Galetti. Galileo was very kind to his brother -and sisters all his life, assisted them in many ways, and even made great -sacrifices for their sakes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10" id="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Nelli, vol. i. pp. 26, 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11" id="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 330; and Op. vi. p. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12" id="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 328.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13" id="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> The correctness of this date is indisputable, as according to Nelli, -vol. i. p. 29, it was found in the university registers. It is a pity that -Albèri, editor of the “Opere complete di Galileo Galilei,” Florence, -1842-1856, relied for the date on Viviani, who is often wrong.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14" id="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 331; also Jagemann, p. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15" id="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 332; also Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 722, 723.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16" id="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 334.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17" id="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Nelli, vol. i. pp. 32, 33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18" id="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> That Galileo had been in Rome before 8th January, 1588, a fact -hitherto unknown to his biographers, is clear from the letter of that date -addressed from Florence to Clavius. (Op. vi. pp. 1-3.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19" id="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> See their letters to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 1-13.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20" id="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> About £13.—[<span class="smcap">Tr.</span>]</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21" id="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> About 7¼<i>d.</i> 100 kreuzers = the Austrian florin.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22" id="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 336; and Nelli, vol. i. p. 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23" id="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 336, 337; Nelli, vol. i. pp. 46, 47; Venturi, -vol. i. p. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24" id="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> See the decree of installation of 26th Sept. (Op. xv. p. 388.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25" id="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 18; Nelli, vol. i. p. 51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26" id="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337 and 389.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27" id="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Published by Venturi, 1818, vol. i. pp. 26-74.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28" id="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 339, 340.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29" id="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337, 338.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30" id="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 1-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_31" id="Footnote_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> “Prodromus Dissertationum Cosmographicarum.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_32" id="Footnote_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 11, 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_33" id="Footnote_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 21-24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_34" id="Footnote_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> See Humboldt’s “Cosmos,” vol. ii. pp. 345, 346, and 497-499.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_35" id="Footnote_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Op. xv. p. 390. His salary at first was 72 Florentine zecchini = £18, -and rose by degrees to 400 zecchini = £100. (Op. viii. p. 18, note 3.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_36" id="Footnote_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Some fragments of these lectures are extant, and are included by -Albèri in the Op. v. part ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_37" id="Footnote_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Op. iii. (“Astronomicus Nuncius,” pp. 60, 61.) In his “Saggiatore” -also he relates the circumstance in precisely the same way, only adding -that he devised the construction of the telescope in one night, and carried -it out the next day.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_38" id="Footnote_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Nelli, pp. 186, 187.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_39" id="Footnote_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> History has acknowledged the optician Hans Lipperhey, of Middelburg, -to be the inventor of the telescope. Compare the historical sketch -in “Das neue Buch der Erfindungen,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 217-220. (Leipzig, -1865.) The instrument received its name from Prince Cesi, who, -on the advice of the learned Greek scholar Demiscianus, called it a -“teleskopium.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_40" id="Footnote_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 75-77.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_41" id="Footnote_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> See the decree of the senate, 25th Aug., 1609 (Op. xv. pp. 392-393.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_42" id="Footnote_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Cosmo II. showed all his life a sincere attachment to his old teacher, -Galileo. From 1605, before Cosmo was reigning prince, Galileo had -regularly given him mathematical lessons during the academical holidays -at Florence, and had thereby gained great favour at the court of Tuscany.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_43" id="Footnote_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 107-111.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_44" id="Footnote_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> See the letter of Martin Hasdal from Prague, of 15th April, 1610, to -Galileo (Op. viii. pp. 58-60); also a letter from Julian de’ Medici, Tuscan -ambassador at the Imperial court, to Galileo, from Prague, 19th April, -1610. (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 20.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_45" id="Footnote_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> This reprint bore the following superscription: “Joannis Kepleri -Mathematici Cæsarei Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo nuper ad mortales -misso a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico Patavino.” Comp. Venturi, vol. i. -pp. 99-120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_46" id="Footnote_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 121, note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_47" id="Footnote_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Compare the letters of Martin Hasdal, Alexander Sertini, and -Kepler to Galileo in 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 60-63, 65-68, 82-85, 88, 89, 101, -113-117.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_48" id="Footnote_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> See the letter which Kepler wrote about it to Galileo on 25th Oct. -1610. (Op. viii. pp. 113-117.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_49" id="Footnote_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Wedderburn’s reply was called: “Quatuor Problematum, quæ Martinius -Horky contra Nuncium Sidereum de quatuor Planetis novis -proposuit”; Roffeni’s, “Epistola apologetica contra cœcam peregrinationem -cujusdam furiosi Martini cognomine Horky editam adversus, -Nuncium Sidereum.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_50" id="Footnote_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 114, 115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_51" id="Footnote_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_52" id="Footnote_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> May 7th, 1610. (Op. vi. pp. 93-99.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_53" id="Footnote_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 165.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_54" id="Footnote_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 343.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_55" id="Footnote_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 129.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_56" id="Footnote_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 116-118. Ponsard in his drama, “Galileo,” of which a -third edition appeared at Paris in 1873, in which he mostly turns history -upside down, in Act i. sc. iii. and iv. takes off capitally the proud and -silly opposition of the Aristotelians.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_57" id="Footnote_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Comp. Op. xv. p. 397, note 11, also Venturi, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. Jagemann -(p. 52) even believes “that Gustavus Adolphus, who created an -entirely new science of warfare which set all Europe in consternation and -terror, had derived his wonderful knowledge from Galileo”!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_58" id="Footnote_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Op. vi., 71-75. It is unfortunately unknown to whom this letter was -addressed; but, as appears from the contents, it must have been to some -one high in office at the court of Tuscany.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_59" id="Footnote_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> It is not known that these last mentioned treatises ever appeared. -As not the least trace of them is to be found, and yet numerous particulars -have come down to us of other works afterwards lost, it may be -concluded that these essays were never written.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_60" id="Footnote_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 63, 64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_61" id="Footnote_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 73, 74.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_62" id="Footnote_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_63" id="Footnote_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Libri justly says, p. 38: “this mistake was the beginning of all his -misfortunes.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_64" id="Footnote_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> In a letter from Galileo to his brother Michel Angelo, of May 11th, -1606, he describes the somewhat comical scene of the nocturnal deportation -of the Jesuits from the city of Lagunes. (Op. vi. p. 32.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_65" id="Footnote_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 146-150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_66" id="Footnote_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> 11th Dec., 1610. (Op. vi. p. 128.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_67" id="Footnote_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 130-133 and 134-136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_68" id="Footnote_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 137, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_69" id="Footnote_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 139, 140.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_70" id="Footnote_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 140, note 1. See also Vinta’s answer to Galileo, 20th Jan. -1611 (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” p. 27); also the Grand Duke’s letter -to his ambassador at Rome, Giovanni Niccolini, of 27th Feb., 1611 -(Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 10).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_71" id="Footnote_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Pieralisi has first published this letter in his work “Urban VIII. and -Galileo Galilei,” p. 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_72" id="Footnote_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> See, for Bellarmine’s request and the opinion, Op. viii. pp. 160-162.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_73" id="Footnote_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 145.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_74" id="Footnote_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Gherardi’s Collection of Documents: Doc. i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_75" id="Footnote_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 274.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_76" id="Footnote_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> The full title was: “Dianoja Astronomica, Optica, Physica, qua -Siderei Nuncii rumor de quatuor Planetis a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico -celeberrimo, recens perspicilli cujusdam ope conspectis, vanus redditur. -Auctore Francisco Sitio Florentino.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_77" id="Footnote_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 94, note 1; and xv. “Bibliografia Galileiana,” p. vi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_78" id="Footnote_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> This letter reports the facts above mentioned. (Op. viii. p. 188.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_79" id="Footnote_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 222-224.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_80" id="Footnote_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 241, 242.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_81" id="Footnote_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 194-197.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_82" id="Footnote_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> “Discorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno -alle cose che stanno in su l’aqua o che in quella si muovano.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_83" id="Footnote_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i. pp. 195, 196.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_84" id="Footnote_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_85" id="Footnote_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> “Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro accidenti -comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da Galileo Galilei.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_86" id="Footnote_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> Letter of 20th April, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 262.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_87" id="Footnote_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_88" id="Footnote_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_89" id="Footnote_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 290, 291.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_90" id="Footnote_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 291-293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_91" id="Footnote_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 6-13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_92" id="Footnote_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 337, 338.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_93" id="Footnote_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Vol. i. p. 397.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_94" id="Footnote_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Comp. Govi, p. 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_95" id="Footnote_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Epinois, “La Question de Galilei,” p. 43.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_96" id="Footnote_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 337-343.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_97" id="Footnote_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> The title of “Eminence” was first given to cardinals by Pope -Urban VIII. in 1630.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_98" id="Footnote_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> See Lorini’s Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois -this letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which -shows it to have been of the 7th. (Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, -Doc. ii.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_99" id="Footnote_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_100" id="Footnote_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this visit is -described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_101" id="Footnote_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> In the letter before quoted of 12th March.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_102" id="Footnote_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_103" id="Footnote_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_104" id="Footnote_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 369, 370.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_105" id="Footnote_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 341.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_106" id="Footnote_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. iii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_107" id="Footnote_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> Compare the text of Caccini’s evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353 ro.-358 vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_108" id="Footnote_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371 ro.-373 -vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_109" id="Footnote_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_110" id="Footnote_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 13-17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_111" id="Footnote_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 17-26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_112" id="Footnote_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 350-353.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_113" id="Footnote_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 354-356.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_114" id="Footnote_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> As we should say, “as a working hypothesis.” [<span class="smcap">Tr.</span>]</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_115" id="Footnote_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> This was the work which was condemned and absolutely prohibited -by the Congregation of the Index a year later: “Lettera del R. P. Maestro -Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de i Pittagorici -e del Copernico della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole, e il nuovo -Sisteme del Mondo.” (For Cesi’s letter, Op. viii. pp. 356-358.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_116" id="Footnote_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> See Dini’s letter to Galileo, March 14th, 1615 (Op. viii. p. 360); and -of August 18th, 1615 (Wolynski, “Lettere Inedite,” p. 34); and Ciampoli’s -of March 21st (Op. viii. pp. 366, 367.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_117" id="Footnote_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 368.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_118" id="Footnote_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_119" id="Footnote_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> Op. viii. pp. 378, 379.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_120" id="Footnote_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> See his letter to Galileo, May 16th, 1615. (Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_121" id="Footnote_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 26-64. It did not appear in print until twenty-one years -later, in Strasburg.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_122" id="Footnote_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> See the letters of Cosmo II., November 28th, to his ambassador Guicciardini, -at Rome, to Cardinal del Monte, Paolo Giordano Orsini, and -Abbot Orsini; also to Cardinal Orsini, of December 2nd. (Wolynski: -“La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” pp. 18-20.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_123" id="Footnote_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> Page 69.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_124" id="Footnote_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> Compare the letters of Sagredo from Venice of 11th March and 23rd -April, 1616, to Galileo at Rome. (Op. Suppl. pp. 107-113. Also Nelli, -vol. i. p. 414.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_125" id="Footnote_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 383.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_126" id="Footnote_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> See his letters of 12th Dec., 1615, and 8th Jan., 1616, to the Tuscan -Secretary of State, Curzio Picchena, at Florence. (Op. vi. pp. 211, 212, -214, 215.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_127" id="Footnote_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 414 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_128" id="Footnote_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> Compare also Wohlwill, p. 86, note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_129" id="Footnote_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> See his letters to Picchena of 26th Dec., 1615, and 1st Jan., 1616. (Op. -vi. pp. 213, 214.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_130" id="Footnote_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 215, 216.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_131" id="Footnote_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> 23rd Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 218, 219.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_132" id="Footnote_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> Letter to Picchena, 6th Feb. (Op. vi. p. 222.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_133" id="Footnote_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> Letter to Picchena. (Op. vi. pp. 225-227.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_134" id="Footnote_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 221-223.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_135" id="Footnote_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> See the letter of Mgr. Queringhi, from Rome, of 20th January, 1616, -to Cardinal Alessandro d’Este. (Op. viii. p. 383.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_136" id="Footnote_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza im̃obile di moto -locale.</p> - -<p>Che la Terra non è centro del mondo, ne im̃obile, ma si move secondo -se tutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_137" id="Footnote_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Sol est centrũ mundi, et omnino im̃obilis motu locali;</p> - -<p>Censura: Omnes dixerunt dicta propositionẽ ẽe stultã et absurdam in -Philosophia, et formaliter hereticã, quatenus contradicit expresse sententijs -sacre scripture in multis locis. Secundũ proprietate verbor̃, et secundũ -communẽ expositionẽ, et sensũ. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor̃ doctor.</p> - -<p>Terra non est centr. mundi, nec im̃obilis, sed secundũ se tota, movetur -et moto diurno.</p> - -<p>Censura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc propositionẽ recipẽ eandẽ censura in -Philosophia; et spectando veritatẽ Theologicã, at minus ẽe in fide erronea. -(Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_138" id="Footnote_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616.</p> - -<p>Illᵐᵘˢ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseosʳ. et Commiss. -Sᵗⁱ. Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologorũ ad propositⁿᵉˢ. Gallilei -Mathemᶜⁱ., q. Sol sit centrũ mundi, et im̃obilis motu locali, et Terra moveatur -et motu diurno; Sᵐᵘˢ. ordinavit Illᵐᵒ. D. Cardˡⁱ. Bellarmᵒ., ut vocet corã -se dᵐ. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad deserendas dᵃᵐ. op̃onem, et si recusaverit -parere, P. Comissˢ. cora Noto (Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, -ut ĩo (omnino) abstineat huõi (huiusmodi) doctrina, et op̃onem docere, aut -defendere, seu de ea tractare, si vero nõ acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. -folio 378 vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_139" id="Footnote_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem.</p> - -<p>In Palatio solite habitⁿⁱˢ: dⁱ: Illᵐⁱ: D. Cardⁱˢ: Bellarmⁱ. et in mãsionib. -Domⁿⁱˢ. sue Illᵐᵒ: Idem Illᵐᵘˢ: D. Cardˡⁱˢ: vocato supradᵗᵒ. Galileo, ipsoq. -corã D. sua Illᵐᵃ: ex̃nte (existente) in p̃ntia adm. R. p. Fĩs Michaelis Angeli -Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Com̃issarij qualis sᵗⁱ. officij predᵐ. Galileũ -monuit de errore supradᵗᵉ op̃onis, et ut illa deserat, et successive, ac -icõtinenti in mei &, et Testiũ & p̃nte ẽt adhuc eodem Illᵐᵒ. D. Cardˡⁱ. supradᵒ. -P. Com̃issˢ. predᵗᵒ. Galileo adhuc ibidem p̃nti, et Constituto precepit, -et ordinavit ... [Here the MS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the -second might be nome (nomine); the first began with a p (proprie?) but is -quite illegible.] Sᵐⁱ. D. N. Pape et totius Congregⁿⁱˢ. sᵗⁱ. officij, ut supradᵗᵃ. -oponione q. sol sit cẽ: trum mundi, et im̃obilis, et Terra moveatur omnino -relinquat, nec eã de Cetero qᵒvis mõ teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, -aut scriptis, al̃s (alias) coñ ipsũ procedetur ĩ (in) Sᵗᵒ. offo., cui precepto -Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum Rome ubi -subra p̃ntibus ibidẽ R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia ĩ Regno Cypri, et -Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. Politianeñ (Poletianensis) -familiarib. dⁱ. Illᵐⁱ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Testibus. (Vat. MS. folio 379 ro, 379 vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_140" id="Footnote_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> Marini, p. 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_141" id="Footnote_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_142" id="Footnote_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> In the <i>Zeitschrift für mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen -Unterricht</i>, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy between -Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the <i>Zeitschrift für Mathematik</i>, -etc., 17th series. Part ii., pp. 9-31; part iii., pp. 41-45; part v., pp. -81-98.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_143" id="Footnote_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a></p> - -<p class="right"><i>Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616.</i></p> - -<p>Facta relatione per Illumum. D. Cardᵉᵐ. Bellarminum quod Galilaeus -Galilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad deserendam -(prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, <i>disserendam</i>) opinionem -quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum, et immobilis, terra -autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto Congregationis Indicis, -qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et suspensa respective -scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium cœlestium....) -Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitæ, -SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S. Palatii hujusmodi -suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. vi.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_144" id="Footnote_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_145" id="Footnote_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 231-233.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_146" id="Footnote_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> Op. Suppl. 109-112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_147" id="Footnote_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sigʳ Galileo -Galilei sia calumniato, ò imputato di havere abiurato in mano nr̃a, et anco -di essere stato perciò penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et essendo -ricercati della verità diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no ha abiurato i -mano nr̃a nè di altra qua in Roma ne meno ĩ altro luogo che noi sappiamo -alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, nè manco hà ricevuto penitenzie salutarj, -nè d’altra sorte, ma solo, ql’è stata denunziata la dichiarazione fatta da -Nr̃o Sigʳᵉ: e publicata dalla Sacra Congregⁿᵉ: dell’indice, nella quale -si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al Copernico che la terra si muova -intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel centro del Mõdo senza muoversi da -oriente ad occidente sia cõtraria alle sacre scritture, e però nõ si possa -difendere nè tenere. Et in fede di ciò habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta -la presẽte di nr̃a propria mano questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me -desimo di sopra, Roberto Cardˡᵉ. Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and -427 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_148" id="Footnote_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Martin, pp. 79, 80.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_149" id="Footnote_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p. 17) -to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of Galileo, -published in 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_150" id="Footnote_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> For the particulars, see Appendix, “Estimate of the Vat. MS.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_151" id="Footnote_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Pietro Guiccardini had relieved his predecessor, Giovanni Sicculini, of -his post on 14th May, 1611, when Galileo was still at Rome. Guiccardini -remained there till 27th November, 1621.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_152" id="Footnote_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 227-230.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_153" id="Footnote_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> See Galileo’s letter to Picchena, from Rome, of 12th March. (Op. -vi. pp. 233-235.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_154" id="Footnote_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> Wolynski’s “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 36.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_155" id="Footnote_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 235-237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_156" id="Footnote_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 385.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_157" id="Footnote_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. See these despatches verbatim in Wolynski’s -“La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_158" id="Footnote_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 238, note 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_159" id="Footnote_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> See letter from Cesi to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 389, 390.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_160" id="Footnote_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 387-406.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_161" id="Footnote_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 278-281.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_162" id="Footnote_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 350.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_163" id="Footnote_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Nelli, vol. i. p. 432.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_164" id="Footnote_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Op. iv. p. 16. This appears also from a letter from Galileo of -19th June, 1619, to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, afterwards Pope -Urban VIII., accompanying the treatise. (See this letter in “Pieralisi,” -pp. 63, 64; and “Guitoloni et Gal. Galilei,” Livorno, 1872, vol. i. -p. 263.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_165" id="Footnote_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> “Libra Astronomica ac Philosophica qua Galilæi Galilæi opiniones -de cometis a Mario Guiduccio in Florentina Academia expositæ, atque -in lucem nuper editæ examinatur a Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” (Op. iv. -pp. 63-121.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_166" id="Footnote_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> See the letter of Mgr. Ciampoli of 6th December, 1619, to Galileo. -(Op. viii. pp. 430, 431.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_167" id="Footnote_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> Compare the letters of Stelluti (27th January, 1620) to Prince Cesi, -4th March and 18th May, 1620; and from Mgr. Ciampoli, 18th May, 1620, -to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 436-439, and 441-443.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_168" id="Footnote_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. p. -447; Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 59.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_169" id="Footnote_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> See Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_170" id="Footnote_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> Compare Cesarini’s letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1621, and 7th May, -1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_171" id="Footnote_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and -16-18; and Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., p. 65.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_172" id="Footnote_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> “Scandaglio della Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi -nella controversia delle Comete, e particolarmente delle tre ultimamente -vedute l’anno 1618, di Giovanni Battista Stelluti da Fabriano dottor di -Legge.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_173" id="Footnote_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> “Il Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si ponderano -le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi -Sigensano.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_174" id="Footnote_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> See Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 12th January, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. -22-24.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_175" id="Footnote_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_176" id="Footnote_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., -p. 68.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_177" id="Footnote_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> See Ciampoli’s Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_178" id="Footnote_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> See Ranke: “Die römischen Päpste,” etc., vol. ii. p. 531, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_179" id="Footnote_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> See Op. viii. pp. 173, 206, 208, 209, 262, 427; ix. p. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_180" id="Footnote_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 206.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_181" id="Footnote_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 262.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_182" id="Footnote_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> Op. viii. p. 451. Pieralisi in his work, “Urban VIII. and Galileo -Galilei,” Rome, 1875, pp. 22, 27, gives Barberini’s ode, which is in Latin, -and consists of nineteen strophes, as well as a commentary on it, which -has not been printed by Campanella. See also pp. 65, 66, Galileo’s reply -to Barberini, in which he expresses his warm thanks and his admiration -of the poetry. This is not in Albèri’s work.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_183" id="Footnote_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Op. iv., “Saggiatore,” p. 172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_184" id="Footnote_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> See for these transactions the letter of Mario Guiducci, from Rome, -to Galileo, of 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_185" id="Footnote_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 28th October, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 43, 44.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_186" id="Footnote_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> Rinuccini’s letters to Galileo, 3rd November and 2nd December, 1623. -(Op. Suppl. p. 154; and ix. p. 50.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_187" id="Footnote_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 289, 290.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_188" id="Footnote_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 42, 43.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_189" id="Footnote_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_190" id="Footnote_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> See Rinuccini’s letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and -Guiducci’s of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_191" id="Footnote_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Compare Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix. -p. 55.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_192" id="Footnote_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 56.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_193" id="Footnote_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at -Aquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_194" id="Footnote_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_195" id="Footnote_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> ... “Fu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l’avea -dannata, ne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria.” Comp. -Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_196" id="Footnote_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> Page 92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_197" id="Footnote_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_198" id="Footnote_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to Zacharias -Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop the first -microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century, probably in 1590.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_199" id="Footnote_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_200" id="Footnote_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_201" id="Footnote_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in -1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. -His daughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri. The -mother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with whom -Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which was -quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at that -period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing to the -religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo’s son did not accept it. -It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved unworthy of it, to -Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars, but with the condition, -as it was derived from two ecclesiastical benefices, that he should adopt -the tonsure, to which he consented. He drew the pension which thus -irregularly accrued to him as long as he lived.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_202" id="Footnote_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 295.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_203" id="Footnote_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_204" id="Footnote_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree -of 10th March, 1619.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_205" id="Footnote_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> Op. ii. pp. 64-115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_206" id="Footnote_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> See Guiducci’s letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op. -ix. pp. 78-80.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_207" id="Footnote_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_208" id="Footnote_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> See Guiducci’s letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November, -21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp. -168-178.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_209" id="Footnote_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 97.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_210" id="Footnote_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> Op. iv. pp. 486, 487.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_211" id="Footnote_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> “Dialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si discorre -sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano, -proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per -l’una parte, che par l’altra.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_212" id="Footnote_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan, 1630, -to Cesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi’s letter to Galileo, -12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_213" id="Footnote_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> Op. i. (“Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc.), pp. 11, 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_214" id="Footnote_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> Op. i. pp. 501-503.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_215" id="Footnote_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Martin, p. 99.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_216" id="Footnote_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Comp. for example the essay: “Der Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo -Galilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus”; also Marini, pp. -70-73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_217" id="Footnote_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 333-336.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_218" id="Footnote_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 333 and 336.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_219" id="Footnote_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 167.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_220" id="Footnote_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 173-175.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_221" id="Footnote_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned -by Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having -taken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal -opinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of a -charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for appearance’s -sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629, been -at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo’s most zealous adherents, -and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded -with him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is -noteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave all -other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive question -of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the singular -offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of “the astrological -medicine”! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had been denounced -by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal Gaetani applied -to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning, to give his opinion -on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In compliance with -this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for Galileo, in which -the expert theologian and mathematician brought the system into agreement -with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations of the imprisoned -philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the Sacred -Congregation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_222" id="Footnote_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> “Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si sarrebe -fatto quel decreto.” (Op. ix. p. 176.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_223" id="Footnote_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 176, 177.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_224" id="Footnote_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> “Che lei è desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella.” -(Op. ix. p. 178.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_225" id="Footnote_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 188.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_226" id="Footnote_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> In the narration of this most important transaction we have followed -the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of Galileo, was -handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an authentic -document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions with -Galileo’s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274-277; Suppl. pp. 233-235.) -It is inconceivable how Albèri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have -fallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received -the <i>imprimatur</i> at all, though he himself publishes documents which -prove the contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of -16th June, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo’s to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 -(Op. vi. pp. 374-376); a letter of Riccardi’s to the Tuscan ambassador -at Rome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally, -a letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420-423). Martin -also expresses his surprise at this error of Albèri’s (p. 102, note 2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_227" id="Footnote_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_228" id="Footnote_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 346, note 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_229" id="Footnote_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_230" id="Footnote_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 198, 199.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_231" id="Footnote_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 201, 202.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_232" id="Footnote_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the “Dialogues,” this permission -to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are also -reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in 4to).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_233" id="Footnote_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 205, 206.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_234" id="Footnote_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> See Caterina Niccolini’s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_235" id="Footnote_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 375.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_236" id="Footnote_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent followed -Galileo’s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we have -made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary -commission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.), -and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat. MS. 413 ro.-419 -ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_237" id="Footnote_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> Compare the letter of Geri Bocchineri, private secretary at the Court -of Tuscany, to Galileo (Op. ix. pp. 225, 226), and the letter of Cioli to -Niccolini of 8th March, in which the latter is charged, in the name of the -Grand Duke, to support Galileo’s cause to the utmost with the Master of -the Palace. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 39.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_238" id="Footnote_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Op. vi. pp. 377, 378.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_239" id="Footnote_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 242, 243.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_240" id="Footnote_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> The Roman censorship only granted licences to works published at -Rome itself.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_241" id="Footnote_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> See this letter from Riccardi to Niccolini. (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_242" id="Footnote_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> Op. iv. pp. 382-284.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_243" id="Footnote_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> See Niccolini to Galileo, 25th May, 1631. (Wolynski, “Lettere -inedite,” etc., p. 83.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_244" id="Footnote_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> ... “Si che non mai si conceda la verita assoluta ma solamente -la hipotetica, e senza la Scrittura, a questa opinione ...”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_245" id="Footnote_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 390 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_246" id="Footnote_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> Ibid. fol. 390 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_247" id="Footnote_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Letter of 19th July, 1631. (Op. ix. p. 246.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_248" id="Footnote_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> See this important letter of Riccardi’s to the Inquisitor at Florence. -(Vat. MS. fol. 393 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_249" id="Footnote_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> See points 1 and 3 of the memorial which was handed to the Pope -at the first examination of Galileo by the preliminary commission. (Vat. -MS. fol. 388.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_250" id="Footnote_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Comp. p. 120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_251" id="Footnote_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Marini, p. 127. Pieralisi tries to convince the reader that Ciampoli -acted quite despotically in the matter; and says that when Riccardi refers -to “the Pope,” it was not Maffeo Barberini, but Mgr. Ciampoli, “Giovanni -Ciampoli non Maffeo Barberini era il Papa”! p. 113, a statement which, -considering Urban’s despotic character and the absence of historical -proof, appears very arbitrary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_252" id="Footnote_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> <i>Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik.</i> 9th Series, Part 3, p. 184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_253" id="Footnote_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Marini, pp. 116, 117; Op. Suppl. pp. 324, 325.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_254" id="Footnote_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> Op. vi. p. 389.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_255" id="Footnote_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> Ibid. p. 390.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_256" id="Footnote_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_257" id="Footnote_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 271.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_258" id="Footnote_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> Ibid. p. 253.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_259" id="Footnote_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 270-272.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_260" id="Footnote_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> Op. Suppl. p. 319.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_261" id="Footnote_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp. -163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_262" id="Footnote_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> Comp. on this subject the chapters on “Die Gesellschaft Jesu” in -“Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart,” -by Fr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_263" id="Footnote_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> ... “I Gesuiti lo persequiterano acerbissimamente.” (See -Magalotti’s letter to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th Aug., 1632. Op. -Suppl. p. 321)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_264" id="Footnote_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> See their letters. (Op. ix. pp. 264-267, 270-272, 276-282.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_265" id="Footnote_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> See their letters to Galileo. (Op. ix. pp. 25, 72, 97, 166-168, 174-177, -210, 255; Suppl. p. 181.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_266" id="Footnote_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> On the reverse side of the title page of the “Dialogues” stands:—</p> - -<div class="ad"> - -<p class="noindent">“Imprimatur, si videbitur Rever. P. Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici.</p> - -<p class="right">A. Episcopus Bellicastensis Vices gerens.</p> - -<p class="noindent">Imprimatur. Fr. Nicolaus Ricardus, Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister.</p> - -<p class="noindent">Imprimatur Florentiæ; ordinibus consuetis servatis. 11 Septembris 1630.</p> - -<p class="right">Petrus Nicolinus Vic. Gen. Florentiæ.</p> - -<p class="noindent">Imprimatur. Die 11 Septembris 1630.</p> - -<p class="right">Fra Clemens Egidius Inquisit. Gen. Florentiæ.</p> - -<p class="noindent">Stampisi. A. di 12 di Settembre 1630.</p> - -<p class="right">Niccolò dell’Altella.”</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_267" id="Footnote_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> It is reproduced in Venturi, vol. ii. p. 117.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_268" id="Footnote_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> See on all this the two detailed letters of Count Magalotti to Mario -Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th August and 4th September, 1632. (Op. -Suppl. pp. 318-329.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_269" id="Footnote_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> Scheiner had two years before published a work called “Rosa Ursina,” -in which he again fiercely attacked Galileo, and stoutly maintained his unjustifiable -claims to the first discovery of the solar spots. Galileo did not -directly answer him in his “Dialogues,” but dealt him some side blows, -and stood up for his own priority in the discovery with weighty arguments. -Castelli, in a letter to Galileo of 19th June, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 274), -gives an amusing description of Scheiner’s rage. When a priest from -Siena praised the book in his presence at a bookseller’s, and called it the -most important work that had ever appeared, Scheiner left the shop, pale -as death, and trembling with excitement in every limb. But he did not -always thus curb his rage. The natural philosopher, Torricelli, who afterwards -became famous, a pupil of Castelli’s, reported to Galileo, in a letter -of 11th September, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 287), a conversation he had had with -Scheiner about the “Dialogues.” Although he shook his head about them, -he had concurred in Torricelli’s praise, but could not help remarking that -he found the frequent digressions tedious; and no wonder, for they often -referred to himself, and he always got the worst of it. He broke off the -conversation by saying that “Galileo had behaved very badly to him, but -he did not wish to speak of it.” In a letter of 23rd February, 1633, to -Gassendi (Op. ix. p. 275), Scheiner is less reserved. Rage and fury evidently -guided his pen, and he complains bitterly that Galileo had dared in -his work to “lay violent hands” on the “Rosa Ursina.” Scheiner was -doubtless one of the most zealous in instituting the trial against Galileo, -although Targioni (vol. i. p. 113, note <i>a</i>) overshoots the mark in making -him his actual accuser.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_270" id="Footnote_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 420-425.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_271" id="Footnote_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> See Magalotti’s letter to Guiducci of 4th September, 1632 (Op. -Suppl. p. 324); and Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 5th September (Op. ix. -p. 422).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_272" id="Footnote_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 271, note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_273" id="Footnote_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> Comp. Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 13th March, 1633. (Op. ix. p. -437.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_274" id="Footnote_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> Op. i. “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc., p. 502.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_275" id="Footnote_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> This point has been recently thoroughly discussed by Henri Martin. -Comp. pp. 159-168.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_276" id="Footnote_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> Pages 34-38, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_277" id="Footnote_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> ... “Che fu il primo motere di tutti i miei travagli.” (Op. -vii. p. 71.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_278" id="Footnote_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> This erroneous idea is found among a large number of historians; -for instance, Biot (<i>Journal des Savans</i>, July-Oct. 1858), pp. 464, 465; -Philarète Chasles, pp. 129, 130, 208; Reumont, p. 336; and Parchappe, -p. 206. Epinois (pp. 56, 57) and Martin (pp. 159-168) have merely given -the importance to this circumstance which it deserves, for it really was of -great moment in the course of the trial.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_279" id="Footnote_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> “ ... E da buona banda intendo i Padri Gesuiti aver fatto impressione -in testa principalissima che tal mio libro è piu esecrando e piu -pernicioso per Santa Chiesa, che le scritture di Lutero e di Calvino ...” -(Letter from Galileo to Elia Diodati of 15th Jan., 1633, Op. vii. p. 19. -Comp. also his letter to King Ladislaus of Poland, Op. vii. p. 190.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_280" id="Footnote_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> See the letter of Magalotti to Guiducci, before mentioned, of 7th -August, 1632. (Op. Suppl. pp. 318-323.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_281" id="Footnote_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> Op. Suppl. p. 319.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_282" id="Footnote_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> See the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 18th Sep., 1632. -(Op. ix. pp. 422 and 426.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_283" id="Footnote_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> See Campanella’s letters to Galileo of 31st August and 25th Sep., -1632. (Op. ix. pp. 284 and 294.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_284" id="Footnote_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 3, 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_285" id="Footnote_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 420-423.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_286" id="Footnote_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> Il Serenissimo Padrone ha sentito le lettere di V. E. de 4 et 5, et per -questa materia del Sig. Mariano e per quella del Sig. Galileo resta in -tanta alterazione chio non so come le cose passarano; so bene che S. -Santita non havera mai cagione di dolessi de ministri ni de mali consigli -lora. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 45.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_287" id="Footnote_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> Op. Suppl. pp. 324-330.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_288" id="Footnote_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> It never did in fact come to this; for the <i>supreme authority</i> is the -Pope, speaking <i>ex cathedra</i>, or an Œcumenical Council.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_289" id="Footnote_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 423-425.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_290" id="Footnote_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> ... “Ma sopra tutte le cose dice, con la solita confidenza e -segretezza, essersi trovato ne’ libri del S. Offizio, che circa a 16 anni sono -essendosi sentito che il Signor Galilei aveva questa opinione, e la -seminara in Fiorenza, e che per questo essendo fatto venire a Roma, -gli fu proibito in nome del Papa e del S. Offizio dal Signor Cardinale -Bellarmino il poter tenere questa opinione, <i>e che questo solo é bastante -per rovinarlo affatto</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_291" id="Footnote_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a> Comp. pp. 71, 72.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_292" id="Footnote_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_293" id="Footnote_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. -pp. 425-428.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_294" id="Footnote_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp. -425-428.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_295" id="Footnote_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> Vat. MS. p. 394 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_296" id="Footnote_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> After Galileo’s signature follow the autograph attestations of the notary -and witnesses, of whose presence Galileo knew nothing. (Vat. MS. fol. -398 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_297" id="Footnote_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_298" id="Footnote_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> The address does not indicate which of the Cardinals Barberini, but -it is clear from Niccolini’s despatch of 13th November, 1632, to Cioli, -that it was to Cardinal Antonio, jun., nephew of the Pope, and not, as -Albèri assumes, to Cardinal Antonio, sen., the Pope’s brother.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_299" id="Footnote_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> There is no clue whatever as to who this personage was. From what -Galileo says, it must have been some high ecclesiastical dignitary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_300" id="Footnote_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> On this point also a passage in a letter of Campanella’s to Galileo of -22nd October, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 303), is worth mentioning. He says: “They -are doing all they possibly can here in Rome, by speaking and writing, to -prove that you have acted contrary to orders.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_301" id="Footnote_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 7-13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_302" id="Footnote_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 403 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_303" id="Footnote_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 304-306.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_304" id="Footnote_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 428, 429.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_305" id="Footnote_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> Niccolini was mistaken if he thought that this tribunal was, according -to ecclesiastical notions, infallible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_306" id="Footnote_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 311.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_307" id="Footnote_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> See Niccolini to Cioli, 6th November. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,” -etc., p. 50.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_308" id="Footnote_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. vii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_309" id="Footnote_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> The cup of papal wrath had by this time been emptied on Ciampoli’s -head. He had been deprived of his important office as Secretary of the -Papal Briefs, and in order to remove him from Rome he was made -Governor of Montalto, and entered on his post at the end of November. -(See the letters of Castelli to Galileo. Op. ix. pp. 306, 313-316.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_310" id="Footnote_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> For these documents, from which the above narrative is taken, see -Op. ix. pp. 312, 313 and 429, 430.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_311" id="Footnote_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 401 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_312" id="Footnote_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, and Vat. MS. fol. 402 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_313" id="Footnote_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 430, 431.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_314" id="Footnote_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 318, 319.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_315" id="Footnote_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 406 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_316" id="Footnote_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 407 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_317" id="Footnote_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 431.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_318" id="Footnote_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 319, 320.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_319" id="Footnote_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> See Castelli’s Letters to Galileo of 2nd and 16th Oct., 1632. (Op. ix. -pp. 295-298, and 299-301.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_320" id="Footnote_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> See his letters. (Op. ix. pp. 306, 307, and 313-315.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_321" id="Footnote_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> “30th Dec. 1632, a Nativitate. Sanctissimus mandavit Inquisitori -rescribi quod Sanctitas Sua et Sacra Congregatio nullatenus potest et -debet tolerare hujusmodi subterfugia et ad effectum verificandi an revera -in statu tali reperiatur quod non possit ad urbem absque vitae periculo -accedere. Sanctissimus et Sacra Congregatio transmittet illuc commissarium -una cum medicum qui illum visitent ut certam et sinceram relationem -faciant de statu in quo reperitur, et si erit in statu tali ut venire -possit illum carceratum et ligatum cum ferris transmittat. Si vero causa -sanitatas et ob periculum vitae transmissio erit differenda, statim postquam -convaluerit et cessante periculo carceratus et ligatus ac cum ferris transmittat. -Commissiarius autem et medici transmittantur ejus sumptibus et -expensis quid se in tali statu et temporibus constituit et tempore oportuno -ut ei fuerat preceptum venire et facere contempsit.” (Gherardi’s Documents, -Doc. x.; and Vat. MS. fol. 409 vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_322" id="Footnote_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 322, 323. This last observation of the Grand Duke’s, only -meaning that he reckoned on a speedy release for Galileo, afterwards -gave Cioli occasion, as we shall see by-and-by, for a most mean act -towards Galileo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_323" id="Footnote_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a> It is incomprehensible how many of Galileo’s biographers, even Parchappe -(p. 216) and H. Martin (p. 120), who had Albèri’s work at command, -fix the 15th as the date. And yet we have a letter of Galileo’s to the -Cardinal de Medici of the 15th Jan. (Op. vii. pp. 15, 16), asking if he had -any commissions, in which he expressly mentions “the 20th instant” as -the day of his departure.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_324" id="Footnote_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> “Famosi et antiqui problematis de telluris motu vel quiete hactenus -optata solutio: ad Em. Card. Richelium Ducem et Franciæ Parem. A. -Jo. Bapt. Morino apud Gallos et Bellajocensibus Francopolitano Doct. -Med. atque Paris. Mathematum professore. Terra stat in æternum; -Sol oritur et occidit. Eccles. Cap. I. Parisiis apud tuctorem juxta Pontem -novum 1631, in 40.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_325" id="Footnote_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> “Liberti Fromondi in Acad. Lovaniensi S. Theolog. Doctoris et Professoris -ordinarii. Ant.-Aristarchus, sive orbis terræ immobilis. Liber -unicus, in quo decretum S. Congreg. S. R. E. Cardinalium anno 1616, -adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur. Antverpiæ ex -officina Plantiniana 1631, in 40.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_326" id="Footnote_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> The letter to the Grand Duchess Christine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_327" id="Footnote_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 16-20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_328" id="Footnote_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> The Inquisitor informed the Holy Office, two days later, that Galileo -had left Florence on the 20th. (Vat. MS. fol. 411 ro.; and Gherardi’s -Documents, Doc. xii.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_329" id="Footnote_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> Comp. Niccolini’s letter to Galileo of 5th Feb., 1633. (Op. ix. p. 327.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_330" id="Footnote_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 14th Feb. (Op. ix. p. 432.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_331" id="Footnote_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 16th and 19th Feb. (Op. ix. -pp. 432, 433.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_332" id="Footnote_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_333" id="Footnote_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> See Galileo’s letter to Cioli of 19th Feb. (Op. vii. pp. 20-22.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_334" id="Footnote_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_335" id="Footnote_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335"><span class="label">[335]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letter to Geri Bocchineri of 25th Feb. (Op. vii. p. 23.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_336" id="Footnote_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336"><span class="label">[336]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 20-22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_337" id="Footnote_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337"><span class="label">[337]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_338" id="Footnote_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338"><span class="label">[338]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_339" id="Footnote_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339"><span class="label">[339]</span></a> Op. ix. 434.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_340" id="Footnote_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340"><span class="label">[340]</span></a> In the account of this conversation we have followed Niccolini’s -despatch to Cioli of 27th Feb. (Op. ix. pp. 434-436.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_341" id="Footnote_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341"><span class="label">[341]</span></a> Comp. pp. 171, 172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_342" id="Footnote_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342"><span class="label">[342]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 434-436.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_343" id="Footnote_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343"><span class="label">[343]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 330-332.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_344" id="Footnote_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344"><span class="label">[344]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 27; and ix. p. 436; also Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,” -etc., p. 57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_345" id="Footnote_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345"><span class="label">[345]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 436-438.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_346" id="Footnote_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346"><span class="label">[346]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 438; and vii. p. 228.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_347" id="Footnote_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347"><span class="label">[347]</span></a> See Geri Bocchineri’s Letters to Galileo and Cioli, both of 26th -March, 1633: the former, Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 89; the -latter, Op. ix. p. 336.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_348" id="Footnote_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348"><span class="label">[348]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 441.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_349" id="Footnote_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349"><span class="label">[349]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 338.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_350" id="Footnote_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350"><span class="label">[350]</span></a> See Galileo’s letters to G. Bocchineri of 5th and 12th, and to Cioli of -12th and 19th March. (Op. vii. pp. 24-28.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_351" id="Footnote_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351"><span class="label">[351]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 438, 439.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_352" id="Footnote_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352"><span class="label">[352]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 413 vo. 419 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_353" id="Footnote_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353"><span class="label">[353]</span></a> We have before stated that Copernicus did not at all consider his -doctrine a hypothesis, but was convinced of its actual truth. It was -Osiander’s politic introduction which had given rise to the error which -was then generally held.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_354" id="Footnote_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354"><span class="label">[354]</span></a> Prof. Berti has first published this interesting letter in full in his -“Copernico e le vicende Sistema Copernicano in Italia,” pp. 121-125.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_355" id="Footnote_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355"><span class="label">[355]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 423 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_356" id="Footnote_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356"><span class="label">[356]</span></a> No explanation is to be found anywhere of this mysterious notification. -The protocols of the trial show that none took place before the -Inquisitor. These “particulars,” therefore, as they are not mentioned -again in the course of the trial, and play no part in it, may have been -chiefly of a private nature.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_357" id="Footnote_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357"><span class="label">[357]</span></a> These are the precise words of this ominous passage in the annotation -of 26th February, 1616, which appear to have been considered -absolutely decisive by the Inquisitor.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_358" id="Footnote_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358"><span class="label">[358]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 29. The rest of the letter is about family affairs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_359" id="Footnote_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359"><span class="label">[359]</span></a> Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 16th April. (Op. ix. pp. 440, 441.) -During our stay in Rome in the spring of 1877, Leone Vincenzo Sallua, -the Father Commissary-General of the Holy Office, was kind enough to -show us the apartments occupied by Galileo in the Palace of the Inquisition. -The rooms are all large, light, and cheerful, and on one side you -enjoy the prospect of the majestic dome of St. Peter’s, and on the other of -the beautiful gardens of the Vatican. It is worthy of note that all the -rooms assigned to Galileo and his servant are entirely shut off by a single -door, so that but one key was required to make the inmates of these -handsome apartments prisoners. With all its consideration for Galileo’s -person, the Inquisition never forgot a certain prudence which had perhaps -become a second nature to it. We prefix a little ground plan of the -rooms, made by ourselves on the spot.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_360" id="Footnote_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360"><span class="label">[360]</span></a> See despatch of 23rd April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_361" id="Footnote_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361"><span class="label">[361]</span></a> See Op. ix. pp. 334, 339, 345, 346, 354, 355. Pieralisi tries to palliate -even this act, but without much success. (Comp. pp. 134, 135.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_362" id="Footnote_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362"><span class="label">[362]</span></a> Thanks to the kindness of Prof. Riccardi, of Modena, in whose valuable -library there is, among other treasures, a copy of Galileo’s “Dialogues” -of 1632, I was enabled to compare Inchofer’s quotations with a copy of -the very edition which was in the hands of the consultators of the Holy -Office. I am able to state that Inchofer quotes them verbatim, or makes -faithful extracts without altering the sense. The last quotation only, 25, -is a little confused. (Vat. MS. fol. 439 vo.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_363" id="Footnote_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363"><span class="label">[363]</span></a> Pasqualigus seldom cites verbatim, but makes short quotations; and -in comparing them with Galileo’s works, I have found the sense given -correctly.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_364" id="Footnote_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364"><span class="label">[364]</span></a> See all these opinions and the arguments, Vat. MS. fol. 429 ro. 447 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_365" id="Footnote_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365"><span class="label">[365]</span></a> There is a passage in a letter of Galileo’s to Geri Bocchineri of 25th -February, 1633, in which he says: “The cessation of all bodily exercise -which, as you know I am accustomed to take for the benefit of my health, -and of which I have now been deprived for nearly forty days, begins to -tell upon me, and particularly to interfere with digestion, so that the -mucus accumulates; and for three days violent pains in the limbs have -occasioned great suffering, and deprived me of sleep. I hope strict diet -will get rid of them.” (Op. vii. p. 23.) Since this time two months had -elapsed without Galileo’s having been in the open air. Even the Inquisitors -saw, as we shall find, that a change must be made in the regulations, -if they did not wish to endanger his life.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_366" id="Footnote_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366"><span class="label">[366]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_367" id="Footnote_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367"><span class="label">[367]</span></a> Pages 197, 198.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_368" id="Footnote_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368"><span class="label">[368]</span></a> Niccolini’s.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_369" id="Footnote_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369"><span class="label">[369]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 419 ro. 420 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_370" id="Footnote_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370"><span class="label">[370]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 420 vo. 421 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_371" id="Footnote_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371"><span class="label">[371]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 421 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_372" id="Footnote_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372"><span class="label">[372]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 441, 442.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_373" id="Footnote_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373"><span class="label">[373]</span></a> Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_374" id="Footnote_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374"><span class="label">[374]</span></a> See Niccolini to Cioli, 15th May, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 442.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_375" id="Footnote_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375"><span class="label">[375]</span></a> Galileo’s letters between 23rd April and 23rd July, just the most -interesting time, are entirely wanting, which can scarcely be altogether accidental.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_376" id="Footnote_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376"><span class="label">[376]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 353.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_377" id="Footnote_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377"><span class="label">[377]</span></a> See the protocol of the hearing of 10th May, 1633. (Vat. MS. fol. -422 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_378" id="Footnote_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378"><span class="label">[378]</span></a> At his first hearing Galileo had only been able to show a copy of this -certificate, but now produced the original.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_379" id="Footnote_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379"><span class="label">[379]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 425 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_380" id="Footnote_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_380"><span class="label">[380]</span></a> Comp. Marini, pp. 98-100.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_381" id="Footnote_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_381"><span class="label">[381]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 357.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_382" id="Footnote_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_382"><span class="label">[382]</span></a> See their letters (Op. ix. pp. 355-364; and Suppl. pp. 350, 351).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_383" id="Footnote_383"></a><a href="#FNanchor_383"><span class="label">[383]</span></a> See his letters to Galileo (Op. Suppl. pp. 248-250).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_384" id="Footnote_384"></a><a href="#FNanchor_384"><span class="label">[384]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 359.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_385" id="Footnote_385"></a><a href="#FNanchor_385"><span class="label">[385]</span></a> Ibid. p. 365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_386" id="Footnote_386"></a><a href="#FNanchor_386"><span class="label">[386]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 29th May. (Op. ix. p. 443.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_387" id="Footnote_387"></a><a href="#FNanchor_387"><span class="label">[387]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 442, 443.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_388" id="Footnote_388"></a><a href="#FNanchor_388"><span class="label">[388]</span></a></p> - -<p class="right">“Feria V. Die XVI. Junii 1633.</p> - -<p>Galilaei de Galileis Florentini in hoc S. Off. carcerati et ob ejus adversam -valetudinem ac senectutem cum praecepto de non discedendo de -domo electae habitationis in urbe, ac de se repraesentando toties quoties -sub poenis arbitrio Sacrae Congregationis habilitati proposita causa relato -processu et auditis notis, S.ᵐᵘˢ decrevit ipsum Galilaeum interrogandum -esse super intentione et comminata ei tortura, et si sustinuerit, previa -abjuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S. Off. condemnandum -ad carcerem arbitrio Sac. Congregationis, Injunctum ei ne de cetero -scripto vel verbo tractet ampluis gnovis modo de mobilitate terræ, nec de -stabilitate solis et e contra sub poena relapsus. Librum vero ab eo conscriptum -cuititutus est Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo (publice cremandum -fore (<i>sic</i>) ma cassato) prohibendum fore. Praeterea ut haec omnibus -innotescant exemplaria Sententiae Decretumque perinde transmitti jussit -ad omnes nuntios apostolicos, et ad omnes haereticae pravitatis Inquisitores, -ac praecipue ad Inquisitorem Florentiae qui eam sententiam -in ejus plena Congregatione, Consultoribus accersitis, etiam et coram -plerisque Mathematicae Artis Professoribus publice legatur.” (Gherardi’s -Documents, Doc. xiii.; and Vat. MS. fol. 451 vo.)</p> - -<p>It was then apparently at first determined publicly to burn Galileo’s -book, and it was not till after the decree had been committed to writing -that it was altered. At whose instigation this was done, whether at that -of the Pope, or in consequence of the remonstrances of some more lenient -members of the Congregation, such as the Cardinals Barberini, Borgia, -and Zacchia, cannot be decided.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_389" id="Footnote_389"></a><a href="#FNanchor_389"><span class="label">[389]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 443, 444, from which the above account is taken.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_390" id="Footnote_390"></a><a href="#FNanchor_390"><span class="label">[390]</span></a> See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_391" id="Footnote_391"></a><a href="#FNanchor_391"><span class="label">[391]</span></a> Et cu nihil aliud posset haberi in executione decreti habita eius subscriptione -remissus fuit ad locum suum. (Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_392" id="Footnote_392"></a><a href="#FNanchor_392"><span class="label">[392]</span></a> “Cioè al palazzo del Ministro di Toscana,” says Marini, p. 62.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_393" id="Footnote_393"></a><a href="#FNanchor_393"><span class="label">[393]</span></a> The passage in Niccolini’s despatch is as follows: “Il Signor Galilei -fu chiamato lunedi (20) sera al S. Uffizio, ove si trasferi martedi (21) -mattina conforme all’ ordine, per sentire qual che potessero desiderare da -lui, ed essendo ritenuto, fu condotto mercoledi (22) alla Minerva avanti -alli Sig. Cardinali e Prelati della Congregazione, dove non solamente gli -fu letta la sentenza, ma fatto anche abiurare la sua opinione, ... la -qual condannazione gli ful subito permutata da S. B. in una relegazione -o confine al giardino della Trinita de’ Monti, dore io lo condussi venerdi -(24) sera....” (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_394" id="Footnote_394"></a><a href="#FNanchor_394"><span class="label">[394]</span></a> Galileo’s letter to Castelli of 21st December, 1613.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_395" id="Footnote_395"></a><a href="#FNanchor_395"><span class="label">[395]</span></a> Appendix VI.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_396" id="Footnote_396"></a><a href="#FNanchor_396"><span class="label">[396]</span></a> It is very remarkable that Jagemann, in his book on Galileo, which -appeared in 1784 (New Ed. 1787, pp. 86, 95), doubts the fact of such a -special prohibition. Of course he is acquainted only with the sentence -published by Riccioli, and surmises that he invented the passage in which -the special prohibition is mentioned, “in order to justify the harsh proceedings -of the Court of Rome under Urban VIII.” So that ninety years -ago, without anything to go by but the wording of the sentence, Jagemann -suspected that this strict prohibition was never issued to Galileo, -and says,—“Neither does this decree agree with the information given -above on all points,” <i>i.e.</i>, in letters of Galileo and Guiccardini of 1616.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_397" id="Footnote_397"></a><a href="#FNanchor_397"><span class="label">[397]</span></a> Compare the excellent essay: “La Condemnation de Galilée. Lapsus -des écrivains qui l’opposent a la doctrine de l’infallibilité du Pape,” -von Abbé Bouix. Also Pieralisi, pp. 121-131; and Gilbert’s “La Procés -de Galilée,” pp. 19-30. We may remark here, that according to these -principles the doctrine of Copernicus was not made heretical by the -sentence of the Inquisition, because the decree never received the Pope’s -official ratification. To confirm this statement we subjoin some remarks -by theological authorities. Gassendi remarks in his great work, “De -motu impresso a motore translato” (Epist. ii. t. iii. p. 519), published -nine years after the condemnation of Galileo, on the absence of the -papal ratification in the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, and that therefore -<i>the negation of the Copernican theory was not an article of faith</i>. -As a good priest he recognises the high authority of a decision of the -Congregation, and subjects his personal opinions to it. Father Riccioli, -in his comprehensive work, “Almagestum novum,” published nine years -after Gassendi’s, reproduces Gassendi’s statement word for word (t. i., -pars. 2, p. 489), and entirely concurs in it, even in the book which was -meant to refute the Copernican theory at all points (pp. 495, 496, and -500). Father Fabri, a French Jesuit, afterwards Grand Penitentiary at -Rome, says in a dissertation published there in 1661 against the -“Systema Saturnium,” of Huyghens (p. 49), that as no valid evidence -can be adduced for the truth of the new system, the authorities of the -Church are quite right in interpreting the passages of Holy Scripture -relating to the system of the universe literally; “but,” he adds, “if ever -any conclusive reasons are discovered (which I do not expect), <i>I do not -doubt that the Church will say that they are to be taken figuratively</i>,” -a remark which no priest would have made about a doctrine pronounced -heretical by infallible authority. Caramuel, a Spanish Benedictine, who -also discussed the future of the Copernican theory, defines the position -still more clearly than Fabri. In his “Theologia fundamentalis,” published -at Lyons in 1676 (t. i., pp. 104-110), after defending the decree -and sentence of the Congregation, he discusses the attitude which the -Church will take in case the system should prove indisputably true. In -the first place he believes this will never happen, and if it does, <i>it could -never be said that the Church of Rome had been in error, as the doctrine -of the double motion of the earth had never been condemned by an -Œcumenical Council, nor by the Pope speaking ex cathedra, but only by -the tribunal of cardinals</i>.</p> - -<p>It is interesting to find that Descartes, Galileo’s contemporary, put the -same construction on the matter. He wrote on 10th January, 1634, to -Father Mersenne: “<i>As I do not see that this censure has been confirmed -either by a Council or the Pope, but proceeds solely from the -congregation of the cardinals</i>, I do not give up hope that it will not -happen to the Copernican theory as it did to that about the antipodes, -which was formerly condemned in the same way.” (Panthéon littéraire, -Œuvres philosophiques de Descartes, p. 545.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_398" id="Footnote_398"></a><a href="#FNanchor_398"><span class="label">[398]</span></a> Page 141.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_399" id="Footnote_399"></a><a href="#FNanchor_399"><span class="label">[399]</span></a> Page 60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_400" id="Footnote_400"></a><a href="#FNanchor_400"><span class="label">[400]</span></a> Abbé Bouix, p. 229.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_401" id="Footnote_401"></a><a href="#FNanchor_401"><span class="label">[401]</span></a> <i>Zeitschrift für Math. und Physik.</i> 9th series. Part 3, pp. 194, 195.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_402" id="Footnote_402"></a><a href="#FNanchor_402"><span class="label">[402]</span></a> “I Cardinale Inquisitori componenti la Congregazione, in cui nome -la sentenza è fatta, erano in numero di dieci. Nell’ ultima Congregazione -se ne trovarono presenti solo sette; quindi sette solo sono sottoscritti. -Da cio non può in nessuna maniera desumersi che i tre mancanti fossero -di parere contrario.” (“Processo originale,” etc., p. 149, note 1.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_403" id="Footnote_403"></a><a href="#FNanchor_403"><span class="label">[403]</span></a> “Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei,” pp. 218-224.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_404" id="Footnote_404"></a><a href="#FNanchor_404"><span class="label">[404]</span></a> Appendix VI.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_405" id="Footnote_405"></a><a href="#FNanchor_405"><span class="label">[405]</span></a> Vol. vii. of the “Historisch-politischen Blätter für das Catholische -Deutschland.” Munich, 1841.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_406" id="Footnote_406"></a><a href="#FNanchor_406"><span class="label">[406]</span></a> Ibid. p. 578.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_407" id="Footnote_407"></a><a href="#FNanchor_407"><span class="label">[407]</span></a> The reproach which the apologists of the Inquisition are fond of -bringing against Galileo, that he knew nothing about the specific gravity -of the air, is incorrect, as appears from his letter to Baliani of 12th March, -1613 (published for the first time in 1864 by Signor Giuseppe Sacchi, -director of the library at Brera, where the autograph letter is to be seen), -in which Galileo describes a method he had invented for determining the -specific gravity of the air.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_408" id="Footnote_408"></a><a href="#FNanchor_408"><span class="label">[408]</span></a> See the essay before mentioned, p. 583.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_409" id="Footnote_409"></a><a href="#FNanchor_409"><span class="label">[409]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 580, 581.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_410" id="Footnote_410"></a><a href="#FNanchor_410"><span class="label">[410]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 581, 582.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_411" id="Footnote_411"></a><a href="#FNanchor_411"><span class="label">[411]</span></a> It carefully refutes the assertion made by Father Olivieri, that the -Holy Office had prohibited the Copernican doctrine from being demonstrated -as true, and condemned its famous advocate, Galileo, because it -could not then be satisfactorily proved scientifically, and Galileo had -supported it with arguments scientifically incorrect. If we can believe the -ex-general of the Dominicans, the Inquisition in 1616 and 1633 was only -the careful guardian of science!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_412" id="Footnote_412"></a><a href="#FNanchor_412"><span class="label">[412]</span></a> <i>Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, Beilage</i>, No. 93, 2nd Aug, 1876.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_413" id="Footnote_413"></a><a href="#FNanchor_413"><span class="label">[413]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_414" id="Footnote_414"></a><a href="#FNanchor_414"><span class="label">[414]</span></a> Compare p. 228, note 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_415" id="Footnote_415"></a><a href="#FNanchor_415"><span class="label">[415]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd July, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 445.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_416" id="Footnote_416"></a><a href="#FNanchor_416"><span class="label">[416]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_417" id="Footnote_417"></a><a href="#FNanchor_417"><span class="label">[417]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 3rd July.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_418" id="Footnote_418"></a><a href="#FNanchor_418"><span class="label">[418]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro. and 454 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_419" id="Footnote_419"></a><a href="#FNanchor_419"><span class="label">[419]</span></a> Ibid. fol. 453 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_420" id="Footnote_420"></a><a href="#FNanchor_420"><span class="label">[420]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 447.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_421" id="Footnote_421"></a><a href="#FNanchor_421"><span class="label">[421]</span></a> Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum.” Pisa, 1778, vol. i. p. 144.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_422" id="Footnote_422"></a><a href="#FNanchor_422"><span class="label">[422]</span></a> Heis, “Das Unhistorische des dem Galilei in dem Munde -gelegten: ‘E pur si muove.’” Munich, 1868.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_423" id="Footnote_423"></a><a href="#FNanchor_423"><span class="label">[423]</span></a> “Der Galileischen Process auf Grund der neuesten Actenpublicationen -historisch und juristisch geprütf.” Von Prof. H. Grisar, S. J. <i>Zeitschrift -für Kathol. Theologie.</i> 2nd series. Innsbrück, 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_424" id="Footnote_424"></a><a href="#FNanchor_424"><span class="label">[424]</span></a> Ferry, author of the article “Galilée” in “Dictionnaire de Conversation,” -Paris, 1859, undoubtedly believes the story. But the man who -makes Galileo be born at Florence, study at Venice, and become Professor -at Padua directly afterwards, thinks that Galileo did nothing more -for science after his condemnation, and, that (in 1859) his works were still -on the Index, can hardly be reckoned among historians.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_425" id="Footnote_425"></a><a href="#FNanchor_425"><span class="label">[425]</span></a> Louis Combes’s “Gal. et L’Inquisition Romaine,” Paris, 1876, is -a pamphlet of no scientific value whatever, distinguished by astounding -ignorance of the Galileo literature. The author complains that the -original documents relating to the trial are buried among the secret -papal archives, and that nothing more is known of them than what -Mgr. Marini has thought fit to communicate! The publication, then, of -the most important documents of the Vat. MS., by Epinois, 1867, seems -to have escaped the notice of M. Louis Combes!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_426" id="Footnote_426"></a><a href="#FNanchor_426"><span class="label">[426]</span></a> Nelli, vol. ii. p. 562, note 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_427" id="Footnote_427"></a><a href="#FNanchor_427"><span class="label">[427]</span></a> Page 69, note 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_428" id="Footnote_428"></a><a href="#FNanchor_428"><span class="label">[428]</span></a> Venturi, vol. ii. p. 182; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 537.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_429" id="Footnote_429"></a><a href="#FNanchor_429"><span class="label">[429]</span></a> See Appendix: History of the Vat. MS.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_430" id="Footnote_430"></a><a href="#FNanchor_430"><span class="label">[430]</span></a> See Dr. Emil Wohlwill’s “Ist Galileo gefoltert worden.” Leipzig, 1877.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_431" id="Footnote_431"></a><a href="#FNanchor_431"><span class="label">[431]</span></a> “Elogio del Galilei.” Livorno, 1775.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_432" id="Footnote_432"></a><a href="#FNanchor_432"><span class="label">[432]</span></a> In Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum,” i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_433" id="Footnote_433"></a><a href="#FNanchor_433"><span class="label">[433]</span></a> “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fosiche in Toscana.” i. Firenze, -1780.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_434" id="Footnote_434"></a><a href="#FNanchor_434"><span class="label">[434]</span></a> “Lettere inedite di uomini illustri.” Firenze, 1773-75.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_435" id="Footnote_435"></a><a href="#FNanchor_435"><span class="label">[435]</span></a> <i>Journal des Savans</i>: July, Aug., Sep., Oct., 1858.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_436" id="Footnote_436"></a><a href="#FNanchor_436"><span class="label">[436]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 25th April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_437" id="Footnote_437"></a><a href="#FNanchor_437"><span class="label">[437]</span></a> Niccolini to Cioli, 3rd May. (Op. ix. p. 442.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_438" id="Footnote_438"></a><a href="#FNanchor_438"><span class="label">[438]</span></a> Niccolini to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_439" id="Footnote_439"></a><a href="#FNanchor_439"><span class="label">[439]</span></a> Niccolini to Cioli, 10th July. (Ibid. p. 447.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_440" id="Footnote_440"></a><a href="#FNanchor_440"><span class="label">[440]</span></a> Even Wohlwill allows, p. 29, that the opinion that “Catholic answer” -means answer under torture is not tenable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_441" id="Footnote_441"></a><a href="#FNanchor_441"><span class="label">[441]</span></a> “Il Reo, che solamente condotto al luogo della tortura ò quivi spogliato, -ò pur anco legato senza però esser alzato, confessa dicesi haver -confessato ne’ tormenti, e nell’ esamina rigorosa.” (“Sacro Arsenale overo -Prattica dell’ Officio della Santa Inquisitione.” Bologna, 1865, Mesini’s -ed. p. 412.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_442" id="Footnote_442"></a><a href="#FNanchor_442"><span class="label">[442]</span></a> Page 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_443" id="Footnote_443"></a><a href="#FNanchor_443"><span class="label">[443]</span></a> “Gradus torturae olim adhiberi soliti fuerunt quinque, qui certo ordine -fuerunt inflicte, quos describit Julius Clarus ‘in pract crim.’ § Fin. qu. 64, -versic. ‘Nunc de gradibus,’ ubi ita ait, ‘Scias igitur, quod quinque sunt -gradus torturae; scilicet Primo, minae de torquendo. Secundo: conductio -ad locum tormentorum. Tertio, spoliato et ligatura. Quarto, elevation -in eculeo. Quinto, squassatio.” (Philippi a Limborch S.S. Theologiae -inter Remonstrantes Professoris, Historia Inquisitionis. Amstelodami -apud Henricum, Westenium, 1692, p. 322.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_444" id="Footnote_444"></a><a href="#FNanchor_444"><span class="label">[444]</span></a> Prof. P. Grisar also remarks in his critique of Wohlwill’s last work -(<i>Zeitschrift für Kath. Theol.</i> ii. Jahrgang, p. 188), that in the language of -the old writers on criminal law, the <i>territio verbalis</i> was often included in -the expression torture, and appeals to Julius Clarus, Sentent. crimin. lib. -5, § Fin. qu. 84, nr 31; Francof. 1706, p. 318; Sigism. Scaccia, de judiciis, -lib. 2. c. 8. nr 276; Francof. 1669, p. 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_445" id="Footnote_445"></a><a href="#FNanchor_445"><span class="label">[445]</span></a> “Sacro Arsenale,” p. 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_446" id="Footnote_446"></a><a href="#FNanchor_446"><span class="label">[446]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 157, 161, 165.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_447" id="Footnote_447"></a><a href="#FNanchor_447"><span class="label">[447]</span></a> Ibid. p. 157; Salleles, “De materiis tribunalium S. Inquisitionis,” -reg. 361, nos. 110, 117.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_448" id="Footnote_448"></a><a href="#FNanchor_448"><span class="label">[448]</span></a> Ibid. p. 410; Limborch, p. 325.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_449" id="Footnote_449"></a><a href="#FNanchor_449"><span class="label">[449]</span></a> In his brochure, “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_450" id="Footnote_450"></a><a href="#FNanchor_450"><span class="label">[450]</span></a> “Il Processo di Galileo Galilei e la Moderna Critica Tedesca,” -III. <i>Revista Europea</i>, vol. v., fasc. ii., 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_451" id="Footnote_451"></a><a href="#FNanchor_451"><span class="label">[451]</span></a> Page 214.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_452" id="Footnote_452"></a><a href="#FNanchor_452"><span class="label">[452]</span></a> “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 62, 64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_453" id="Footnote_453"></a><a href="#FNanchor_453"><span class="label">[453]</span></a> The passage in the decree is: “Sᵐᵘˢ. decrevit ipsum (Galileo) interrogandum -esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura et si sustenuerit, -previa abiuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.O. -condemnandum ad carcerem,” etc. (Vat. MS. Fol. 451 vo.) Wohlwill -says that the first part of this decree has had about as many interpretations -as authors who have quoted it. This may in no small degree be due -to the fact that it was not known whether the original reading was <i>et</i> or -<i>ac</i> sustinuerit. As it is now decided in favour of <i>et</i>, perhaps an agreement -may be come to, and the more so as several students of Galileo’s -trial have adopted a translation which agrees as to the meaning, to which -we ourselves, now that the <i>et</i> is unquestionable, adhere. H. Martin, Pro. -Reusch, Dr. Scartazzini, Pro. P. Grisar, Epinois in his latest work, and -the present writer, translate: “His Holiness ordained that he (Galileo) -was to be examined as to his intention, to be threatened with torture, -and if he kept firm (to his previous depositions) after <i>abjuration de -vehementi</i>, he was to be sentenced to imprisonment by the whole Congregation -of the Holy Office,” etc. Whatever may be thought of the -translation, one thing is certain, that by this decree the threat of torture -was ordained, but assuredly not its execution.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_454" id="Footnote_454"></a><a href="#FNanchor_454"><span class="label">[454]</span></a> “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: <i>Revista Europea</i>, vol. v., fasc. ii. -p. 232, 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_455" id="Footnote_455"></a><a href="#FNanchor_455"><span class="label">[455]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_456" id="Footnote_456"></a><a href="#FNanchor_456"><span class="label">[456]</span></a> “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: <i>Revista Europea</i>, vol. v., fasc. ii., -16th January, 1878, p. 233.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_457" id="Footnote_457"></a><a href="#FNanchor_457"><span class="label">[457]</span></a> Ibid. p. 247.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_458" id="Footnote_458"></a><a href="#FNanchor_458"><span class="label">[458]</span></a> “Galileo Galilei; dessen Leben,” etc., Basle, 1858, p. 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_459" id="Footnote_459"></a><a href="#FNanchor_459"><span class="label">[459]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 407.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_460" id="Footnote_460"></a><a href="#FNanchor_460"><span class="label">[460]</span></a> “Farinacci, de indiciis et tortura,” a. 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_461" id="Footnote_461"></a><a href="#FNanchor_461"><span class="label">[461]</span></a> Th. del Bene, “De officio S. Inquisitionis,” vol. i. p. 574.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_462" id="Footnote_462"></a><a href="#FNanchor_462"><span class="label">[462]</span></a> “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 171, 172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_463" id="Footnote_463"></a><a href="#FNanchor_463"><span class="label">[463]</span></a> Page 197.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_464" id="Footnote_464"></a><a href="#FNanchor_464"><span class="label">[464]</span></a> Op. ix. p. 372.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_465" id="Footnote_465"></a><a href="#FNanchor_465"><span class="label">[465]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 31, 32.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_466" id="Footnote_466"></a><a href="#FNanchor_466"><span class="label">[466]</span></a> Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th July. -(Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_467" id="Footnote_467"></a><a href="#FNanchor_467"><span class="label">[467]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 7th August. (Op. ix. p. 447.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_468" id="Footnote_468"></a><a href="#FNanchor_468"><span class="label">[468]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 383, 384.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_469" id="Footnote_469"></a><a href="#FNanchor_469"><span class="label">[469]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 476 vo. and 493 ro.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. -xviii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_470" id="Footnote_470"></a><a href="#FNanchor_470"><span class="label">[470]</span></a> Page 68.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_471" id="Footnote_471"></a><a href="#FNanchor_471"><span class="label">[471]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 390-392.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_472" id="Footnote_472"></a><a href="#FNanchor_472"><span class="label">[472]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 544.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_473" id="Footnote_473"></a><a href="#FNanchor_473"><span class="label">[473]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_474" id="Footnote_474"></a><a href="#FNanchor_474"><span class="label">[474]</span></a> Henri Martin (pp. 386-388) gives an interesting list of works published -against the Copernican system between 1631 and 1638, up therefore -to the time of Newton.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_475" id="Footnote_475"></a><a href="#FNanchor_475"><span class="label">[475]</span></a> Venturi, vol. ii. p. 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_476" id="Footnote_476"></a><a href="#FNanchor_476"><span class="label">[476]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 447, 448.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_477" id="Footnote_477"></a><a href="#FNanchor_477"><span class="label">[477]</span></a> Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd Dec. (Op. ix. p. 448.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_478" id="Footnote_478"></a><a href="#FNanchor_478"><span class="label">[478]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 534 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_479" id="Footnote_479"></a><a href="#FNanchor_479"><span class="label">[479]</span></a> Vat. MS., fol. without paging after 534; also Gherardi’s Documents, -Doc. xx.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_480" id="Footnote_480"></a><a href="#FNanchor_480"><span class="label">[480]</span></a> Op. ix. pp. 407, 408.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_481" id="Footnote_481"></a><a href="#FNanchor_481"><span class="label">[481]</span></a> At the close of this year two documents were published which have -often been used as historical sources for the story of Galileo’s trial; namely, -(1) a narration by Francesco Buonamici of the famous trial; and (2) an -assumed letter of Galileo’s to his friend and correspondent, Father Vincenzo -Renieri, intended to give a concise history of the trial. The first -has been pronounced by historical research to be quite worthless, even -if not, as H. Martin (p. 185) thinks, a forgery; the second as decidedly -apocryphal, so that neither are mentioned here. (Comp. Op. ix. pp. 449-452; -vii. pp. 40-43; and the valuable treatise by G. Guasti: “Le -relazioni di Galileo con alcuni Pratesi a proposito del Falso Buonamici -scopalto del Signor H. Martin.” Archivo Storico Italiano. Firenze, -1873, vol. xvii.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_482" id="Footnote_482"></a><a href="#FNanchor_482"><span class="label">[482]</span></a> See Galileo’s letter to Barberini, 17th December, 1633. (Vat. MS. -fol. 541 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_483" id="Footnote_483"></a><a href="#FNanchor_483"><span class="label">[483]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 2 and 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_484" id="Footnote_484"></a><a href="#FNanchor_484"><span class="label">[484]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 547.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_485" id="Footnote_485"></a><a href="#FNanchor_485"><span class="label">[485]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 549.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_486" id="Footnote_486"></a><a href="#FNanchor_486"><span class="label">[486]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 550 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_487" id="Footnote_487"></a><a href="#FNanchor_487"><span class="label">[487]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 551 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_488" id="Footnote_488"></a><a href="#FNanchor_488"><span class="label">[488]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_489" id="Footnote_489"></a><a href="#FNanchor_489"><span class="label">[489]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 46-51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_490" id="Footnote_490"></a><a href="#FNanchor_490"><span class="label">[490]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 66-69; 71-74; vii. pp. 56, 57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_491" id="Footnote_491"></a><a href="#FNanchor_491"><span class="label">[491]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 52-58; x. 41-134; Suppl. pp. 271-278.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_492" id="Footnote_492"></a><a href="#FNanchor_492"><span class="label">[492]</span></a> Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 2nd Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 64.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_493" id="Footnote_493"></a><a href="#FNanchor_493"><span class="label">[493]</span></a> Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 65.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_494" id="Footnote_494"></a><a href="#FNanchor_494"><span class="label">[494]</span></a> Comp. Peiresc’s letters to Galileo, 26th Jan., 1634 (Op. x. pp. 8-11), -and to Card. Barberini, 5th Dec., 1635 (Op. x. p. 94).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_495" id="Footnote_495"></a><a href="#FNanchor_495"><span class="label">[495]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 94-96. In Albèri the date of this letter is wrongly given -as 1635; Pieralisi has found the original of it in the Barberiana, with -date 5th Dec., 1634. (Pieralisi, pp. 304-310.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_496" id="Footnote_496"></a><a href="#FNanchor_496"><span class="label">[496]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 96-98. In Albèri this letter is dated 1636 instead of 1635.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_497" id="Footnote_497"></a><a href="#FNanchor_497"><span class="label">[497]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 98, 99. Date wrongly given in Albèri as 13th instead of -31st Jan. See Pieralisi, pp. 313-317.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_498" id="Footnote_498"></a><a href="#FNanchor_498"><span class="label">[498]</span></a> These words were written in a truly prophetic spirit; for such a -parallel was actually drawn by Voltaire in (vol. iv. p. 145) his “Essai sur -les mœurs et l’esprit des nations, et sur les principaux faits de l’histoire, -depuis Charlemagne jusquà Louis XIII.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_499" id="Footnote_499"></a><a href="#FNanchor_499"><span class="label">[499]</span></a> Op. Suppl. pp. 361-363.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_500" id="Footnote_500"></a><a href="#FNanchor_500"><span class="label">[500]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 25-33; vii. pp. 52, 53, and 128.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_501" id="Footnote_501"></a><a href="#FNanchor_501"><span class="label">[501]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 29-33; vii. p. 140.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_502" id="Footnote_502"></a><a href="#FNanchor_502"><span class="label">[502]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 65, 66, and 67, 68; also Galileo’s letter to Bernegger, -15th July, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 69, 70.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_503" id="Footnote_503"></a><a href="#FNanchor_503"><span class="label">[503]</span></a> Page 222.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_504" id="Footnote_504"></a><a href="#FNanchor_504"><span class="label">[504]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letter to Giovanni Buonamici, 16th August, 1636. -(Op. vii. pp. 139, 140.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_505" id="Footnote_505"></a><a href="#FNanchor_505"><span class="label">[505]</span></a> See Castelli’s letter to Galileo of 2nd June, 1635, in which he says -that “he had at last been again permitted to kiss his Holiness’s toe.” -(Op. x. pp. 100.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_506" id="Footnote_506"></a><a href="#FNanchor_506"><span class="label">[506]</span></a> Comp. the letters of Castelli and the Count de Noailles to Galileo of -19th April and 6th May, 1636. (Op. x. pp. 149, 150, and 153.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_507" id="Footnote_507"></a><a href="#FNanchor_507"><span class="label">[507]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 159, 160.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_508" id="Footnote_508"></a><a href="#FNanchor_508"><span class="label">[508]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 161 and 163.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_509" id="Footnote_509"></a><a href="#FNanchor_509"><span class="label">[509]</span></a> See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th August. (Op. x. pp. 163, 164.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_510" id="Footnote_510"></a><a href="#FNanchor_510"><span class="label">[510]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_511" id="Footnote_511"></a><a href="#FNanchor_511"><span class="label">[511]</span></a> Op. Suppl. p. 280.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_512" id="Footnote_512"></a><a href="#FNanchor_512"><span class="label">[512]</span></a> Op. x. p. 172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_513" id="Footnote_513"></a><a href="#FNanchor_513"><span class="label">[513]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letters to Micanzio at Venice of 21st and 28th June -1636. (Op. vii. pp. 63-66.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_514" id="Footnote_514"></a><a href="#FNanchor_514"><span class="label">[514]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 88, 89, 104, 105, 116-118, 191, 192; vii. pp. 132, 154, 155.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_515" id="Footnote_515"></a><a href="#FNanchor_515"><span class="label">[515]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 157, 158, 165, 170, 171, 213; vii. 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 138, 253.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_516" id="Footnote_516"></a><a href="#FNanchor_516"><span class="label">[516]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 66-69, 108-111, 127-130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_517" id="Footnote_517"></a><a href="#FNanchor_517"><span class="label">[517]</span></a> Pieroni to Galileo, 9th July, 1637. (Op. x. pp. 222-226.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_518" id="Footnote_518"></a><a href="#FNanchor_518"><span class="label">[518]</span></a> Comp. Op. vii. pp. 138, 139, 152, 153; x. pp. 167 and 184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_519" id="Footnote_519"></a><a href="#FNanchor_519"><span class="label">[519]</span></a> Comp. Op. vi. pp. 238-276, 338-346.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_520" id="Footnote_520"></a><a href="#FNanchor_520"><span class="label">[520]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 73-93, and 136, 137.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_521" id="Footnote_521"></a><a href="#FNanchor_521"><span class="label">[521]</span></a> Op. iii. pp. 176-183.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_522" id="Footnote_522"></a><a href="#FNanchor_522"><span class="label">[522]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 4th July, 1637. (Op. vii. p. 180.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_523" id="Footnote_523"></a><a href="#FNanchor_523"><span class="label">[523]</span></a> Comp. Op. vii. pp. 163-174, 190-204; x. pp. 215-218, 228-248; -Suppl. pp. 282-284.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_524" id="Footnote_524"></a><a href="#FNanchor_524"><span class="label">[524]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_525" id="Footnote_525"></a><a href="#FNanchor_525"><span class="label">[525]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 231, 232.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_526" id="Footnote_526"></a><a href="#FNanchor_526"><span class="label">[526]</span></a> ... “Here I found and called upon the celebrated Galileo, now become -old and a prisoner of the Inquisition,” says Milton. Unfortunately -we know nothing more of this interesting meeting. (Comp. Reumont, -p. 405.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_527" id="Footnote_527"></a><a href="#FNanchor_527"><span class="label">[527]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 207. See on Galileo’s total blindness, “Sull’epoca vera e -la durata della cecità del Galileo,” Nota del Angelo Secchi: (Estratta -dal Giornale Arcadico, Tomo liv nuova serie); and “Sull’ nella epoca -della completa cecità del Galileo,” Risposta di Paolo Volpicelli al chiaris -e R. P. A. Secchi, Roma, 1868.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_528" id="Footnote_528"></a><a href="#FNanchor_528"><span class="label">[528]</span></a> Op. x. p. 232.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_529" id="Footnote_529"></a><a href="#FNanchor_529"><span class="label">[529]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 248, 249.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_530" id="Footnote_530"></a><a href="#FNanchor_530"><span class="label">[530]</span></a> Comp. p. 275, note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_531" id="Footnote_531"></a><a href="#FNanchor_531"><span class="label">[531]</span></a> Galileo’s letter to Guerrini, an official at the Tuscan Court, 19th December. -(Op. vii. pp. 204, 205.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_532" id="Footnote_532"></a><a href="#FNanchor_532"><span class="label">[532]</span></a> Guerrini to Galileo, 20th December. (Op. x. pp. 249, 250.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_533" id="Footnote_533"></a><a href="#FNanchor_533"><span class="label">[533]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 254, 255.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_534" id="Footnote_534"></a><a href="#FNanchor_534"><span class="label">[534]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_535" id="Footnote_535"></a><a href="#FNanchor_535"><span class="label">[535]</span></a> This passage directly contradicts the remark on this subject in the -report of Fra Clemente, the Inquisitor, of 1st April, 1634; his successor, -Fra Fanano, seems to have been more favourable to Galileo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_536" id="Footnote_536"></a><a href="#FNanchor_536"><span class="label">[536]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 280, 281.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_537" id="Footnote_537"></a><a href="#FNanchor_537"><span class="label">[537]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_538" id="Footnote_538"></a><a href="#FNanchor_538"><span class="label">[538]</span></a> Op. x. p. 286.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_539" id="Footnote_539"></a><a href="#FNanchor_539"><span class="label">[539]</span></a> Fanano’s letter to Cardinal F. Barberini of 10th March, 1638. (Op. -x. p. 287.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_540" id="Footnote_540"></a><a href="#FNanchor_540"><span class="label">[540]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_541" id="Footnote_541"></a><a href="#FNanchor_541"><span class="label">[541]</span></a> Letter of the Vicar of the Holy Office at Florence to Galileo, of 28th -March, 1638. (Op. x. p. 292.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_542" id="Footnote_542"></a><a href="#FNanchor_542"><span class="label">[542]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 211-216.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_543" id="Footnote_543"></a><a href="#FNanchor_543"><span class="label">[543]</span></a> See letters from Hortensius and Realius to Galileo of 26th Jan. and 3rd -Mar. 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 95-99, 100-102); letter from Const. Huyghens -to Diodati, 13th April, 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 111-113).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_544" id="Footnote_544"></a><a href="#FNanchor_544"><span class="label">[544]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 163-174.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_545" id="Footnote_545"></a><a href="#FNanchor_545"><span class="label">[545]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 181-189.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_546" id="Footnote_546"></a><a href="#FNanchor_546"><span class="label">[546]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 554 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_547" id="Footnote_547"></a><a href="#FNanchor_547"><span class="label">[547]</span></a> Vat. MS; fol. 555 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_548" id="Footnote_548"></a><a href="#FNanchor_548"><span class="label">[548]</span></a> On all this see Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 7th Aug., 1638. (Op. vii. -pp. 214-216.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_549" id="Footnote_549"></a><a href="#FNanchor_549"><span class="label">[549]</span></a> Comp. Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679, and Venturi, vol. ii. p. 285.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_550" id="Footnote_550"></a><a href="#FNanchor_550"><span class="label">[550]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 553 ro.; and Op. x. 304, 305, where it is dated 23rd -instead of 25th July.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_551" id="Footnote_551"></a><a href="#FNanchor_551"><span class="label">[551]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 556 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_552" id="Footnote_552"></a><a href="#FNanchor_552"><span class="label">[552]</span></a> Op. vii. p. 215.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_553" id="Footnote_553"></a><a href="#FNanchor_553"><span class="label">[553]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 216-218.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_554" id="Footnote_554"></a><a href="#FNanchor_554"><span class="label">[554]</span></a> Op. xv. p. 401; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 838.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_555" id="Footnote_555"></a><a href="#FNanchor_555"><span class="label">[555]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 371.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_556" id="Footnote_556"></a><a href="#FNanchor_556"><span class="label">[556]</span></a> Comp. Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th May and 30 July, 1638. -(Op. x. pp. 300, 310-313.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_557" id="Footnote_557"></a><a href="#FNanchor_557"><span class="label">[557]</span></a> Cioli’s despatch to Niccolini of 9th Sept., 1638. (Op. x. pp. 313, 314.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_558" id="Footnote_558"></a><a href="#FNanchor_558"><span class="label">[558]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 15th and 25th Sept. (Wolynski, -“La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., pp. 68, 69.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_559" id="Footnote_559"></a><a href="#FNanchor_559"><span class="label">[559]</span></a> Fanano’s letter to Card. Barberini of 4th Oct. (Op. x. p. 314.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_560" id="Footnote_560"></a><a href="#FNanchor_560"><span class="label">[560]</span></a> See Castelli’s letters to Card. F. Barberini of 2nd, 9th, and 16th Oct., -in Pieralisi, pp. 291-296; and another of 23rd Oct., 1638, on an unnumbered -page between fols. 552 and 553 of the Vat. MS. p. 175.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_561" id="Footnote_561"></a><a href="#FNanchor_561"><span class="label">[561]</span></a> See Card. Barberini’s letters to Castelli of 16th and 30th Oct. (Pieralisi, -pp. 294, 295, and 298.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_562" id="Footnote_562"></a><a href="#FNanchor_562"><span class="label">[562]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 557 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_563" id="Footnote_563"></a><a href="#FNanchor_563"><span class="label">[563]</span></a> “Discorsi e Dimostrazione Matematiche intorno a due Scienze -attenenti alla Meccanica e ai Movimenti Locali. Con una Appendice del -Centro di gravita di alcuni Solidi.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_564" id="Footnote_564"></a><a href="#FNanchor_564"><span class="label">[564]</span></a> See Galileo’s letter to the Count de Noailles of 6th March, 1638, and -his answer of 20th July. (Op. vii. pp. 209-211, and x. pp. 308-310.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_565" id="Footnote_565"></a><a href="#FNanchor_565"><span class="label">[565]</span></a> Comp. Op. vii. pp. 44, 46, 57, 70.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_566" id="Footnote_566"></a><a href="#FNanchor_566"><span class="label">[566]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 218-226; x. pp. 316, 317, 320, 321.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_567" id="Footnote_567"></a><a href="#FNanchor_567"><span class="label">[567]</span></a> “Dalla Villa Arcètri, mio continuato carcere ed esilio dalla città.” -(Letter from Galileo to Cassiano dal Pozzo in Rome, of 20th Jan., 1641, -Op. vii. p. 351)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_568" id="Footnote_568"></a><a href="#FNanchor_568"><span class="label">[568]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 364, 365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_569" id="Footnote_569"></a><a href="#FNanchor_569"><span class="label">[569]</span></a> Pieralisi thinks (“Urbano VIII. and Galileo Galilei,” p. 264) that it -was left to Galileo’s option during the last few years to reside either at -Arcetri or Florence, and that his preference for his villa led him to choose -the former; a statement for which Pieralisi has no proof to offer, and -which is strongly opposed to what we have mentioned above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_570" id="Footnote_570"></a><a href="#FNanchor_570"><span class="label">[570]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Docs. xxviii. and xxix.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_571" id="Footnote_571"></a><a href="#FNanchor_571"><span class="label">[571]</span></a> Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th Jan., 12th Feb., 1639. (Op. x. pp. -325, 326, and 328, 329.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_572" id="Footnote_572"></a><a href="#FNanchor_572"><span class="label">[572]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 340-348, 356, 357, 363-365, 367, 368, 385-387, 392-394, -396, 397, 407, 408; Suppl. pp. 287-290.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_573" id="Footnote_573"></a><a href="#FNanchor_573"><span class="label">[573]</span></a> Op. x. pp. 280 and 308.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_574" id="Footnote_574"></a><a href="#FNanchor_574"><span class="label">[574]</span></a> Comp. his letters to Castelli of 8th and 19th Aug., 1st and 3rd Sep., -3rd and 18th Dec., 1639. (Op. vii. pp. 232-236, 238, 239, and 242, 243.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_575" id="Footnote_575"></a><a href="#FNanchor_575"><span class="label">[575]</span></a> Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 360.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_576" id="Footnote_576"></a><a href="#FNanchor_576"><span class="label">[576]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 238, 239; xiii. pp. 267-332; xv. pp. 358-360.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_577" id="Footnote_577"></a><a href="#FNanchor_577"><span class="label">[577]</span></a> See his letters to Galileo in 1639 and 1640. (Op. x. pp. 336, 339, 340, -350, 351, 362, 363, 382, 383, 402, 419, 420; also xv. (Viviani), pp. 356, -357.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_578" id="Footnote_578"></a><a href="#FNanchor_578"><span class="label">[578]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 240, 241.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_579" id="Footnote_579"></a><a href="#FNanchor_579"><span class="label">[579]</span></a> Comp. Op. vii. pp. 243-254. In 1648 Renieri was intending to bring -out Galileo’s calculations about the satellites of Jupiter, and their application -to navigation, which he had completed by long years of labour, when -his death occurred after a short illness. The papers were then lost, but -were afterwards discovered by Albèri, who arranged them and incorporated -them in the “Opere di Galileo Galilei,” v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_580" id="Footnote_580"></a><a href="#FNanchor_580"><span class="label">[580]</span></a> Comp. Galileo’s letter to Daniele Spinola of 19th Man, 1640. (Op. vii. -pp. 256-258.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_581" id="Footnote_581"></a><a href="#FNanchor_581"><span class="label">[581]</span></a> Letter from Prince Leopold de’ Medici to Galileo, 11th Mar., 1640. -(Op. vii. p. 254.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_582" id="Footnote_582"></a><a href="#FNanchor_582"><span class="label">[582]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 261-310; iii. pp. 190-237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_583" id="Footnote_583"></a><a href="#FNanchor_583"><span class="label">[583]</span></a> See this correspondence. (Op. vii. pp. 317-333, 336-350, 352-358.) -Liceti published a large book in 1642, in reply to Galileo’s letter to Prince -Leopold de’ Medici. The latter, in which Galileo had made some alterations, -was, with his consent, printed with Liceti’s reply.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_584" id="Footnote_584"></a><a href="#FNanchor_584"><span class="label">[584]</span></a> Op. vii p. 360.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_585" id="Footnote_585"></a><a href="#FNanchor_585"><span class="label">[585]</span></a> Op. vii. pp. 361-363.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_586" id="Footnote_586"></a><a href="#FNanchor_586"><span class="label">[586]</span></a> Page 419.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_587" id="Footnote_587"></a><a href="#FNanchor_587"><span class="label">[587]</span></a> This is precisely the same argument, only in other words, brought -forward by Simplicius at the end of the “Dialogues on the Two Chief -Systems.” (Comp. p. 160.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_588" id="Footnote_588"></a><a href="#FNanchor_588"><span class="label">[588]</span></a> This passage calls the passage in “Il Saggiatore” to mind, where -Galileo speaks of Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Tycho.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_589" id="Footnote_589"></a><a href="#FNanchor_589"><span class="label">[589]</span></a> See “Allgemeine Weltgeschichte,” by Cesare Cantu. Freely rendered -for Catholic Germany, from the 7th edition, by Dr. J. A. M. Brühl, -p. 540.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_590" id="Footnote_590"></a><a href="#FNanchor_590"><span class="label">[590]</span></a> Comp. Renieri’s letter to Galileo of 6th March, 1641. (Op. x. pp. -408, 409.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_591" id="Footnote_591"></a><a href="#FNanchor_591"><span class="label">[591]</span></a> See his letter of 20th August, 1659, to Prince Leopold de’ Medici. -(Op. xiv. pp. 339-356.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_592" id="Footnote_592"></a><a href="#FNanchor_592"><span class="label">[592]</span></a> Seven years after Galileo’s death, Vincenzo was occupied in constructing -the first pendulum clock after these drawings and models, when -he suddenly fell ill and died. For all this see Albèri’s excellent essay: -“Dell’orologio a pendolo di Galileo Galilei e di due recenti divinazioni -del meccanismo da lui imaginato.” (Op. Suppl. pp. 333-358; Nelli, -vol. ii. pp. 688-738.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_593" id="Footnote_593"></a><a href="#FNanchor_593"><span class="label">[593]</span></a> Comp. Torricelli’s letters to Galileo of 15th March, 27th April, -1st and 29th June, 17th August, and 28th September, 1641. (Op. x. -pp. 412, 413, 417, 418, 420, 421, 423-426, 432, 433.) Also Galileo’s -letter to Torricelli of 27th September, 1641. (Op. vii. pp. 365-367.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_594" id="Footnote_594"></a><a href="#FNanchor_594"><span class="label">[594]</span></a> See Rinuccini’s letter to Prince Leopold de’ Medici, 15th November, -1641. (Op. x. 436, 437.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_595" id="Footnote_595"></a><a href="#FNanchor_595"><span class="label">[595]</span></a> For this and the preceding, see Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 360, 361; and -Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 839, 840.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_596" id="Footnote_596"></a><a href="#FNanchor_596"><span class="label">[596]</span></a> Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxx.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_597" id="Footnote_597"></a><a href="#FNanchor_597"><span class="label">[597]</span></a> Niccolini’s despatch to the Tuscan Secretary of State of 25th January, -1642. (Op. xv. pp. 403, 404.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_598" id="Footnote_598"></a><a href="#FNanchor_598"><span class="label">[598]</span></a> Despatch of the Tuscan Secretary Condi to Niccolini of 29th January, -1642 (Op. xv. p. 404.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_599" id="Footnote_599"></a><a href="#FNanchor_599"><span class="label">[599]</span></a> Op. xv. p. 405.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_600" id="Footnote_600"></a><a href="#FNanchor_600"><span class="label">[600]</span></a> See for more on the subject, Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 850-867.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_601" id="Footnote_601"></a><a href="#FNanchor_601"><span class="label">[601]</span></a> Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 874-876.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_602" id="Footnote_602"></a><a href="#FNanchor_602"><span class="label">[602]</span></a> Letter of the Inquisitor Fra Paolo Ambr. of 8th June, 1734, to the -College of Cardinals at Rome. (See Vat. MS. fol. 558 ro.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_603" id="Footnote_603"></a><a href="#FNanchor_603"><span class="label">[603]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_604" id="Footnote_604"></a><a href="#FNanchor_604"><span class="label">[604]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxxii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_605" id="Footnote_605"></a><a href="#FNanchor_605"><span class="label">[605]</span></a> Canto iv., stanza liv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_606" id="Footnote_606"></a><a href="#FNanchor_606"><span class="label">[606]</span></a> See the document about the exhumation. (Op. xv. pp. 407-409.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_607" id="Footnote_607"></a><a href="#FNanchor_607"><span class="label">[607]</span></a> For instance, Dr. Carl Schöffer, in his <i>brochure</i>: “Die Bewegungen -der Himmelskörper. Neue and unbewegliche Beweise, dass unsere Erde -im Mittelpunkte des Weltalls steht, und die Sonne, Mond und Sterne -sich um dieselbe bewegen.” Brunswick, 1854. (“The Motions of the -Heavenly Bodies. New and indisputable proofs that our Earth is the -centre of the Universe, and that Sun, Moon, and Stars, revolve round it”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_608" id="Footnote_608"></a><a href="#FNanchor_608"><span class="label">[608]</span></a> Habito verbo cum Sanctissimo, omittatur decretum, quo prohibentur -omnes libri docentes immobilitatem solis, et mobilitatem terræ. (Olivieri, -p. 94, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 585.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_609" id="Footnote_609"></a><a href="#FNanchor_609"><span class="label">[609]</span></a> “Opere di Galileo Galilei divise in quattro Tomi, in questa nuova -edizione accresciute di molte cose inedite.” In Padova, 1744. “Nella -stamperia del Seminario appresso Gio. Manfrè,” Tomi iv. in 4ᵒ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_610" id="Footnote_610"></a><a href="#FNanchor_610"><span class="label">[610]</span></a> Comp. Olivieri, p. 96, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 587, and Op. xv. -Bibliografia Galileiana, pp. xxvi., xxvii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_611" id="Footnote_611"></a><a href="#FNanchor_611"><span class="label">[611]</span></a> “Traité d’astronomie” Paris, 1792, p. 421.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_612" id="Footnote_612"></a><a href="#FNanchor_612"><span class="label">[612]</span></a> “Se possa difendersi ed insegnore, non come semplice ipotesi ma -come verissima, e come tesi, la mobilità della terra e la stabilità del sole -da chi ha fatta la professione di fede di Pio IV. quaestione teologico-morale.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_613" id="Footnote_613"></a><a href="#FNanchor_613"><span class="label">[613]</span></a> “Dichiarono permessa in Roma la stampa e la publicazione operum -tractantium de mobilitate terrae et immobilitate solis, juxta communem -modernorum astronomorum opinionem.” (Olivieri, p. 97, or “Hist.-polit. -Blätter,” p. 588.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_614" id="Footnote_614"></a><a href="#FNanchor_614"><span class="label">[614]</span></a> Somewhat abridged, as are also the Description and Estimate of -the Vat. MS.—[<span class="smcap">Tr.</span>]</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_615" id="Footnote_615"></a><a href="#FNanchor_615"><span class="label">[615]</span></a> See for this and what immediately follows, “Le Manuscrit Original -du Procès de Galilée,” par L. Sandret. <i>Revue des Questions historiques</i>, -1 Oct., 1877, pp. 551-559.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_616" id="Footnote_616"></a><a href="#FNanchor_616"><span class="label">[616]</span></a> Marini, p. 144.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_617" id="Footnote_617"></a><a href="#FNanchor_617"><span class="label">[617]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 144, 145.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_618" id="Footnote_618"></a><a href="#FNanchor_618"><span class="label">[618]</span></a> See Sandret’s Essays before cited, p. 553.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_619" id="Footnote_619"></a><a href="#FNanchor_619"><span class="label">[619]</span></a> Ibid. pp. 553, 554.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_620" id="Footnote_620"></a><a href="#FNanchor_620"><span class="label">[620]</span></a> Sandret, p. 554.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_621" id="Footnote_621"></a><a href="#FNanchor_621"><span class="label">[621]</span></a> Marini, pp. 145, 146.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_622" id="Footnote_622"></a><a href="#FNanchor_622"><span class="label">[622]</span></a> Marini, p. 146, 147; Sandret, pp. 554.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_623" id="Footnote_623"></a><a href="#FNanchor_623"><span class="label">[623]</span></a> Marini, p. 147; Sandret, p. 555.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_624" id="Footnote_624"></a><a href="#FNanchor_624"><span class="label">[624]</span></a> Marini, p. 147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_625" id="Footnote_625"></a><a href="#FNanchor_625"><span class="label">[625]</span></a> Marini, p. 147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_626" id="Footnote_626"></a><a href="#FNanchor_626"><span class="label">[626]</span></a> Ibid. p. 148.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_627" id="Footnote_627"></a><a href="#FNanchor_627"><span class="label">[627]</span></a> Ibid. p. 148.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_628" id="Footnote_628"></a><a href="#FNanchor_628"><span class="label">[628]</span></a> Ibid. p. 151.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_629" id="Footnote_629"></a><a href="#FNanchor_629"><span class="label">[629]</span></a> Sandret, p. 556, note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_630" id="Footnote_630"></a><a href="#FNanchor_630"><span class="label">[630]</span></a> Denina was at Paris from 1805 till his death in 1813, and may therefore -have seen the Acts, which were in Paris from 1811, as well as the -translation which was begun.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_631" id="Footnote_631"></a><a href="#FNanchor_631"><span class="label">[631]</span></a> Sandret, pp. 556, 557.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_632" id="Footnote_632"></a><a href="#FNanchor_632"><span class="label">[632]</span></a> <i>Revue des questions historiques</i>, Paris, July, 1867.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_633" id="Footnote_633"></a><a href="#FNanchor_633"><span class="label">[633]</span></a> ... “e avemmo fra le mani il desiderato volume nella stanza del -padre Theiner testè rapito dolorosamente ai vivi.” (“Il Processo Originale,” -etc., p. x.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_634" id="Footnote_634"></a><a href="#FNanchor_634"><span class="label">[634]</span></a> “Egli è adunque per la prima volta che i due processi Galeleiani -sono publicati nella loro integrità.” Page xii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_635" id="Footnote_635"></a><a href="#FNanchor_635"><span class="label">[635]</span></a> See “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei proposte -dall’ autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazioni sopra il Processo Originale -di Galileo Galilei publicato da Domenico Berti.” Roma, 30 Settembre, -1876, pp. 9-16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_636" id="Footnote_636"></a><a href="#FNanchor_636"><span class="label">[636]</span></a> “Quando si havra a terminare qualche causa al S. Off. appartenente -converra, che prima ai formi il caso in cui brevemente si ristringano -ineriti della causa e tutti i punti substantiale del processo, etc.... -Poscia mandatalo a ciascuno de Sig Consultori entrera con esso loro opportunamente -nella Congregatione,” etc. (“Sacro Arsenale,” etc. Bologna, -1665. Masini’s ed., pp. 345, 346).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_637" id="Footnote_637"></a><a href="#FNanchor_637"><span class="label">[637]</span></a> “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876, p. 138, -note 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_638" id="Footnote_638"></a><a href="#FNanchor_638"><span class="label">[638]</span></a> “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876, -pp. 44-46.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_639" id="Footnote_639"></a><a href="#FNanchor_639"><span class="label">[639]</span></a> “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc., p. v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_640" id="Footnote_640"></a><a href="#FNanchor_640"><span class="label">[640]</span></a> The Denunciation of Lorini. The signature, however, obviously -once existed, but being on the edge of the paper has been effaced in -the course of time.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_641" id="Footnote_641"></a><a href="#FNanchor_641"><span class="label">[641]</span></a> “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Von Emil Wohlwill. Leipzig, 1877.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_642" id="Footnote_642"></a><a href="#FNanchor_642"><span class="label">[642]</span></a> “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Gegenbetrachtungen von K. v. Gebler. -Die Gegenwart.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_643" id="Footnote_643"></a><a href="#FNanchor_643"><span class="label">[643]</span></a> Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_644" id="Footnote_644"></a><a href="#FNanchor_644"><span class="label">[644]</span></a> This decree is given in a printed copy in the volume containing the -Vat. MS. We give it on a reduced scale.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_645" id="Footnote_645"></a><a href="#FNanchor_645"><span class="label">[645]</span></a> Misprint for <i>Dubliniensi</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_646" id="Footnote_646"></a><a href="#FNanchor_646"><span class="label">[646]</span></a> Abridged. [<span class="smcap">Tr.</span>]</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_647" id="Footnote_647"></a><a href="#FNanchor_647"><span class="label">[647]</span></a> Cæsar Carena: “De officio Sanctissime Inquisitionis et modo procedendi -in causis fidei.” Cremona, 1641, p. 416.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[353]</a></span></p> - -<h2>INDEX.</h2> - -<ul> - -<li class="ifrst">Accadémia dei Lincei, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Dissolution of, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Alciato, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Anagram on Ring of Saturn, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">On Crescent form of Venus, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, <a href="#Page_64">64-70</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Aristotle, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Astronomical and Philosophical Scales, the, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Barberini, Antonio, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Cardinal, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Maffeo, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">As Urban VIII., <a href="#Page_108">108-113</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bellarmine, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His Certificate to Galileo, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Boccabella, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bocchineri, Geri, Galileo’s Letters to, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Niccolini, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bonciani, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Borgia, Caspar, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Boscaglia, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bruno Giordano, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Caccini, <a href="#Page_51">51-53</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Campanella, Thomas, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Capra, Balthazar, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Castelli, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43-46</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132-134</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cesi, Prince, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cioli, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clavius, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Colombo, Lodovico delle, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Comets of 1618, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Galileo’s opinion on, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Conti, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Copernicus, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His “Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Osiander’s Introduction to, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Copernican System, <a href="#Page_12">12-14</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Refutations of, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Galileo’s last Discussion of, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Corressio, Giorgio, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx" id="Cosmo">Cosmo II., de’ Medici, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cremonini, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Decree of 5th March, 1616, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>. Appendix, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">“De Motu Gravium,” <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dialogues on the Two Systems, <a href="#Page_127">127-131</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Imprimatur for, <a href="#Page_135">135-150</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Introduction to, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">“Dianoja Astronomica,” <a href="#Page_39">39</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dini, <a href="#Page_59">59-64</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Diodati, Elia, Galileo’s Letters to, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dominis, Marc’ Antonio de, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="Ferdinand">Ferdinand II., de’ Medici, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[354]</a></span>Letter to the Pope, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Good Offices for Galileo, <a href="#Page_196">196-198</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Visits him at Arcetri, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">At Florence, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Firenzuola, Maccolani da, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Card. Barberini, <a href="#Page_213">213-215</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Foscarini on the Copernican System, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><span class="smcap">Galileo Galilei.</span></li> -<li class="isub1">Birth at Pisa, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Early years, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Goes to University of Pisa, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Studies Medicine, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Discovery of Isochronism of Pendulum, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">First study of Mathematics, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Professor at Pisa, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Resigns, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Professor at Padua, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Writes Treatises, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Inventions, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Makes a Telescope, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Exhibits it at Venice, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Telescopic Discoveries, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Magini’s attack, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Kepler, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Galileo’s Pupils, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Vinta, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Removal to Florence, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">First Visit to Rome, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">First Notice by Inquisition, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Treatise on Floating Bodies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Castelli, <a href="#Page_46">46-50</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Denounced to Inquisition, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, <a href="#Page_64">64-70</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Visit to Rome in 1616, <a href="#Page_70">70-75</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Admonished to renounce the Copernican System, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Assumed special Prohibition to treat of it, <a href="#Page_77">77-84</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Lingers at Rome, <a href="#Page_91">91-97</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Goes to Bellosguardo, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Work on Tides, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His opinion of Comets, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Grassi’s attack, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">“Il Saggiatore,” <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111-113</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Visit to Rome in 1624, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Attempts to get Decree of 1616 repealed, <a href="#Page_115">115-117</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Galileo’s Children, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Reply to Ingoli, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Dialogues on Two Systems, <a href="#Page_127">127-135</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Negotiations about the Imprimatur, <a href="#Page_139">139-150</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Publication of the Dialogues, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Accusations, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Summons to Rome, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Antonio Barberini, <a href="#Page_178">178-180</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Threat to bring him in chains to Rome, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Arrival at Rome, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">The Trial, <a href="#Page_201">201-229</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Confession, <a href="#Page_214">214-216</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Defence, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Sentence, <a href="#Page_230">230-234</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Recantation, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Sent to Trinita de’ Monti, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Goes to Siena, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Current Myths, <a href="#Page_249">249-263</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His Eyes not put out, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">“E pur si muove,” <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">The Hair Shirt, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Imprisonment, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Torture Refuted, <a href="#Page_253">253-263</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Life at Siena, <a href="#Page_267">267-273</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Goes to Arcetri, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His daughters, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Anonymous denunciation, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Petition to go to Florence refused, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of his daughter, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Diodati, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His works translated into Latin, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Labours at Arcetri, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Method of taking Longitudes, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Becomes blind, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Goes to Florence, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Strict Surveillance, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Return to Arcetri, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Last Years, <a href="#Page_299">299-315</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Rinuccini, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Last illness and death, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Persecutions after death, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Private Funeral, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Remains removed to Santa Croce, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His Works on the Index till 1835, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Galilei, Julia, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Galilei, Vincenzo, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Galilei, Vincenzo, son of Galileo, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gherardi, Silvestro, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[355]</a></span>Govi Gilberto, his work on Galileo, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grassi, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His Lecture on Comets, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grazia, Vincenzo di, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gregory XV., <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Griemberger, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Guiccardini, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Guiducci, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His Treatise on Comets, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Henry IV. of France, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Il Saggiatore,” <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ingoli on the Copernican System, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Inquisition first notices Galileo, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Jesuits, the, and Galileo, <a href="#Page_153">153-155</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kepler, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kuppler, Jacob, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“La Bilancetta,” <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Landini, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lembo, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Leopold of Austria, Archduke, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">L’Epinois, Henri de, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>. Appendix, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Libri, Julius, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Liceti, Fortunio, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Longitudes at Sea, method of taking, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lorini, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53-55</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">“Lothario Sarsi Sigensano,” <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Magalotti, Count, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Magini, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Malcotio, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maraffi, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Marini Marino, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Marsili, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Medicean Stars, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Medici, Julian de’, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">John de’, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Cosmo II. de’, <a href="#Cosmo"><i>see</i> Cosmo</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Ferdinand II. de’, <a href="#Ferdinand"><i>see</i> Ferdinand</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mellini, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Michael Angelo, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">The younger, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Microscope, the, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Monte, Cardinal del, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Myths about Galileo refuted, <a href="#Page_249">249-263</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Newton <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Niccolini, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Intercession for Galileo, <a href="#Page_166">166-168</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Attempts to avert the Trial, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Asks for Galileo’s Pardon, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Accusations against, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Noailles, Count de, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Note of 25th February, 1616, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Of 26th February, 1616, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Olivieri Benedetto’s work on Galileo, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Opinion of the Holy Office on Galileo’s Propositions, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Orsini, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Osiander, Andreas, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Padua, University of, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Palmerini, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Paul III., <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Paul V., <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Peiresc, Fabri de, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter from Galileo to, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pendulum Clocks, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Picchena, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Piccolomini, Ascanio, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pieralisi, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pisa, Experiments from Leaning Tower of, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[356]</a></span>University of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pius VII., <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Plan of Galileo’s rooms in Palace of Inquisition, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prohibition, Special, to Treat of Copernican System, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Discovery of, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Protocol of 3rd March, 1616, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Querenghi, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Recantation, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Publication of, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter ordering it, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Riccardi, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ricci, Ostilio, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ring of Saturn, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rinuccini’s Inquiries of Galileo, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Galileo’s reply to, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Sacro Arsenale,” <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sarpi, Paolo, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sagredo, Francesco, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Salviati, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Scartazzini, Dr., <a href="#Page_259">259-262</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Scheiner, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">His “Rosa Ursina,” <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sentence on Galileo, <a href="#Page_230">230-234</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Analysis of, <a href="#Page_234">234-242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Serristori, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Settele’s Astronomy, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">“Sidereus Nuncius,” <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">“Simplicius,” did he personate Urban VIII.? <a href="#Page_159">159-162</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sincero, Carlo, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sizy, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Solar Spots, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Work on, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Special Commission on Galileo’s cause, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Its Memorial to the Pope, <a href="#Page_172">172-174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stelluti’s reply to Lothario Sarsi Sigensano, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stephani, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Telescope, the, <a href="#Page_16">16-25</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Inventor of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thermoscope, the, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Trial of Galileo, <a href="#Page_201">201-229</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Torricelli, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Torture, question of, <a href="#Page_253">253-263</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Urban VIII., <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Character of, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Friendship for Galileo, <a href="#Page_109">109-111</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Favours to him, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Change of tone, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Vatican MS., History of, Appendix, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Description of, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Estimate of, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Venice, Republic of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Exhibition of Telescope at, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Venus, Crescent form of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vinta, Belisario, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Viviani, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wedderburn, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Welser, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wohlwill, Emil, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Zacchia, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Zuñiga, Diego di, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> - -</ul> - -<hr /> - -<div class="ad"> - -<p class="titlepage larger">RECENT BIOGRAPHIES.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>2 Vols., large post 8vo, price 24s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI AND HIS TIMES.</p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">Professor VILLARI</span>, Author of “Life of Savonarola,” etc.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>TRANSLATED BY LINDA VILLARI.</i></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“The whole work promises to be one of the most permanently valuable -contributions to the history of the Renaissance in Italy, and English students -may be congratulated on the appearance of the translation by the hand of -Madame Villari, herself an English author.”—<i>Academy.</i></p> - -<p>“Professor Villari prefaces his Life of Machiavelli with an elaborate historical -introduction.... As a sketch of the Renaissance it is admirable. It is a -masterpiece of condensation; the arrangement of the mass of materials leaves little -to desire, and its style is singularly lucid.”—<i>Pall Mall Gazette.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Demy 8vo, cloth, price 14s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">WILLIAM HARVEY:</p> - -<p class="center"><i>A HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION -OF THE BLOOD.</i></p> - -<p class="center">By the late R. WILLIS, M.D., Author of “Servetus and Calvin.”</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With Portrait of Harvey, after Faithorne.</span></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“His (Dr. Willis’s) book will doubtless find numerous readers, and we trust -that some at least may be led by it to study the much praised and little read works -of William Harvey.”—<i>Saturday Review.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Demy 8vo, cloth, price 16s.</i></p> - -<p class="center">SERVETUS AND CALVIN:</p> - -<p class="center"><i>A STUDY OF AN IMPORTANT EPOCH IN THE EARLY HISTORY -OF THE REFORMATION.</i></p> - -<p class="center">By the late R. WILLIS, M.D.</p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“Dr. Willis has collected in this monograph a good store of interesting matter -which is not accessible to most readers without considerable trouble, and has come -so near making it a good book that one would be glad to escape the duty of -criticism.”—<i>Pall Mall Gazette.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Second Edition, crown 8vo, price 8s. 6d.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">LIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES HINTON.</p> - -<p class="center">Edited by ELLICE HOPKINS.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With an Introduction by Sir W. W. Gull, Bart.; and Portrait -Engraved on Steel by C. H. Jeens.</span></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“‘The Life of James Hinton,’ the first aural surgeon of his time, presents a -striking study of character, and will be instructive in its simpler outlines to readers -who are unable to follow the deeper and somewhat mystic course of philosophical -thought traced in his ‘Letters.’”—<i>Saturday Review.</i></p> - -<p>“Miss Hopkins has executed a difficult task with great tact. She shows a -hearty appreciation of her subject, and her work is well done.”—<i>Pall Mall Gazette.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center">C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, <span class="smcap">Paternoster Square</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="ad"> - -<p class="titlepage larger">RECENT PUBLICATIONS.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>2 vols., Second Edition, post 8vo, cloth, price 32s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">THE HISTORY OF CREATION.</p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">Professor ERNST HAECKEL</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>TRANSLATION REVISED BY PROFESSOR E. RAY LANKESTER, M.A., F.R.S.</i></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With Coloured Plates and Genealogical Trees of the Various -Groups of both Plants and Animals.</span></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“The Author has discharged a most difficult task with conscientious skill and -marvellous ability.”—<i>Science Gossip.</i></p> - -<p>“A rich mine of facts for all biological students.”—<i>Examiner.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>2 vols., large post 8vo, cloth, price 32s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">THE EVOLUTION OF MAN.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF -HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY.</i></p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">Prof. ERNST HAECKEL</span>, Author of “The History of Creation,” etc.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With Numerous Illustrations.</span></p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Crown 8vo, cloth.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">FREEDOM IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>A REPLY TO PROFESSOR VIRCHOW ON THE FREEDOM OF -SCIENCE IN THE MODERN STATE.</i></p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">Professor ERNST HAECKEL</span>.</p> - -<p class="center">Authorised Translation, with Introduction by Professor <span class="smcap">Huxley</span>, F.R.S.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Square 8vo, cloth, price 15s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">MANUAL OF THE GEOLOGY OF IRELAND.</p> - -<p class="center">By G. HENRY KINAHAN, M.R.I.A., Etc., -of Her Majesty’s Geological Survey.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>With 8 Plates, 26 Woodcuts, and a Map of Ireland, Geologically Coloured.</i></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“His volume is, unquestionably, a distinct gain to our geological literature—the -work of a man who possesses great knowledge of his subject, and is capable of -imparting his knowledge with clearness and force.”—<i>Academy.</i></p> - -<p>“Whether considered upon its scientific or upon its literary merits, the work -must be pronounced admirably done.”—<i>Land and Water.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">FLOWERS AND THEIR UNBIDDEN GUESTS.</p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">Dr. A. KERNER</span>, Prof. of Botany in the University of Innsbruck.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>TRANSLATION EDITED BY W. OGLE, M.D.</i></p> - -<p class="center">And a Prefatory Letter by CHARLES DARWIN, F.R.S.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With Illustrations.</span></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“In the description accompanying the admirable plates at the end of his book, Dr. -Kerner explains succinctly and clearly the contrivances of nature in the instances -named, and in innumerable others scarcely less marked or interesting, for compassing -an end so essential to the perpetuation of vegetable life.”—<i>Saturday Review.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center"><i>Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s.</i></p> - -<p class="center larger">ETNA: A HISTORY OF THE MOUNTAIN AND ITS -ERUPTIONS.</p> - -<p class="center">By G. F. RODWELL, F.R.A.S., F.C.S.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">With Maps and Illustrations.</span></p> - -<div class="smaller"> - -<p>“Mr. Rodwell’s ‘Etna’ is a pleasantly written and well illustrated volume, -sufficiently technical to be useful to the scientific student, yet for the most part -sufficiently popular to be read with relish by the most unscientific.”—<i>Academy.</i></p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center">C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, <span class="smcap">Paternoster Square</span>.</p> - -</div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, by -Karl von Gebler - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO GALILEI *** - -***** This file should be named 60215-h.htm or 60215-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/2/1/60215/ - -Produced by ellinora and the Online Distributed Proofreading -Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from -images generously made available by The Internet -Archive/American Libraries.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/60215-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/60215-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4c70603..0000000 --- a/old/60215-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/60215-h/images/plan.jpg b/old/60215-h/images/plan.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7f3686e..0000000 --- a/old/60215-h/images/plan.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/60215-h/images/tree.jpg b/old/60215-h/images/tree.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 014850e..0000000 --- a/old/60215-h/images/tree.jpg +++ /dev/null |
