diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60215-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60215-0.txt | 14667 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 14667 deletions
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. |