{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60215/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60215","id":"gutenberg_60215","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60215","summary":null,"tags":["Astronomers -- Italy -- Biography","Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Category: Science - Physics","Catholic Church. Curia romana","Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642","Religion and science -- History"],"text":"GALILEO GALILEI.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 32s._\n\nTHE RENAISSANCE OF ART IN FRANCE. By Mrs. MARK PATTISON. With Nineteen\nSteel Engravings.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 24s._\n\nTHE CIVILIZATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. By JACOB\nBURCKHARDT. Authorized Translation by S. G. C. MIDDLEMORE.\n\n    \u201cThe whole of the first part of Dr Burckhardt\u2019s work deals\n    with what may be called the Political Preparation for the\n    Renaissance. It is impossible here to do more than express a\n    high opinion of the compact way in which the facts are put\n    before the reader.... The second volume of Dr. Burckhardt\u2019s\n    work is, we think, more full and complete in itself, more rich\n    in original thought, than the first. His account of the causes\n    which prevented the rise of a great Italian drama is very clear\n    and satisfying.\u201d\u2014_Saturday Review._\n\nLONDON: C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.\n\n\n\n\n                             GALILEO GALILEI\n                         _AND THE ROMAN CURIA_.\n\n                        _FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES._\n\n                                   BY\n                            KARL VON GEBLER.\n\n            _TRANSLATED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY\n                          MRS. GEORGE STURGE._\n\n                             [Illustration]\n\n                                 LONDON:\n               C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.\n                                  1879.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR.\n\n\nMADAM,\u2014\n\nIt is the desire of every author, every prosecutor of research, that the\nproducts of his labours, the results of his studies, should be widely\ncirculated. This desire arises, especially in the case of one who has\ndevoted himself to research, not only from a certain egotism which clings\nto us all, but from the wish that the laborious researches of years,\noften believed to refute old and generally-received errors, should become\nthe common property of as many as possible.\n\nThe author of the present work is no exception to these general rules;\nand it therefore gives him great pleasure, and fills him with gratitude,\nthat you, Madam, should have taken the trouble to translate the small\nresults of his studies into the language of Newton, and thus have\nrendered them more accessible to the English nation.\n\nBut little more than two years have elapsed since the book first appeared\nin Germany, but this period has been a most important one for researches\ninto the literature relating to Galileo.\n\nIn the year 1869 Professor Domenico Berti obtained permission to inspect\nand turn to account the Acts of Galileo\u2019s Trial carefully preserved\nin the Vatican, and in 1876 he published a portion of these important\ndocuments, which essentially tended to complete the very partial\npublication of them by Henri de L\u2019Epinois, in 1867. In 1877 M. de\nL\u2019Epinois and the present writer were permitted to resuscitate the famous\nvolume, which again lay buried among the secret papal archives; that\nis, to inspect it at leisure and to publish the contents in full. It\nwas, however, not only of the greatest importance to become acquainted\nwith the Vatican MS. as a whole, and by an exact publication of it to\nmake it the common property of historical research; it was at least of\nequal moment to make a most careful examination of the material form and\nexternal appearance of the Acts. For the threefold system of paging had\nled some historians to make the boldest conjectures, and respecting one\ndocument in particular,\u2014the famous note of 26th February, 1616,\u2014there\nwas an apparently well-founded suspicion that there had been a later\nfalsification of the papers.\n\nWhile, on the one hand, the knowledge gained of the entire contents of\nthe Vatican MS., for the purpose of my own publication of it,[1] only\nconfirmed, in many respects, my previous opinions on the memorable trial;\non the other hand, a minute and repeated examination of the material\nevidence afforded by the suspicious document, which, up to that time,\nhad been considered by myself and many other authors to be a forgery\nof a later date, convinced me, contrary to all expectation, that it\nindisputably originated in 1616.\n\nThis newly acquired experience, and the appearance of many valuable\ncritical writings on the trial of Galileo since the year 1876, rendered\ntherefore a partial revision and correction of the German edition of this\nwork, for the English and an Italian translation, absolutely necessary.\nAll the needful emendations have accordingly been made, with constant\nreference to the literature relating to the subject published between\nthe spring of 1876 and the spring of 1878. I have also consulted several\nolder works which had escaped my attention when the book was first\nwritten.\n\nMay the work then, in its to some extent new form, make its way in the\nBritish Isles, and meet with as friendly a reception there as the German\nedition has met with in Austria and Germany.\n\nTo you, Madam, I offer my warm thanks for the care with which you have\nexecuted the difficult and laborious task of translation.\n\nAccept, Madam, the assurance of my sincere esteem.\n\n                                                      KARL VON GEBLER.[2]\n\n    MERAN, _1st April, 1878_.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.\n\n\nThe Vatican Manuscript alluded to in the foregoing letter, and constantly\nreferred to in the text, was published by the author in the autumn of\n1877, under the title of \u201cDie Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach\nder Vaticanischen Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.\u201d Cotta, Stuttgard.\nThis, with some introductory chapters, was intended to supersede the\nAppendix to the original work, and to form a second volume, when a new\nGerman edition should be called for. It did not, however, appear to me\nthat any purpose would be served by reprinting all the Latin and Italian\ndocuments of the Vatican MS. in this country, as students who wish\nto consult them can easily procure them as published in the original\nlanguages in Germany, and I hope for a wider circle of readers than that\ncomposed exclusively of students. I therefore proposed to Herr von Gebler\nto give the History, Description, and Estimate of the Vat. MS., etc.,\nin an Appendix, together with a few of the more important documents; to\nthis, with some suggestions, as for instance, that some of the shorter\ndocuments should be given as notes to the text, he fully agreed, with the\nremark that I must know best what would suit my countrymen. The Appendix,\ntherefore, differs somewhat both from the original Appendix and from the\nintroductory portions of the new volume, for these also were revised for\nthe Translation.\n\nThe translations from Latin and Italian documents have been made from the\noriginals by a competent scholar, and all the more important letters and\nextracts from letters of Galileo have been compared with the Italian. The\nTable of Contents, headings to and titles of the chapters, and Index,\nnone of which exist in the original, have been added by myself.\n\n                                                             JANE STURGE.\n\n    SYDENHAM, _November, 1878_.\n\n\n\n\nBIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.\n\nABRIDGED FROM THE \u201cAUGSBURGER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG\u201d OF 6TH DECEMBER, 1878.\n\n\nThe author of this work died at Gratz on the 7th of September, 1878. In\ndevoting a few lines to his memory we have not a long and distinguished\ncareer to describe, for a brief span of life was all that was granted\nhim, but to the last moment he sought to turn it to the best account.\n\nThe present work has enjoyed a wide circulation in Germany, but few of\nits readers could have known anything of the author but his name. The\nprotracted studies which form the basis of it, the skilful handling of\ndocumentary material which seemed to betray the practised historian,\nmust have suggested a man of ripe years, whose life had been passed in\nstudy, as the author; no one certainly would have sought him among the\nyoung officers of a cavalry regiment, whose tastes generally lie in any\ndirection rather than that of historical research.\n\nKarl von Gebler was the son of Field-marshal Wilhelm von Gebler, and\nwas born at Vienna in 1850. Although early destined for the military\ncareer, he laid the foundations of a superior education in the grammar\nschools. Having passed through the gymnasium, in 1869 he joined the 7th\nregiment of the line as a private, and before long attained the rank of\nlieutenant in the 4th regiment of Dragoons. Being an excellent draftsman\nand skilled in military surveying, he was often employed on the general\u2019s\nstaff in drawing maps. In addition to his extensive knowledge of military\naffairs, he had many of the accomplishments befitting his calling; he was\nan excellent shot and a bold rider. But the duties of a cavalry officer\nwere soon too limited for his active mind and intellectual tastes, and\nhe sought also to win his spurs on the fields of literature. He occupied\nhis leisure in translating the work of a French staff officer, \u201cSuccess\nin War,\u201d to which he made some additions. He also published \u201cThe True\nPortrait of a Royal Hero of the 18th Century,\u201d in a newspaper; and\nfinally, \u201cHistoric Sayings.\u201d\n\nA night ride, undertaken in the performance of his official duties, from\nwhich he returned at daybreak to exercise at the riding school, brought\non severe hemorrhage and inflammation of the lungs. The two physicians\nwho attended him gave him up; in a consultation at his bedside, prudently\nheld in Latin, they gave him twenty-four hours to live. One of them\nhaving taken leave, the other returned to the patient, who, with quiet\nhumour, greeted him with the classic words, \u201cMorituri te salutant!\u201d The\nworthy doctor found, to his horror, that the patient had understood all\nthat had passed, and had no easy task to persuade him that his case was\nnot so bad after all. He had, however, in consequence of some local\ncircumstances, already ordered the coffin.\n\nGebler\u2019s constitution surmounted the danger; by the spring he was able to\njoin his parents at Gratz. But his health had sustained so severe a shock\nthat he was compelled to abandon the military career. His parents removed\nto Gries, near Botzen, for the sake of a milder climate on his account.\nHere he revived wonderfully; he seemed to have taken a new lease of\nlife, and devoted himself altogether to literary pursuits. The critical\nstudies before mentioned of the assumed historic sayings of great men,\nand among them of Galileo\u2019s famous dictum, \u201cE pur si muove,\u201d brought him\ninto closer acquaintance with this hero of science. He accumulated so\nlarge a material for a biographical sketch of the great Italian, that\nthe limits of an essay seemed too narrow, and he resolved to undertake a\nmore comprehensive work on the subject, which he thought would fill up\na gap in German literature. In the autumn of 1875 the work, which had\noccupied him four years, was completed. It was not a little gratifying\nto the young author that one of the first publishers in Germany, Cotta,\nof Stuttgard, undertook the publication on very favourable terms, and\nbrought it out in 1876. It met with great approval, and brought him\ninto association with many eminent literary men in Italy and Germany.\nGalileo\u2019s own country was foremost in recognition of his services. The\nacademies of Padua and Pisa, and the Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei sent him\nspecial acknowledgments, and King Victor Emmanuel rewarded him with the\norder of the Crown of Italy.\n\nBefore this work was finished he had removed with his father, having\nin the meanwhile lost his mother, to Meran, and during the first year\nof his residence there his health improved so much that he was able to\ntake part in social life, and to enlarge the sphere of his labours and\ninfluence. Society in this little town owed much in many ways to the\nintellectual and amiable young officer. Whenever a good and noble cause\nrequired support, his co-operation might be reckoned on. In common with\nmany other lovers of art and antiquity, he took a lively interest in the\npreservation and restoration of the Maultasch-Burg, which promises to be\none of the chief sights of Meran. Unhappily he did not live to see the\ncompletion of the work.\n\nWith increase of health his zest for work increased also, and he\naddressed himself to a great historical task. The subject he selected\nwas the Maid of Orleans. The preliminary studies were difficult in a\nplace destitute of all aids to learning. His researches were not confined\nto the collection of all the printed material; in 1876 he had planned\nto search out the documentary sources wherever they were to be found,\nbut before this he made close studies in the field of psychology and\nmental pathology. The work of Ruf on the subject, the learned chaplain\nof a lunatic asylum, attracted his attention, and he entered into\ncommunication with the author. Ruf\u2019s great experience and philosophical\nacquirements were of great service to Gebler in his preliminary studies\non Joan of Arc. But the project was not to be carried out. Just as he was\nabout to write the second chapter, an essay of Berti\u2019s at Rome occasioned\nhim to enter on fresh studies on Galileo.\n\nDomenico Berti, who had examined the original Acts of Galileo\u2019s trial,\nthough, as his work shows, very superficially, spoke contemptuously of\nthe German _savans_, comparing them with blind men judging of colours, as\nnone of them had seen the original Acts in the Vatican. This had special\nreference to the document of 26th February, 1616, which the German\nwriters on the subject, and Gebler among them, declared to be a forgery.\nBeing a man of the strictest love of truth, this reproach induced him,\nin spite of his health, which had again failed, in May, 1877, to go to\nRome, where he obtained access to the Vatican. For ten weeks, in spite of\nthe oppressive heat, he daily spent fourteen hours in the Papal Archives,\nstudying and copying with diplomatic precision the original Acts of\nGalileo\u2019s trial. As the result of his labours, he felt constrained to\ndeclare the document in question to be genuine. Actuated only by the\ndesire that truth should prevail, in the second part of his work, written\nat Rome, he without hesitation withdrew the opinion he had previously\nadvocated as an error.\n\nHis first work had made a flattering commotion in the literary world, but\nthe additional publication called forth a still more animated discussion\nof the whole question, which the readers of this journal will not have\nforgotten. Gebler took part in it himself, and, then suffering from\nillness, wrote his reply from a sick bed.\n\nHis sojourn in Rome had sadly pulled him down. On his return home, in\nJuly, 1877, he had lost his voice and was greatly reduced. But in October\nof the same year he once more roused himself for a journey to Italy.\nThe object of the previous one was to follow his hero in yellow and\nfaded historic papers, but this time the task he had set himself was to\npursue the tracks of Galileo in all the cities and places in any way\nconnected with his memory. The result of these travels was an article in\nthe _Deutsche Rundschau_, No. 7, 1878, \u201cOn the Tracks of Galileo.\u201d In\nthis paper Gebler again dispels some clouds in which Galileo\u2019s previous\nbiographers had enveloped him. We in these less romantic days are quite\nwilling to dispense with the shudder at the stories of the dungeon, etc.,\nand are glad to know that Galileo was permitted to enjoy a degree of\ncomfort during his detention not often granted to those who come into\ncollision with the world.\n\n\u201cOn the Tracks of Galileo\u201d was Gebler\u2019s last literary work. His strength\nof will and mental powers at length succumbed to his incurable malady.\nThe mineral waters of Gleichenberg, which he had been recommended to\ntry, did him more harm than good. He wrote thence to a friend, \u201cI am\nin a pitiable condition, and have given up all hope of improvement.\u201d\nUnfortunately he was right. He had overtasked his strength. His zeal\nfor science had hastened his end, and he may well be called one of her\nvictims.\n\nHis last days were spent at Gratz, where his boyhood had been passed, and\nhe rests beside his only brother. Both were the pride and joy of their\nfather, now left alone.\n\nIn appearance Karl von Gebler was distinguished and attractive looking.\nNo one could escape the charm of the freshness and originality of his\nmind, in spite of constant ill health. The refined young student, with\nthe manners of a man of the world, was a phenomenon to his fellow-workers\nin the learned world. We have heard some of them say that they could not\nunderstand how Gebler could have acquired the historian\u2019s craft, the\ntechnical art of prosecuting research, without having had any special\ncritical schooling.\n\nThe writer of these lines will never forget the hours spent with this\namiable and, in spite of his success, truly modest young man in his snug\nstudy. The walls lined with books, or adorned with weapons, betrayed at\na glance the character and tastes of the occupant, while a pendulum clock\ndating from the time of Galileo recalled his work on the first observer\nof the vibrations of the pendulum to mind. He always liked to wind up the\nvenerable timepiece himself, and took a pleasure in its sonorous tones.\nWhen I once more entered the study after his death, the clock had run\ndown, the pendulum had ceased to vibrate, it told the hour no more.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.\n\n\nWhile Italy and France possess an ample literature relating to Galileo,\nhis oft-discussed fate and memorable achievements, very little has been\nwritten in Germany on this hero of science; and it would almost seem as\nif Copernicus and Kepler had cast the founder of mechanical physics into\nthe shade. German literature does not possess one exhaustive work on\nGalileo. This is a great want, and to supply it would be a magnificent\nand thankworthy enterprise. It could only, however, be carried out by a\ncomprehensive biography of the famous astronomer, which, together with a\ncomplete narrative of his life, should comprise a detailed description\nand estimate of his writings, inventions, and discoveries. We do not\nfeel ourselves either called upon or competent to undertake so difficult\na task. Our desire has been merely to fill up a portion of the gap in\nGerman literature by this contribution to the Life of Galileo, with a\nhope that it may be an incentive to some man of learning, whose studies\nqualify him for the task, to give our nation a complete description of\nthe life and works of this great pioneer of the ideas of Copernicus.\n\nWe have also set ourselves another task; namely, to throw as much light\nas possible, by means of authentic documents, on the attitude Galileo\nassumed towards the Roman curia, and the history of the persecutions\nwhich resulted from it. To this end, however, it appeared absolutely\nnecessary to give, at any rate in broad outline, a sketch of his aims\nand achievements as a whole. For his conflict with the ecclesiastical\npower was but the inevitable consequence of his subversive telescopic\ndiscoveries and scientific reforms. It was necessary to make the intimate\nconnection between these causes and their historical results perfectly\nintelligible.\n\nIn the narration of historical events we have relied, as far as possible,\nupon authentic sources only. Among these are the following:\u2014\n\n1. Galileo\u2019s correspondence, and the correspondence relating to him\nbetween third persons. (Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s \u201cOpere di Galileo Galilei.\u201d Vols. ii.,\niii., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xv., and Suppl., in all 1,564 letters.)\n\n2. The constant reports of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, to\nhis Government at Florence, during and after Galileo\u2019s trial. (Thirty-one\ndespatches, from August 15th, 1632, to December 3rd, 1633.)\n\n3. The Acts of the Trial, from the MS. originals in the Vatican.\n\n4. The collection of documents published, in 1870, by Professor Silvestro\nGherardi. Thirty-two extracts from the original protocols of the sittings\nand decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office.[3]\n\n5. Some important documents published by the Jesuit Father Riccioli, in\nhis \u201cAlmagestum novum, Bononi\u00e6, 1651.\u201d[4]\n\nWe have also been careful to acquaint ourselves with the numerous French\nand Italian Lives of Galileo, from the oldest, that of his contemporary,\nGherardini, to the most recent and complete, that of Henri Martin, 1869;\nwhen admissible, we have cautiously used them, constantly comparing them\nwith authentic sources. As the part of the story of Galileo of which\nwe have treated is that which has been most frequently discussed in\nliterature, and from the most widely differing points of view, it could\nnot fail to be of great interest to us to collect and examine, as far as\nit lay in our power, the views, opinions, and criticisms to be found in\nvarious treatises on the subject. We offer our warm thanks to all the\npossessors of private, and custodians of public libraries, who have most\nliberally and obligingly aided us in our project.\n\nOne more remark remains to be made. Party interests and passions have, to\na great extent, and with but few exceptions, guided the pens of those who\nhave written on this chapter of Galileo\u2019s life. The one side has lauded\nhim as an admirable martyr of science, and ascribed more cruelty to the\nInquisition than it really inflicted on him; the other has thought proper\nto enter the lists as defender of the Inquisition, and to wash it white\nat Galileo\u2019s expense. Historical truth contradicts both.\n\nWhatever may be the judgment passed on the present work, to one\nacknowledgment we think we may, with a good conscience, lay claim: that,\nstanding in the service of truth alone, we have anxiously endeavoured to\npursue none other than her sublime interests.\n\n                                                         KARL VON GEBLER.\n\n    MERAN, _November, 1875_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\n                                 PART I.\n\n      _GALILEO\u2019S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST\n                     CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN CURIA._\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                   EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES.\n\n    Birth at Pisa.\u2014Parentage.\u2014His Father\u2019s Writings on\n    Music.\u2014Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.\u2014Goes to the\n    Convent of Vallombrosa.\u2014Begins to study Medicine.\u2014Goes to\n    the University of Pisa.\u2014Discovery of the Synchronism of the\n    Pendulum.\u2014Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.\u2014His Hydrostatic\n    Scales.\u2014Professorship at Pisa.\u2014Poor Pay.\u2014The Laws of\n    Motion.\u2014John de\u2019 Medici.\u2014Leaves Pisa.\u2014Professorship at\n    Padua.\u2014Writes various Treatises.\u2014The Thermoscope.\u2014Letter to\n    Kepler.\u2014The Copernican System.\u2014\u201cDe Revolutionibus orbium\n    C\u0153lestium\u201d                                                           3\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n                   THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS.\n\n    Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.\u2014Astronomy.\u2014A New\n    Star.\u2014The Telescope.\u2014Galileo not the Inventor.\u2014Visit to Venice\n    to exhibit it.\u2014Telescopic Discoveries.\u2014Jupiter\u2019s Moons.\u2014Request\n    of Henry IV.\u2014\u201cSidereus Nuncius.\u201d\u2014The Storm it raised.\u2014Magini\u2019s\n    attack on Galileo.\u2014The Ring of Saturn.\u2014An Anagram.\u2014Opposition\n    of the Aristotelian School.\u2014Letter to Kepler                        16\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n                          REMOVAL TO FLORENCE.\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Fame and Pupils.\u2014Wishes to be freed from Academic\n    Duties.\u2014Projected Works.\u2014Call to Court of Tuscany.\u2014This change\n    the source of his Misfortunes.\u2014Letter from Sagredo.\u2014Phases of\n    Venus and Mercury.\u2014The Solar Spots.\u2014Visit to Rome.\u2014Triumphant\n    Reception.\u2014Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.\u2014The\n    Inquisition.\u2014Introduction of Theology into the Scientific\n    Controversy.\u2014\u201cDianoja Astronomica.\u201d\u2014Intrigues at Florence           27\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n                         ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY.\n\n    Treatise on Floating Bodies.\u2014Controversy with Scheiner about\n    the Solar Spots.\u2014Favourable reception of Galileo\u2019s Work\n    on the subject at Rome.\u2014Discussion with the Grand Duchess\n    Christine.\u2014The Bible brought into the controversy.\u2014Ill-fated\n    Letter to Castelli.\u2014Caccini\u2019s Sermon against Galileo.\u2014Lorini\n    denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.\u2014Archbishop Bonciani\u2019s\n    attempts to get the original Letter.\u2014\u201cOpinion\u201d of the\n    Inquisition on it.\u2014Caccini summoned to give evidence.\u2014Absurd\n    accusations.\u2014Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo\u2019s\n    favour                                                              42\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n\n                            HOPES AND FEARS.\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Fears.\u2014Allayed by letters from Rome.\u2014Foscarini\u2019s\n    Work.\u2014Blindness of Galileo\u2019s Friends.\u2014His Apology to the\n    Grand Duchess Christine.\u2014Effect produced by it.\u2014Visit to\n    Rome.\u2014Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.\u2014Caccini\n    begs pardon.\u2014Galileo defends the Copernican System at Rome.\u2014His\n    mistake in so doing                                                 59\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n       THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED\n                         PROHIBITION TO GALILEO.\n\n    Adverse \u201cOpinion\u201d of the Inquisition on Galileo\u2019s\n    Propositions.\u2014Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute\n    Prohibition to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.\u2014Discrepancy\n    between Notes of 25th and 26th February.\u2014Marini\u2019s\n    Documents.\u2014Epinois\u2019s Work on Galileo.\u2014Wohlwill first doubts\n    the Absolute Prohibition.\u2014Doubts confirmed by Gherardi\u2019s\n    Documents.\u2014Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican\n    System.\u2014Attitude of the Church.\u2014Was the Absolute Prohibition\n    ever issued to Galileo?\u2014Testimony of Bellarmine in his\n    favour.\u2014Conclusions                                                 76\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n\n                      EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT.\n\n    Galileo still lingers at Rome.\u2014Guiccardini tries to effect\n    his Recall.\u2014Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the\n    Decree repealed.\u2014Intrigues against him.\u2014Audience of Pope Paul\n    V.\u2014His friendly assurances.\u2014His Character.\u2014Galileo\u2019s return to\n    Florence                                                            91\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n                       THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS.\n\n    Studious Seclusion.\u2014Waiting for the Correction of the Work\n    of Copernicus.\u2014Treatise on Tides.\u2014Sends it to Archduke\n    Leopold of Austria.\u2014The Letter which accompanied it.\u2014The\n    three Comets of 1618.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Opinion of Comets.\u2014Grassi\u2019s\n    Lecture on them.\u2014Guiducci\u2019s Treatise on them, inspired\n    by Galileo.\u2014Grassi\u2019s \u201cAstronomical and Philosophical\n    Scales.\u201d\u2014Galileo\u2019s Reply.\u2014Paul V.\u2014His Death.\u2014Death of Cosmo\n    II.\u2014Gregory XV.\u2014\u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d finished.\u2014Riccardi\u2019s \u201cOpinion\u201d\n    on it.\u2014Death of Gregory XV.\u2014Urban VIII.                             98\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n                     MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII.\n\n    His Character.\u2014Taste for Letters.\u2014Friendship for Galileo when\n    Cardinal.\u2014Letters to him.\u2014Verses in his honour.\u2014Publication of\n    \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d with Dedication to the Pope.\u2014Character of the\n    Work.\u2014The Pope\u2019s approval of it.\u2014Inconsistency with the assumed\n    Prohibition                                                        108\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n\n                              PAPAL FAVOUR.\n\n    Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his\n    Accession.\u2014Favourable reception.\u2014Scientific discussions\n    with the Pope.\u2014Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th\n    March.\u2014Nicolo Riccardi.\u2014The Microscope.\u2014Galileo not the\n    Inventor.\u2014Urban\u2019s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.\u2014Galileo\u2019s\n    reply to Ingoli.\u2014Sanguine hopes.\u2014Grassi\u2019s hypocrisy.\u2014Spinola\u2019s\n    harangue against the Copernican System.\u2014Lothario Sarsi\u2019s reply\n    to \u201cIl Saggiatore.\u201d\u2014Galileo writes his \u201cDialogues\u201d                 114\n\n                                PART II.\n\n     _PUBLICATION OF THE \u201cDIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF\n           THE WORLD,\u201d AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO._\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                   THE \u201cDIALOGUES\u201d ON THE TWO SYSTEMS.\n\n    Origin of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Their popular style.\u2014Significance\n    of the name Simplicius.\u2014Hypothetical treatment of the\n    Copernican System.\u2014Attitude of Rome towards Science.\u2014Thomas\n    Campanella.\u2014Urban VIII.\u2019s duplicity.\u2014Galileo takes his MS. to\n    Rome.\u2014Riccardi\u2019s corrections.\u2014He gives the _Imprimatur_ on\n    certain conditions.\u2014Galileo returns to Florence to complete the\n    Work                                                               127\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n                   THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE \u201cDIALOGUES.\u201d\n\n    Death of Prince Cesi.\u2014Dissolution of the Accad\u00e9mia dei\n    Lincei.\u2014Galileo advised to print at Florence.\u2014Difficulties and\n    delays.\u2014His impatience.\u2014Authorship of the Introduction.\u2014The\n    _Imprimatur_ granted for Florence.\u2014Absurd accusation from the\n    style of the Type of the Introduction                              138\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n                    THE \u201cDIALOGUES\u201d AND THE JESUITS.\n\n    Publication of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Applause of Galileo\u2019s friends\n    and the learned world.\u2014The hostile party.\u2014The Jesuits\n    as leaders of learning.\u2014Deprived of their monopoly by\n    Galileo.\u2014They become his bitter foes.\u2014Having the _Imprimatur_\n    for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly\n    safe.\u2014The three dolphins.\u2014Scheiner.\u2014Did \u201cSimplicius\u201d personate\n    the Pope?\u2014Conclusive arguments against it.\u2014Effect of the\n    accusation.\u2014Urban\u2019s motives in instituting the Trial               151\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n             DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616.\n\n    Symptoms of the coming Storm.\u2014The Special Commission.\u2014Parade of\n    forbearance.\u2014The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.\u2014Provisional\n    Prohibition of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Interview\n    with the Pope and unfavourable reception.\u2014Report of it to\n    Cioli.\u2014Magalotti\u2019s Letters.\u2014Real object of the Special\n    Commission to find a pretext for the Trial.\u2014Its discovery in\n    the assumed Prohibition of 1616.\u2014Report of the Commission, and\n    charges against Galileo                                            163\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n\n                          THE SUMMONS TO ROME.\n\n    Niccolini\u2019s attempt to avert the Trial.\u2014The Pope\u2019s\n    Parable.\u2014The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.\u2014His grief\n    and consternation.\u2014His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.\u2014Renewed\n    order to come to Rome.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s fruitless efforts\n    to save him.\u2014Medical Certificate that he was unfit to\n    travel.\u2014Castelli\u2019s hopeful view of the case.\u2014Threat to bring\n    him to Rome as a Prisoner.\u2014The Grand Duke advises him to\n    go.\u2014His powerlessness to protect his servant.\u2014Galileo\u2019s mistake\n    in leaving Venice.\u2014Letter to Elia Diodati                          175\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n                       GALILEO\u2019S ARRIVAL AT ROME.\n\n    Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.\u2014Goes to the Tuscan\n    Embassy.\u2014No notice at first taken of his coming.\u2014Visits\n    of Serristori.\u2014Galileo\u2019s hopefulness.\u2014His Letter to\n    Bocchineri.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s audience of the Pope.\u2014Efforts of the\n    Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo\u2019s behalf.\u2014Notice that\n    he must appear before the Holy Office.\u2014His dejection at the\n    news.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s advice not to defend himself                     191\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n\n                    THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION.\n\n    The first hearing.\u2014Galileo\u2019s submissive attitude.\u2014The events\n    of February, 1616.\u2014Galileo denies knowledge of a special\n    Prohibition.\u2014Produces Bellarmine\u2019s certificate.\u2014Either the\n    Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo\u2019s ignorance was\n    feigned.\u2014His conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.\u2014The\n    Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.\u2014\u201cOpinions\u201d of Oregius,\n    Inchofer and Pasqualigus.\u2014Galileo has Apartments in the Palace\n    of the Holy Office assigned to him.\u2014Falls ill.\u2014Letter to\n    Geri Bocchineri.\u2014Change of tone at second hearing hitherto an\n    enigma.\u2014Now explained by letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr.\n    Barberini.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Confession.\u2014His Weakness and Subserviency     201\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n                          THE TRIAL CONTINUED.\n\n    Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.\u2014His\n    hopefulness.\u2014Third hearing.\u2014Hands in his Defence.\u2014Agreement\n    of it with previous events.\u2014Confident hopes of his\n    friends.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s fears.\u2014Decision to examine Galileo under\n    threat of Torture.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s audience of the Pope.\u2014Informed\n    that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be Sentenced,\n    and would be Imprisoned.\u2014Final Examination.\u2014Sent back to\n    \u201c_locum suum_.\u201d\u2014No evidence that he suffered Torture, or was\n    placed in a prison cell                                            217\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n                      THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.\n\n    The Sentence in full.\u2014Analysis of it.\u2014The Copernican\n    System had not been pronounced heretical by \u201cInfallible\u201d\n    authority.\u2014The special Prohibition assumed as fact.\u2014The\n    Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.\u2014The Holy Office\n    exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.\u2014The\n    Sentence not unanimous.\u2014This escaped notice for two hundred\n    and thirty-one Years.\u2014The Recantation.\u2014Futile attempts to\n    show that Galileo had really altered his opinion.\u2014After the\n    Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de\u2019\n    Monti.\u2014Petition for leave to go to Florence.\u2014Allowed to go to\n    Siena                                                              230\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n\n                             CURRENT MYTHS.\n\n    Popular Story of Galileo\u2019s Fate.\u2014His Eyes put out.\u2014\u201cE pur si\n    Muove.\u201d\u2014The Hair Shirt.\u2014Imprisonment.\u2014Galileo only detained\n    twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.\u2014Torture.\u2014Refuted in 18th\n    Century.\u2014Torture based on the words \u201c_examen rigorosum_.\u201d\u2014This\n    shown to be untenable.\u2014Assertion that the Acts have been\n    falsified refuted.\u2014False Imputation on Niccolini.\u2014Conclusive\n    Evidence against Torture.\u2014Galileo not truly a \u201cMartyr of\n    Science\u201d                                                           249\n\n                                PART III.\n\n                         _GALILEO\u2019S LAST YEARS._\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                      GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI.\n\n    Arrival at Siena.\u2014Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany\n    to ask for his release.\u2014Postponed on the advice of\n    Niccolini.\u2014Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican\n    System.\u2014Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors\n    of Italy.\u2014Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.\u2014Mandate\n    against the publication of any new Work of Galileo\u2019s,\n    or new Edition.\u2014Curious Arguments in favour of the old\n    System.\u2014Niccolini asks for Galileo\u2019s release.\u2014Refusal,\n    but permission given to go to Arcetri.\u2014Anonymous\n    accusations.\u2014Death of his Daughter.\u2014Request for permission\n    to go to Florence.\u2014Harsh refusal and threat.\u2014Letter to\n    Diodati.\u2014Again at work.\u2014Intervention of the Count de Noailles\n    on Galileo\u2019s behalf.\u2014Prediction that he will be compared to\n    Socrates.\u2014Letter to Peiresc.\u2014Publication of Galileo\u2019s Works in\n    Holland.\u2014Continued efforts of Noailles.\u2014Urban\u2019s fair speeches      267\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n                    FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT.\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Labours at Arcetri.\u2014Completion of the \u201cDialoghi delle\n    nuove Scienze.\u201d\u2014Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.\u2014Method\n    of taking Longitudes at Sea.\u2014Declined by Spain and offered\n    to Holland.\u2014Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the\n    Moon.\u2014Visit from Milton.\u2014Becomes blind.\u2014Letter to Diodati.\u2014On a\n    hint from Castelli, petitions for his Liberty.\u2014The Inquisitor\n    to visit him and report to Rome.\u2014Permitted to live at Florence\n    under restrictions.\u2014The States-General appoint a Delegate to\n    see him on the Longitude question.\u2014The Inquisitor sends word\n    of it to Rome.\u2014Galileo not to receive a Heretic.\u2014Presents\n    from the States-General refused from fear of Rome.\u2014Letter to\n    Diodati.\u2014Galileo supposed to be near his end.\u2014Request that\n    Castelli might come to him.\u2014Permitted under restrictions.\u2014The\n    new \u201cDialoghi\u201d appear at Leyden, 1638.\u2014They founded Mechanical\n    Physics.\u2014Attract much notice.\u2014Improvement of health.\u2014In 1639\n    goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily                    284\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n                          LAST YEARS AND DEATH.\n\n    Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.\u2014His pious\n    Resignation.\u2014Continues his scientific Researches.\u2014His\n    pupil Viviani.\u2014Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations\n    about Longitudes.\u2014Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with\n    him.\u2014Last discussion of the Copernican System in reply to\n    Rinuccini.\u2014Sketch of its contents.\u2014Pendulum Clocks.\u2014Priority\n    of the discovery belongs to Galileo.\u2014Visit from\n    Castelli.\u2014Torricelli joins Viviani.\u2014Scientific discourse on his\n    Deathbed.\u2014Death, 8th Jan., 1642.\u2014Proposal to deny him Christian\n    Burial.\u2014Monument objected to by Urban VIII.\u2014Ferdinand II. fears\n    to offend him.\u2014Buried quietly.\u2014No Inscription till thirty-two\n    years later.\u2014First Public Monument erected by Viviani in\n    1693.\u2014Viviani directs his heirs to erect one in Santa\n    Croce.\u2014Erected in 1738.\u2014Rome unable to put down Copernican\n    System.\u2014In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the clause in Decree\n    forbidding books which teach the new System to be expunged.\u2014In\n    1820 permission given to treat of it as true.\u2014Galileo\u2019s work\n    and others not expunged from the Index till 1835                   299\n\n                                APPENDIX.\n\n      I. HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT                             319\n\n     II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT                         330\n\n    III. ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT                            334\n\n     IV. GHERARDI\u2019S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS                            341\n\n      V. DECREE OF 5TH MARCH, 1616                                     345\n\n     VI. REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION                       347\n\n\n\n\nWORKS CONSULTED.[5]\n\n\nALB\u00c8RI (Eugenio): \u201cLe opere di Galileo Galilei.\u201d Prima edizione completa\ncondotta sugli autentici manoscritti Palatini. Firenze, 1842-1856.\n\n    *\u201cSul Processo di Galileo. Due Lettere in risposta al giornale\n    S\u2019opinione.\u201d Firenze, 1864.\n\nANONYM: \u201cDer heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei und das astronomische\nSystem des Copernicus.\u201d Historisch-politische Bl\u00e4tter f\u00fcr das katholische\nDeutschland; herausgegeben von G. Phillips und G. G\u00f6rres. Siebenter Band.\nM\u00fcnchen, 1841.\n\n    \u201cGalileo Galilei. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung f\u00fcr die\n    Entwickelung der Naturwissenschaft.\u201d Die Fortschritte der\n    Naturwissenschaft in biographischen Bildern. Drittes Heft.\n    Berlin, 1856.\n\n    \u201cGalileo Galilei.\u201d Die Grenzboten. XXIV. Jahrgang. I. Semester.\n    Nr. 24. 1865.\n\n*ARDUINI (Carlo): \u201cLa Primogenita di Galileo Galilei rivelata dalle sue\nlettere.\u201d Florence, 1864.\n\nBARBIER (Antoine Alexandre): \u201cExamen critique et compl\u00e9ment des\ndictionnaires historiques les plus r\u00e9pandus.\u201d Paris, 1820. Article\nGalil\u00e9e.\n\n*BERTI (Prof. Domenico): \u201cLa venuta di Galileo Galilei a Padova. Studii.\nAtti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, dal Novembre\n1870 all\u2019 ottobre 1871.\u201d Tomo decimosesto, seria terza, dispensa quinta,\nottava, nono e decima. Venezia, 1870, 1871.\n\n    *\u201cCopernico e le vicende del Sistema Copernicano in Italia\n    nella seconda met\u00e0 del secolo XVI. e nella prima del secolo\n    XVII.\u201d Roma, 1876.\n\n    \u201cIl Processo originale di Galileo Galilei, pubblicato per la\n    prima volta.\u201d Roma, 1876.\n\n    \u201cLa Critica moderna e il Processo contro Galileo Galilei.\u201d\n    (Nuova Antologia, Gennajo, 1877 Firenze.)\n\nBOUIX (L\u2019Abb\u00e9): \u201cLa condamnation de Galil\u00e9e. Lapsus des \u00e9crivains, qui\nl\u2019opposent \u00e0 la doctrine de l\u2019infaillibilit\u00e9 du Pape.\u201d\u2014Revue des Sciences\neccl\u00e9siastiques. Arras-Paris, f\u00e9vrier et mars, 1866.\n\nCANTOR (Professor Dr. Moritz): \u201cGalileo Galilei.\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nMathematik und Physik._ 9. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. Leipzig, 1864.\n\n    \u201cRecensionen \u00fcber die 1870 erschienenen Schriften Wohlwill\u2019s\n    und Gherardi\u2019s \u00fcber den Galilei\u2019schen Process.\u201d _Zeitschrift\n    f\u00fcr Mathematik und Physik._ 16. Jahrgang. 1. Heft. 1871.\n\nCASPAR (Dr. R.): \u201cGalileo Galilei. Zusammenstellung der Forschungen und\nEntdeckungen Galilei\u2019s auf dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft, als Beitrag\nzur Geschichte der neueren Physik.\u201d Stuttgart, 1854.\n\nCHASLES (Prof. Philar\u00e8te): \u201cGalileo Galilei, sa vie, son proc\u00e8s et ses\ncontemporains d\u2019apr\u00e8s les documents originaux.\u201d Paris, 1862.\n\n*COMBES (Louis): \u201cGalil\u00e9e et L\u2019Inquisition Romaine.\u201d Paris, 1876.\n\nDELAMBRE (Jean Baptiste Joseph): \u201cHistoire de l\u2019astronomie ancienne.\u201d\nParis, 1821.\n\nECKERT (Professor Dr.): \u201cGalileo Galilei, dessen Leben und Verdienste um\ndie Wissenschaften.\u201d Als Einladung zur Promotionsfeier des P\u00e4dagogiums.\nBasel, 1858.\n\nEPINOIS (Henri de L\u2019): \u201cGalil\u00e9e, son proc\u00e8s, sa condamnation d\u2019apr\u00e8s des\ndocuments in\u00e9dits.\u201d Extrait de la Revue des questions historiques. Paris,\n1867.\n\n    *\u201cLes Pi\u00e8ces du Proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e, pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9es d\u2019un\n    avant-propos.\u201d Rome, Paris, 1877 v. Palm\u00e9 soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de\n    Librairie Catholique.\n\n    *\u201cLa Question de Galil\u00e9e, les faits et leurs cons\u00e9quences.\u201d\n    Paris Palm\u00e9, 1878.\n\nFIGUIER (Louis): \u201cGalil\u00e9e.\u201d Vies des savants illustres du dix-septi\u00e8me\nsi\u00e8cle. Paris, 1869.\n\nFRIEDLEIN (Rector): \u201cZum Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.\u201d\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. 1872.\n\nGHERARDI (Prof. Silvestro): \u201cIl Processo Galileo riveduto sopra documenti\ndi nuova fonte.\u201d _Rivista Europea._ Anno 1. Vol. III. Firenze, 1870.[6]\n\n    \u201cSulla Dissertazione del dott. Emilio Wohlwill. Il processo di\n    Galileo Galilei.\u201d Estratto della _Rivista Europea_. Firenze,\n    1872.\n\n*GILBERT (Prof. Ph.): \u201cLe Proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e d\u2019apr\u00e8s les Documents\ncontemporains.\u201d Extrait de la Revue Catholique tomes I., II. Louvains,\n1869.\n\nGOVI (Gilberto): \u201cIntorno a certi manuscritti apocrifi di Galileo.\u201d\nTorino, 1869. Estr. dagli Atti della Accad\u00e9mia delle Scienze di Torino\nVol. V. Adunanza del 21 Nov. 1869.\n\n    \u201cIntorno a tre lettere di Galileo Galilei tratte dall\u2019 archivio\n    dei Gonzaga.\u201d Bollettino di bibliografia e di storia delle\n    scienze matematiche e fisiche pubblicato da B. Boncompagni.\n    Tomo III. Roma, 1870.\n\nGOVI (Gilberto): \u201cIl S. Offizio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un\nopuscolo postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento.\u201d Torino, 1872.\n\n*GRISAR (Prof. H. S. J.): \u201cDer Galilei\u2019sche Process auf der neuesten\nActenpublicationen historisch und juristisch gepr\u00fcft.\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nKath. Theol._ II. Jahrgang, pp. 65-128. Innsbruck.\n\nJAGEMANN: \u201cGeschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Galileo Galilei.\u201d\nNeue Auflage. Leipzig, 1787.\n\nLIBRI: \u201cGalileo Galilei, sein Leben und seine Werke.\u201d Aus dem\nFranz\u00f6sischen mit Anmerkungen von F. W. Carov\u00e9. Siegen und Wiesbaden,\n1842.\n\nMARINI (Mgr. Marino): \u201cGalileo e l\u2019inquisizione.\u201d Memorie\nstorico-critiche. Roma, 1850.\n\nMARTIN (Henri Th.): \u201cGalil\u00e9e, les droits de la science et la m\u00e9thode des\nsciences physiques.\u201d Paris, 1868.\n\nNELLI (Gio. Batista Clemente de): \u201cVita e commercio letterario di Galileo\nGalilei.\u201d Losanna (Firenze), 1793.\n\nOLIVIERI (P. Maurizio-Benedetto Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario\ndella S. Rom. ed Univer. Inquisizione): \u201cDi Copernico e di Galileo\nscritto postumo ora per la prima volta messo in luce sull\u2019 autografo per\ncura d\u2019un religioso dello stesso istituto.\u201d Bologna, 1872.\n\nPARCHAPPE (Dr. Max): \u201cGalil\u00e9e, sa vie, ses d\u00e9couvertes et ses travaux.\u201d\nParis, 1866.\n\n*PIERALISI (Sante, Sacerdote e Bibliotecario della Barberiniana): \u201cUrbano\nVIII. e Galileo Galilei: Memorie Storiche.\u201d Roma, 1875. Tipografia\npoliglotta della L. P. di Propaganda Fide.\n\n    *\u201cCorrezioni al libro Urbano VIII. Galileo Galilei proposte\n    dall\u2019 autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazione sopra il processo\n    originale di Galileo Galilei pubblicato da Domenico Berti.\u201d\n    Settembre, 1876.\n\nREITLINGER (Prof. Edmund): \u201cGalileo Galilei.\u201d Freie Blicke.\nPopul\u00e4rwissenschaftliche Aufs\u00e4tze. Berlin, 1875.\n\nREUMONT (Alfred von): \u201cGalilei und Rom.\u201d Beitr\u00e4ge zur italienischen\nGeschichte. 1 Bd. Berlin, 1853.\n\nREUSCH (Professor Dr. F. H.): \u201cDer Galilei\u2019sche Procesz.\u201d Ein Vortrag.\nHistorische Zeitschrift; herausgegeben von Prof. Heinrich von Sybel. 17.\nJahrgang. 1875. 3. Heft.\n\nREZZI (M. Domenica): \u201cSulla invenzione del microscopio, giuntavi una\nnotizia delle Considerazioni al Tasso attribuite a Galileo Galilei.\u201d\nRoma, 1852.\n\n*RICCARDI (Prof. Cav. Pietro): \u201cDi alcune recenti memorie sul processo e\nsulla condanna del Galilei. Nota e Documenti aggiunti alla bibliografia\nGalileiana.\u201d Modena, 1873.\n\nRICCIOLI (P. Jo. Bapt.): \u201cAlmagestum novum.\u201d Bonioniae, 1651.\n\nROSINI (M. Giovanni): \u201cPer l\u2019inaugurazione solenne della statua di\nGalileo.\u201d Orazione. Pisa, 1839 (2 Oct).\n\nROSSI (Prof. Giuseppe): \u201cDel Metodo Galileiano.\u201d Bologna, 1877.\n\n*SCARTAZZINI (Dr. T. A.): \u201cDer Process des Galileo Galilei.\u201d _Unsere\nZeit._ Jahrgang 13. Heft 7 and 18.\n\n    *\u201cIl processo di Galileo Galilei e la moderna critica tedesca.\u201d\n    _Revista Europea_, Vol. IV. Part V., Vol. V. Parts I and II., 1\n    and 16 Jan. 1878.\n\n*SCHNEEMANN (P. S. J.): \u201cGalileo Galilei und der R\u00f6mische Stuhl.\u201d Stimmen\naus Maria Laach. Kath. Bl\u00e4ttern. Nos. 2, 3, 4, Feb. Mar. April, 1878.\n\nSNELL (Dr. Carl): \u201cUeber Galilei als Begr\u00fcnder der mechanischen Physik\nund \u00fcber die Methode derselben.\u201d Jena, 1864.\n\nTARGIONI TOZZETTI: \u201cNotizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche in\nToscana.\u201d Firenze, 1780. (Contains in Vol. ii.: \u201cVita di Galileo scritta\nda Nic. Gherardini.\u201d)\n\nVENTURI (Cav. Giambattista): \u201cMemorie e lettere inedite finora o disperse\ndi Galileo Galilei.\u201d Modena, 1818-1821.\n\nVIVIANI: \u201cRaconto istorico della vita di Galileo Galilei.\u201d (Enthalten im\nXV. Bande der Opere di Galileo Galilei. Prima edizione completa. Firenze,\n1856.)\n\nVOSEN (Dr. Christian Hermann): \u201cGalileo Galilei und die R\u00f6mische\nBerurtheilung des Copernicanischen Systems.\u201d Brosch\u00fcrenverein Nr. 5.\nFrankfurt am M. 1865.\n\nWOHLWILL (Dr. Emil): \u201cDer Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.\nEine Pr\u00fcfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der R\u00f6mischen\nInquisition.\u201d Berlin, 1870.\n\n    *\u201cIst Galilei gefoltert worden? Eine kritische Studie.\u201d\n    Leipzig, 1877.\n\n    \u201cZum Inquisitionsprocesz des Galileo Galilei.\u201d _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n    Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 2. Heft. 1872.\n\n*WOLYNSKI (Dott. Arturio): \u201cLettere inedite a Galileo Galilei.\u201d Firenze,\n1872.\n\n    *\u201cRelazione di Galileo Galilei colla Polonia esposte secondo i\n    documenti per la maggior parte non pubblicati.\u201d Firenze, 1873.\n\n    \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana e Galileo Galilei.\u201d Firenze, 1874.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n_GALILEO\u2019S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST CONFLICT\nWITH THE ROMAN CURIA._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES._\n\n    Birth at Pisa.\u2014Parentage.\u2014His Father\u2019s Writings on\n    Music.\u2014Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.\u2014Goes to the\n    Convent of Vallombrosa.\u2014Begins to study Medicine.\u2014Goes to\n    the University of Pisa.\u2014Discovery of the Isochronism of the\n    Pendulum.\u2014Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.\u2014His Hydrostatic\n    Scales.\u2014Professorship at Pisa.\u2014Poor Pay.\u2014The Laws of\n    Motion.\u2014John de\u2019 Medici.\u2014Leaves Pisa.\u2014Professorship at\n    Padua.\u2014Writes various Treatises.\u2014The Thermoscope.\u2014Letter to\n    Kepler.\u2014The Copernican System.\u2014\u201cDe Revolutionibus Orbium\n    C\u0153lestium.\u201d\n\n\nThe same memorable day is marked by the setting of one of the most\nbrilliant stars in the firmament of art and the rising of another in the\nsphere of science, which was to enlighten the world with beams of equal\nsplendour. On the 18th February, 1564, Michael Angelo Buonarotti closed\nhis eyes at Rome, and Galileo Galilei first saw the light at Pisa.\n\nHe was the son of the Florentine nobleman, Vincenzo Galilei, and of\nJulia, one of the ancient family of the Ammanati of Pescia, and was\nborn in wedlock, as the documents of the church clearly attest.[7]\nHis earliest years were spent at Pisa, but his parents soon returned\nto Florence, which was their settled home. Here he received his early\neducation. His father had distinguished himself by his writings on the\ntheory of music, particularly the mathematical part of it.[8] They were\nnot merely above mediocrity, but aimed at innovation, and if they did not\nachieve reform, it was to be attributed to the conservative spirit then\nreigning in Italy, which asserted itself in every department of life, and\nespecially in the spheres of art and science.\n\nGalileo\u2019s father had no property. His income was but scanty, and the\nfates had endowed him with a numerous family instead of with fortune.[9]\nUnder these untoward circumstances he at first destined the little\nGalileo, as is related by Gherardini, his earliest biographer, to a\ncareer by no means distinguished, though advantageous in a material point\nof view, and one that conferred much of their wealth on the Florentines,\nso that it was held in high esteem\u2014he was to be a cloth dealer. But the\nyoung noble first received the education befitting his station, that is,\na very mediocre teacher instructed him in the Humanities.[10] Fortunately\nfor the clever young scholar, he was handed over to the pious brethren of\nthe convent of Vallombrosa for further education. Here he at once made\nrapid progress. He acquired great facility in the classics. His thorough\nstudy of the masterpieces of antiquity was of the greatest advantage to\nhim. He doubtless thereby laid the foundation of the admirable style to\nwhich he afterwards, in some measure, owed his brilliant successes.\n\nGalileo had a great variety of talent. Besides ardent pursuit of the\nsolid branches of learning, he had considerable skill in drawing and\nmusic, in which he afterwards attained so much perfection that his\njudgment was highly esteemed, even by great artists.[11] He played the\nlute himself with the skill of a master. He also highly appreciated\npoetry. His later essays on Dante, Orlando Furioso, and Gerusalemme\nLiberata, as well as the fragment of a play, bear witness to his lively\ninterest in _belles lettres_. But from his earliest youth he showed\nthe greatest preference for mechanics. He made little machines with\nan ingenuity and skill which evinced a really unusual talent for such\nthings.[12]\n\nWith these abilities his father must soon have arrived at the conclusion\nthat his son was born for something better than for distributing wool\namong the people, and resolved to devote him to science; only it was\nnecessary that the branch of it to which he turned his attention should\noffer a prospect of profit. Medicine was decided on as the most likely\nto be lucrative, although it may not seem the one most suited to his\nabilities.\n\nOn 5th November, 1581, Galileo, then just seventeen, entered the\nUniversity of Pisa.[13] Even here the young medical student\u2019s\nindependent ideas and aims made way for themselves. At that time any\noriginal ideas and philosophical views not derived from the dogmas of\nAristotle were unheard of. All the theories of natural science and\nphilosophy had hitherto been referred to theology. It had been held\nto be the Alpha and Omega of all human knowledge. But now the period\nwas far advanced in which it was felt to be necessary to cast off the\nnarrow garments fashioned by religion, though at first the will to\ndo so exceeded the power. A stir and ferment agitated men\u2019s minds. A\nperiod of storm and stress had begun for the study of nature and the\nphilosophical speculation so closely connected with it. Men did not as\nyet possess energy and ability for direct advance, so they turned with\nreal fanaticism to ancient learning, which, being independent, and not\nbased on religious notions, afforded them satisfaction. Under these\ncircumstances recurrence to the past was real progress.\n\nUnconditional surrender to the ideas of others, entire adoption\nof opinions, some of which were not too well verified, might suit\nmediocrity, but it could not suffice for the powerful mind of Galileo,\nwho was striving to find out the truth for himself. The genius of the\nyoung student rebelled fiercely against rigid adherence to an antiquated\nstandpoint. To the horror of the followers of Aristotle, who were quite\ntaken aback at such unheard-of audacity, he resolutely attacked in\npublic disputations many oracular dicta of their great master hitherto\nunquestioned, and this even then made him many enemies, and acquired for\nhim the epithet of \u201cthe Wrangler.\u201d[14]\n\nTwo circumstances occur during Galileo\u2019s student years, which, in their\nmain features, are not without historical foundation, although in detail\nthey bear an anecdotal impress. One, which is characteristic of Galileo\u2019s\nobservant eye, shows us the student of nineteen devoutly praying in the\nCathedral at Pisa; but he seems to have soon wearied of this occupation,\nfor he dreamily fixed his eye on the Maestro Possenti\u2019s beautiful lamp,\nhanging from an arch, which, in order to light it more readily, had\nbeen moved out of its vertical position and then left to itself. The\noscillations were at first considerable, became gradually less and less,\nbut notwithstanding the varying distances, they were all performed in\nthe same time, as the young medical student discovered to a nicety by\nfeeling his pulse. The isochronism of the vibrations of the pendulum was\ndiscovered![15]\n\nThe other story refers to Galileo\u2019s first mathematical studies.\nGherardini relates that he was scarcely acquainted with the elements of\nmathematics up to his twentieth year, which, by the by, seems almost\nincredible. But while he was diligently studying medicine at Pisa, the\ncourt of Tuscany came there for some months. Among the suite was Ostilio\nRicci, governor of the pages, a distinguished mathematician and an old\nfriend of the Galilei family; Galileo, therefore, often visited him. One\nmorning when he was there, Ricci was teaching the pages. Galileo stood\nshyly at the door of the schoolroom, listening attentively to the lesson;\nhis interest grew greater and greater; he followed the demonstration of\nthe mathematical propositions with bated breath. Strongly attracted by\nthe science almost unknown to him before, as well as by Ricci\u2019s method\nof instruction, he often returned, but always unobserved, and, Euclid in\nhand, drank deeply, from his uncomfortable concealment, of the streams\nof fresh knowledge. Mathematics also occupied the greater part of his\ntime in the solitude of his study. But all this did not satisfy his\nthirst for knowledge. He longed to be himself taught by Ricci. At last he\ntook courage, and, hesitatingly confessing his sins of curiosity to the\nastonished tutor, he besought him to unveil to him the further mysteries\nof mathematics, to which Ricci at once consented.\n\nWhen Galileo\u2019s father learnt that his son was devoting himself to Euclid\nat the expense of Hippocrates and Galen, he did his utmost to divert him\nfrom this new, and as it seemed to him, unprofitable study. The science\nof mathematics was not then held in much esteem, as it led to nothing\npractical. Its use, as applied to the laws of nature, had scarcely\nbegun to be recognised. But the world-wide mission for which Galileo\u2019s\ngenius destined him had been too imperiously marked out by fate for\nhim to be held back by the mere will of any man. Old Vincenzo had to\nlearn the unconquerable power of genius in young Galileo, and to submit\nto it. The son pursued the studies marked out for him by nature more\nzealously than ever, and at length obtained leave from his father to bid\nadieu to medicine and to devote himself exclusively to mathematics and\nphysics.[16]\n\nThe unexpected successes won by the young philosopher in a very short\ntime in the realm of science, soon showed that his course had now been\nturned into the proper channel. Galileo\u2019s father, who, almost crushed\nwith the burden of his family, could with difficulty bear the expense\nof his son\u2019s residence at the University, turned in his perplexity to\nthe beneficence of the reigning Grand Duke, Ferdinand de\u2019 Medici, with\nthe request that, in consideration of the distinguished talents and\nscientific attainments of Galileo, he would grant him one of the forty\nfree places founded for poor students at the University. But even then\nthere were many who were envious of Galileo in consequence of his unusual\nabilities and his rejection of the traditional authority of Aristotle.\nThey succeeded in inducing the Grand Duke to refuse poor Vincenzo\u2019s\npetition, in consequence of which the young student had to leave the\nUniversity, after four years\u2019 residence, without taking the doctor\u2019s\ndegree.[17]\n\nIn spite of these disappointments, Galileo was not deterred, on his\nreturn home, from continuing his independent researches into natural\nphenomena. The most important invention of those times, to which he was\nled by the works of Archimedes, too little regarded during the Middle\nAges, was his hydrostatic scales, about the construction and use of which\nhe wrote a treatise, called \u201cLa Bilancetta.\u201d This, though afterwards\ncirculated in manuscript copies among his followers and pupils, was not\nprinted until after his death, in 1655.\n\nGalileo now began to be everywhere spoken of in Italy. The discovery of\nthe movement of the pendulum as a measurement of time, the importance\nof which was increasingly recognised, combined with his novel and\nintellectual treatment of physics, by which the phenomena of nature were\nsubmitted, as far as possible, to direct proof instead of to the _a\npriori_ reasoning of the Aristotelians, excited much attention in all\nscientific circles. Distinguished men of learning, like Clavius at Rome,\nwith whom he had become acquainted on his first visit there in 1587,[18]\nMichael Coignet at Antwerp, Riccoboni, the Marquis Guidubaldo del Monte,\netc., entered into correspondence with him.[19] Intercourse with the\nlatter, a distinguished mathematician, who took the warmest interest in\nGalileo\u2019s fate, became of the utmost importance to him. It was not merely\nthat to his encouragement he owed the origin of his excellent treatise\non the doctrine of centres of gravity, which materially contributed to\nestablish his fame, and even gained for him from Del Monte the name of\nan \u201cArchimedes of his time,\u201d but he first helped him to secure a settled\nand honourable position in life. By his opportune recommendation in 1589,\nthe professorship of mathematics at the University of Pisa, just become\nvacant, was conferred on Galileo, with an income of sixty scudi.[20]\nIt is indicative of the standing of the sciences in those days that,\nwhile the professor of medicine had a salary of two thousand scudi, the\nprofessor of mathematics had not quite thirty kreuzers[21] a day. Even\nfor the sixteenth century it was very poor pay. Moreover, in accordance\nwith the usage at the Italian Universities, he was only installed for\nthree years; but in Galileo\u2019s needy circumstances, even this little help\nwas very desirable, and his office enabled him to earn a considerable\nadditional income by giving private lessons.\n\nDuring the time of his professorship at Pisa he made his grand researches\ninto the laws of gravitation, now known under the name of \u201cGalileo\u2019s\nLaws,\u201d and wrote as the result of them his great treatise \u201cDe Motu\nGravium.\u201d It then had but a limited circulation in copies, and did not\nappear in print until two hundred years after his death, in Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s\n\u201cOpere complete di Galileo Galilei.\u201d Aristotle, nearly two thousand\nyears before, had raised the statement to the rank of a proposition, that\nthe rate at which a body falls depends on its weight. Up to Galileo\u2019s\ntime this doctrine had been generally accepted as true, on the mere word\nof the old hero of science, although individual physicists, like Varchi\nin 1544, and Benedetti in 1563, had disputed it, maintaining that bodies\nof similar density and different weight fall from the same height in\nan equal space of time. They sought to prove the correctness of this\nstatement by the most acute reasoning, but the idea of experiment did not\noccur to any one. Galileo, well aware that the touchstone of experiment\nwould discover the vulnerable spot in Aristotelian infallibility, climbed\nthe leaning tower of Pisa, in order thence to prove by experiment, to the\ndiscomfiture of the Peripatetic school, the truth of the axiom that the\nvelocity with which a body falls does not depend on its weight but on its\ndensity.[22]\n\nIt might have been thought that his opponents would strike sail after\nthis decisive argument. Aristotle, the master, would certainly have\nyielded to it\u2014but his disciples had attained no such humility. They\nfollowed the bold experiments of the young professor with eyes askance\nand miserable sophistries, and, being unable to meet him with his own\nweapons of scientific research, they eagerly sought an opportunity of\nshowing the impious and dangerous innovator the door of the _aula_.\n\nAn unforeseen circumstance came all at once to their aid in these\ndesigns. An illegitimate son of the half-brother of the reigning Grand\nDuke,\u2014the relationship was somewhat farfetched, but none the less ominous\nfor Galileo\u2014John de\u2019 Medici, took an innocent pleasure in inventing\nmachines, and considered himself a very skilful artificer. This ingenious\nsemi-prince had constructed a monster machine for cleaning the harbour of\nLeghorn, and proposed that it should be brought into use. But Galileo,\nwho had been commissioned to examine the marvel, declared it to be\nuseless, and, unfortunately, experiment fully confirmed the verdict.\nOminous head-shakings were seen among the suite of the deeply mortified\ninventor. They entered into alliance with the Peripatetic philosophers\nagainst their common enemy. There were cabals at court. Galileo,\nperceiving that his position at Pisa was untenable, voluntarily resigned\nhis professorship before the three years had expired, and migrated for\nthe second time home to Florence.[23]\n\nHis situation was now worse than before, for about this time, 2nd July,\n1591, his father died after a short illness, leaving his family in very\nnarrow circumstances. In this distress the Marquis del Monte again\nappeared as a friend in need. Thanks to his warm recommendation to the\nSenate of the Republic of Venice, in the autumn of 1592 the professorship\nof mathematics at the University of Padua, which had become vacant, was\nbestowed on Galileo for six years.[24] On 7th December, 1592, he entered\non his office with a brilliant opening address, which won the greatest\nadmiration, not only for its profound scientific knowledge, but for its\nentrancing eloquence.[25] His lectures soon acquired further fame, and\nthe number of his admirers and the audience who eagerly listened to his,\nin many respects, novel demonstrations, daily increased.\n\nDuring his residence at Padua, Galileo displayed an extraordinary and\nversatile activity. He constructed various machines for the service\nof the republic, and wrote a number of excellent treatises, intended\nchiefly for his pupils.[26] Among the larger works may be mentioned his\nwritings on the laws of motion, on fortification, gnomonics (the making\nof sun-dials), mechanics, and on the celestial globe, which attained a\nwide circulation even in copies, and were some of them printed long\nafterwards\u2014the one on fortification not until the present century;[27]\nothers, including the one on gnomonics, are unfortunately lost. On the\nwide field of inventions two may be specially mentioned, one of which\nwas not fully developed until much later. The first was his proportional\ncircle, which, though it had no special importance as illustrative of\nany principle, had a wide circulation from its various practical uses.\nTen years later, in 1606, Galileo published an excellent didactic work\non this subject, dedicated to Cosmo de\u2019 Medici, and in 1607 a polemical\none against Balthasar Capra, of Milan, who, in a treatise published in\n1607, which was nothing but a plagiarism of Galileo\u2019s work disfigured by\nblunders, gave himself out as the inventor of the instrument. Galileo\u2019s\nreply, in which he first exhibited the polemical dexterity afterwards\nso much dreaded, excited great attention even in lay circles from its\nmasterly satire.[28] The other invention was a contrivance by which heat\ncould be more exactly indicated. Over zealous biographers have therefore\nhastened to claim for their hero the invention of the thermometer, which,\nhowever, is not correct, as the instrument, which was not intended to\nmeasure the temperature, could not be logically called a thermometer, but\na thermoscope, heat indicator. Undoubtedly it prepared the way by which\nimprovers of the thermoscope arrived at the thermometer.[29]\n\nBefore proceeding further with Galileo\u2019s researches and discoveries, so\nfar as they fall within our province, it seems important to acquaint\nourselves with his views about the Copernican system. From a letter of\nhis to Mazzoni, of 30th May, 1597,[30] it is clear that he considered\nthe opinions of Pythagoras and Copernicus on the position and motion of\nthe earth to be far more correct than those of Aristotle and Ptolemy.\nIn another letter of 4th August of the same year to Kepler, he thanks\nhim for his work, which he had sent him, on the Mysteries of the\nUniverse,[31] and writes as follows about the Copernican system:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI count myself happy, in the search after truth, to have so\n    great an ally as yourself, and one who is so great a friend\n    of the truth itself. It is really pitiful that there are so\n    few who seek truth, and who do not pursue a perverse method\n    of philosophising. But this is not the place to mourn over\n    the miseries of our times, but to congratulate you on your\n    splendid discoveries in confirmation of truth. I shall read\n    your book to the end, sure of finding much that is excellent\n    in it. I shall do so with the more pleasure, because _I have\n    been for many years an adherent of the Copernican system_, and\n    it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances of\n    nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly accepted\n    hypothesis. _I have collected many arguments for the purpose\n    of refuting the latter_; but I do not venture to bring them to\n    the light of publicity, for fear of sharing the fate of our\n    master, Copernicus, who, although he has earned immortal fame\n    with some, yet with very many (so great is the number of fools)\n    has become an object of ridicule and scorn. I should certainly\n    venture to publish my speculations if there were more people\n    like you. But this not being the case, I refrain from such an\n    undertaking.\u201d[32]\n\nIn an answer from Gr\u00e4tz, of 13th October of the same year, Kepler\nurgently begs him to publish his researches into the Copernican system,\nadvising him to bring them out in Germany if he does not receive\npermission to do so in Italy.[33] In spite of this pressing request of\nhis eminent friend, however, Galileo was not to be induced to bring\nhis convictions to the light yet, a hesitation which may not appear\nvery commendable. But if we consider the existing state of science,\nwhich condemned the Copernican system as an unheard of and fantastic\nhypothesis, and the religious incubus which weighed down all knowledge\nof nature irrespective of religious belief, and if, besides all this,\nwe remember the entire revolution in the sphere both of religion and\nscience involved in the reception of the Copernican system, we shall be\nmore ready to admit that Galileo had good reason to be cautious. The\nCopernican cause could not be served by mere partisanship, but only\nby independent fresh researches to prove its correctness, indeed its\nirrefragability. Nothing but the fulfilment of these conditions formed a\njustification, either in a scientific or moral point of view, for taking\npart in overturning the previous views of the universe.\n\nBefore the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question it, our earth\nwas held to be the centre of the universe, and about it all the rest\nof the heavenly bodies revolved. There was but one \u201cworld,\u201d and that\nwas our earth; the whole firmament, infinity, was the fitting frame to\nthe picture, upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position\nwhich was truly sublime. It was an elevating thought that you were on\nthe centre, the only fixed point amidst countless revolving orbs! The\nnarrations in the Bible, and the character of the Christian religion\nas a whole, fitted this conception exceedingly well; or, more properly\nspeaking, were made to fit it. The creation of man, his fall, the flood,\nand our second venerable ancestor, Noah, with his ark in which the\ncontinuation of races was provided for, the foundation of the Christian\nreligion, the work of redemption;\u2014all this could only lay claim to\nuniversal importance so long as the earth was the centre of the universe,\nthe only world. Then all at once a learned man makes the annihilating\nassertion that our world was not the centre of the universe, but revolved\nitself, was but an insignificant part of the vast, immeasurable system\nof worlds. What had become of the favoured status of the earth? And this\nindefinite number of bodies, equally favoured by nature, were they also\nthe abodes of men? The bare possibility of a number of inhabited worlds\ncould but imperil the first principles of Christian philosophy.\n\nThe system of the great Copernicus, however, thanks to the anonymous\npreface to his famous work, \u201cDe Revolutionibus Orbium C\u0153lestium,\u201d\nhad not, up to this time, assumed to be a correct theory, but only a\nhypothesis, which need not be considered even probable, as it was only\nintended to facilitate astronomical calculations. We know now that\nthis was a gigantic mistake, that the immortal astronomer had aimed\nat rectifying the Ptolemaic confusion, and was fully convinced of the\ncorrectness of his system; we know that this unprincipled Introduction\nis by no means to be attributed to Copernicus, but to Andreas Osiander,\nwho took part in publishing this book, which formed so great an epoch\nin science, and whose anxious soul thereby desired to appease the\nanticipated wrath of the theologians and philosophers. And we know\nfurther that the founder of our present system of the universe, although\nhe handled the first finished copy of his imperishable work when he was\ndying, was unable to look into it, being already struck by paralysis,\nand thus never knew of Osiander\u2019s weak-minded Introduction, which had\nprudently not been submitted to him.[34]\n\nA few days after receiving a copy of the great work of his genius,\nCopernicus died, on 24th May, 1543; and his system, for which he had been\nlabouring and striving all his life, was, in consequence of Osiander\u2019s\nsacrilegious act, reduced to a simple hypothesis intended to simplify\nastronomical calculations! As such it did not in the least endanger\nthe faith of the Church. Even Pope Paul III., to whom Copernicus had\ndedicated his work, received it \u201cwith pleasure.\u201d In 1566 a second edition\nappeared at Basle, and still it did not excite any opposition from the\nChurch. It was not till 1616, when it had met with wide acceptance among\nthe learned, when its correctness had been confirmed by fresh facts, and\nit had begun to be looked upon as true, that the Roman curia felt moved\nto condemn the work of Copernicus until it had been corrected (_donec\ncorrigantur_).\n\nHaving thus rapidly glanced at the opposition between the Copernican\nsystem and the Ptolemaic, which forms the prelude to Galileo\u2019s subsequent\nrelations with Rome, we are at liberty to fulfil the task we have set\nourselves, namely, to portray \u201cGalileo and the Roman Curia.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS._\n\n    Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.\u2014Astronomy.\u2014A New\n    Star.\u2014The Telescope.\u2014Galileo not the Inventor.\u2014Visit to Venice\n    to exhibit it.\u2014Telescopic Discoveries.\u2014Jupiter\u2019s Moons.\u2014Request\n    of Henry IV.\u2014\u201cSidereus Nuncius.\u201d\u2014The Storm it raised.\u2014Magini\u2019s\n    attack on Galileo.\u2014The Ring of Saturn.\u2014An Anagram.\u2014Opposition\n    of the Aristotelian School.\u2014Letter to Kepler.\n\n\nThe first six years of Galileo\u2019s professorship at Padua had passed\naway, but the senate were eager to retain so bright a light for their\nUniversity, and prolonged the appointment of the professor, whose renown\nwas now great, for another six years, with a considerable increase of\nsalary.[35]\n\nAs we have seen, he had for a long time renounced the prevailing views\nabout the universe; but up to this time he had discussed only physical\nmathematical questions with the Peripatetic school, the subject of\nastronomy had not been mooted. But the sudden appearance of a new\nstar in the constellation of Serpentarius, in October, 1604, which,\nafter exhibiting various colours for a year and a half, as suddenly\ndisappeared, induced him openly to attack one of the Aristotelian\ndoctrines hitherto held most sacred, that of the unchangeableness of the\nheavens. Galileo demonstrated, in three lectures to a numerous audience,\nthat this star was neither a mere meteor, nor yet a heavenly body which\nhad before existed but had only now been observed, but a body which had\nrecently appeared and had again vanished.[36] The subject, though not\nimmediately connected with the Copernican question, was an important\nstep taken on the dangerous and rarely trodden path of knowledge of\nnature, uninfluenced by dogmatism or petrified professorial wisdom.\nThis inviolability of the vault of heaven was also conditioned by the\nprevailing views of the universe. What wonder then that most of the\nprofessors who had grown grey in the Aristotelian doctrine (Cremonio for\ninstance, Coressio, Lodovico delle Colombo, and Balthasar Capra) were\nincensed at these opinions of Galileo, so opposed to all their scientific\nprepossessions, and vehemently controverted them.\n\nThe spark, however, which was to set fire to the abundant inflammable\nmaterial, and to turn the scientific and religious world, in which doubt\nhad before been glimmering, into a veritable volcano, the spark which\nkindled Galileo\u2019s genius and made him for a long time the centre of that\nperiod of storm and stress, was the discovery of the telescope.\n\nWe will not claim for Galileo, as many of his biographers have\nerroneously done, priority in the construction of the telescope. We rely\nfar more on Galileo\u2019s own statements than on those of his eulogists, who\naim at effect. Galileo relates with perfect simplicity at the beginning\nof the \u201cSidereus Nuncius,\u201d published at Venice in 1610, that he had heard\nabout ten months ago that an instrument had been made by a Dutchman,\nby means of which distant objects were brought nearer and could be\nseen very plainly. The confirmation of the report by one of his former\npupils, a French nobleman, Jean Badovere of Paris, had induced him to\nreflect upon the means by which such an effect could be produced. By\nthe laws of refraction he soon attained his end. With two glasses fixed\nat the ends of a leaden tube, both having one side flat and the other\nside of the one being concave and of the other convex, his primitive\ntelescope, which made objects appear three times nearer and nine times\nlarger, was constructed. But now, having \u201cspared neither expense nor\nlabour,\u201d he had got so far as to construct an instrument which magnified\nan object nearly a thousand times, and brought it more than thirty\ntimes nearer.[37] Although, therefore, it is clear from this that the\nfirst idea of the telescope does not belong to Galileo, it is equally\nclear that he found out how to construct it from his own reflection and\nexperiments. Undoubtedly also the merit of having made great improvements\nin it belongs to him, which is shown by the fact that at that time,\nand long afterwards, his telescopes were the most sought after, and\nthat he received numerous orders for them from learned men, princes and\ngovernments in distant lands, Holland, the birthplace of the telescope,\nnot excepted.[38] But the idea which first gave to the instrument\nits scientific importance, the application of it to astronomical\nobservations, belongs not to the original inventor but to the genius of\nGalileo. This alone would have made his name immortal.[39]\n\nA few days after he had constructed his instrument, imperfect as it\ndoubtless was, he hastened with it to Venice, having received an\ninvitation, to exhibit it to the doge and senate, for he at once\nrecognised its importance, if not to the full extent. We will now let\nGalileo speak for himself in a letter which he wrote from Venice to his\nbrother-in-law, Benedetto Landucci:\u2014\n\n    \u201cYou must know then that about two months ago a report was\n    spread here that in Flanders a spy-glass had been presented to\n    Prince Maurice, so ingeniously constructed that it made the\n    most distant objects appear quite near, so that a man could\n    be seen quite plainly at a distance of two _miglia_. This\n    result seemed to me so extraordinary that it set me thinking;\n    and as it appeared to me that it depended upon the theory of\n    perspective, I reflected on the manner of constructing it,\n    in which I was at length so entirely successful that I made\n    a spy-glass which far surpasses the report of the Flanders\n    one. As the news had reached Venice that I had made such an\n    instrument, six days ago I was summoned before their highnesses\n    the signoria, and exhibited it to them, to the astonishment of\n    the whole senate. Many noblemen and senators, although of a\n    great age, mounted the steps of the highest church towers at\n    Venice, in order to see sails and shipping that were so far off\n    that it was two hours before they were seen steering full sail\n    into the harbour without my spy-glass, for the effect of my\n    instrument is such that it makes an object fifty _miglia_ off\n    appear as large and near as if it were only five.\u201d[40]\n\nGalileo further relates in the same letter that he had presented one of\nhis instruments to the senate, in return for which his professorship at\nPadua had been conferred on him for life, with an increase of salary to\none thousand florins.[41]\n\nOn his return to Padua he became eagerly engrossed in telescopic\nobservation of the heavens. The astonishing and sublime discoveries\nwhich were disclosed to him must in any case have possessed the deepest\ninterest for the philosopher who was continually seeking to solve\nnature\u2019s problems, and were all the more so, since they contributed\nmaterially to confirm the Copernican theory.\n\nHis observations were first directed to the moon, and he discovered that\nits surface was mountainous, which showed at all events that the earth\u2019s\nsatellite was something like the earth itself, and therefore by no means\nrestored it to the aristocratic position in the universe from which it\nhad been displaced by Copernicus. The milky way, as seen through the\ntelescope, revealed an immense number of small stars. In Orion, instead\nof the seven heavenly bodies already known, five hundred new stars were\nseen; the number of the Pleiades, which had been fixed at seven, rose to\nthirty-six; the planets showed themselves as disks, while the fixed stars\nappeared as before, as mere bright specks in the firmament.\n\nBut the indefatigable observer\u2019s far most important discovery, in its\nbearing on the Copernican theory, was that of the moons of Jupiter,\nin January 1610. As they exhibited motions precisely similar to those\nwhich Copernicus had assumed for the whole solar system, they strongly\nfortified his theory. It was placed beyond all doubt that our planet\nwas not the centre of all the heavenly bodies, since Jupiter\u2019s moons\nrevolved round him. The latter was brought, so to speak, by the discovery\nof his attendants, into relations with the earth which, considering\nthe prevailing views, were humiliating enough, and the more so since\nJupiter had four satellites while the earth had only one. There remained,\nhowever, the consoling assurance that he and they revolved round our\nabode!\n\nIn honour of the reigning house of his native country, and as an\nacknowledgment of favours received from it (for since the accession of\nCosmo II.[42] Galileo had been in high favour), he called Jupiter\u2019s moons\n\u201cMedicean stars.\u201d The urgent solicitude of the French court to gain, by\nGalileo\u2019s aid, a permanent place on the chart of the heavens, is very\namusing. Thus, on 20th April, 1610, he received a pressing request, \u201cin\ncase he discovered any other fine star, to call it after the great star\nof France, Henry IV., then reigning, the most brilliant in the whole\nuniverse, and to give it his proper name of Henry rather than that of the\nfamily name of Bourbon.\u201d Galileo communicated this flattering request, as\nhe seems to have considered it, with much satisfaction to the secretary\nof the Tuscan court, Vincenzo Giugni, in a letter from Padua, on 25th\nJune, 1610,[43] as an evidence of the great importance attached to his\ntelescopic discoveries. He added that he did not expect to find any more\nplanets, as he had already made many very close observations.\n\nGalileo published by degrees all the discoveries he had made at Padua,\nof which we have only noticed the most important, in the work before\nmentioned, the \u201cSidereus Nuncius\u201d; it was dedicated to the Grand Duke,\nCosmo II., and the first edition appeared at Venice, in March, 1610.\n\nAlthough the unexpected discoveries which Galileo had made with his\ntelescope had confirmed his opinion that the system of Copernicus was\nthe only one consistent with the facts of nature, had indeed made it his\nabsolute conviction, he had not yet ventured to defend it in his works.\nHe contented himself with stating bare facts, without showing their\nrelation to the ideas of Copernicus, leaving this to the learning and\ninsight of the reader. Moreover, the logical inferences from Jupiter\u2019s\nmoons must surely stare every thoughtful man in the face, and so indeed\nthey did in a way very unwelcome to the scientific conservatives.\n\nThe storm raised by Galileo\u2019s latest announcements was tremendous. People\nheard with amazement the extraordinary things which the new invention had\nbrought to light, and paid a just tribute of admiration to the man to\nwhose labours it was due. But these discoveries were so directly opposed\nto the traditional natural philosophy, still regarded as the highest\nwisdom, that the \u201cSidereus Nuncius\u201d had met with many opponents. It must\nhowever be borne in mind that at the time of its first publication very\nfew of the learned were in a position to convince themselves with their\nown eyes of the correctness of the appearances seen with the telescope,\nsimply because they had not the instrument at hand. From this cause, even\nKepler did not see the satellites of Jupiter till 30th August, 1610. But\nmen so free from jealousy and prejudice as Kepler (who, on reading the\n\u201cSidereus Nuncius,\u201d at once recognised the truth of the discoveries, and\nsaid with enthusiasm that \u201cGalileo had in this book given evidence of the\ndivinity of his genius\u201d[44]), have at all times been rare.\n\nAt first, therefore, the majority of the learned world shook their heads\nincredulously about the phenomena announced by the \u201cNuncius,\u201d especially\nin Italy, where envy lent its aid to bring an armed opposition into the\nfield. Little did it at first avail that Kepler, renowned as the first\nastronomer in Germany, was on the side of the \u201cSidereus Nuncius\u201d; for\nin May of the same year he had a reprint of the work issued at Prague,\nwith an introduction in which he expressed his entire conviction of the\ntruth of the telescopic discoveries made known by it, and answered all\nobjections.[45] In vain. These new discoveries were too revolutionary\nto be believed. Even upright and estimable scientific men, like Welser\nin Augsburg, and Clavius at Rome, did not give credit to Galileo\u2019s\nstatements until they learnt better by their own observations. The\nlatter, who was the first mathematician in Rome in his day, even said\n\u201che laughed at the pretended satellites of Jupiter; you must construct a\ntelescope which would first make them and then show them.\u201d Let Galileo\nhold his own opinions, and he (Clavius) would hold his.[46]\n\nBut the leader of an unworthy agitation in Italy against Galileo was\na man who assumed this attitude from very different motives from the\nsacred service of science. This was the well-known Professor Magini,\nastronomer at the university of Bologna, who, next to Galileo, enjoyed\nthe highest reputation for learning in Italy. He could not brook that\nhis famous countryman should all at once obtain the highest fame with\nseven-league boots, leaving a pigmy like himself far behind, by means of\nthe discoveries made known in his \u201cSidereus Nuncius.\u201d He must not only be\nrefuted, the refutation must be circulated as widely as possible. But\nthe most repulsive feature in Magini\u2019s conduct towards Galileo is his\ndouble-facedness. He never openly ventured with any work into the arena\nhimself, but incited others all the more from behind concealment.[47]\nEven if we do not, with Martin Hasdal and Alexander Sertini, accuse him\nof being exactly the instigator of the famous libel \u201cPeregrinatio contra\nNuncium Sidereum,\u201d published by his assistant, Martin Horky, against\nGalileo in 1610, which excited the indignation of all the right-minded\nlearned world, we cannot acquit him of complicity with him, and of\nhaving had a hand, more or less, in that pamphlet. The suspicion is\nstrongly confirmed by the ostentation with which Magini, when told of\nthe publication of the \u201cPeregrinatio,\u201d drove the author, with disgust\nand ridicule, out of his house, and took occasion to assert on all hands\nthat he had nothing whatever to do with the shameful act of his famulus,\nan assertion in strange contradiction with the excuse afterwards made\nby Horky to Kepler.[48] By Kepler\u2019s advice Galileo did not do him the\nhonour of answering. The task was undertaken by Wedderburn, a Scotchman,\nformerly a pupil of Galileo\u2019s, and Antonio Roffeni, professor of\nphilosophy at the university of Bologna; the former at Padua during the\nsame year, the latter at Bologna in 1611.[49]\n\nMeanwhile, in July, 1610, Galileo had observed a new appearance in the\nheavens by means of his telescope, the ring of Saturn. In consequence,\nhowever, of the imperfection of the instrument, it did not appear like a\nring, but Saturn looked like a triple star. Galileo, who on the one hand\ndid not wish to make the new discovery public until he had sufficiently\nobserved it, yet feared on the other that some one might claim priority,\nat once communicated it in a letter from Padua, 30th July, 1610,[50] to\nhis influential friend Belisario Vinta, chief secretary of state to Cosmo\nII., but urgently begged him to keep it a secret. But even this did not\nseem sufficient to secure his right to the first observation of Saturn,\nso he announced it to his friends in the following absurd anagram:\u2014\n\n    SMAJSMRMJLMEPOETALEVNJPVNENVGTTAVJRAS.\n\nKepler puzzled for a long time over this enigma, and at last only made\nout the barbaric line, \u201cSalve umbistineum geminatum Martia proles,\u201d which\nhe incorrectly applied to the planet Mars. At length, after repeated\nrequests, and after Julian de\u2019 Medici, Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial\ncourt, had been charged by the Emperor to ask for a solution, he complied\nwith the illustrious wish, and in a letter to Julian of 13th November,\n1610,[51] gave the following startling explanation:\u2014\n\n    Altissimum Planetam tergeminum observavi.\n\nThe learned and semi-learned world of Italy had not yet had time to\nbecome reconciled to the surprising discoveries announced in the\n\u201cSidereus Nuncius\u201d of March in the same year, when the asserted triple\nnature of Saturn contravened the prevailing idea that there was nothing\nnew to be discovered in the heavens. The recognition of Galileo\u2019s\ntelescopic discoveries made way very slowly. From the first he spared\nno pains in popularising them. He did this repeatedly in public\nlectures, and with so much success that he could write to Vinta: \u201ceven\nthe most exalted personages, who have been most vehement in attacking\nmy doctrines, at length gave up the game for lost, and acknowledged,\n_coram populo_, that they were not only convinced but ready to defend\nthem against those philosophers and mathematicians who ventured to attack\nthem.\u201d[52]\n\nBut it was only at the University of Padua that Galileo could report\nsuch rapid progress; and until the Maginis, Clavios, and others were\nconvinced by their own eyes, and confirmed to their own party the\ntruth of Galileo\u2019s disclosures, he had to sustain a hard struggle with\nincredulity, malice, and peripatetic fanaticism. Some rabid Aristotelians\nwent so far as to say that Galileo\u2019s telescope was so constructed as to\nshow things that did not exist! Nor did it mend the matter much when\nhe offered 10,000 scudi to any one who should construct so cunning an\ninstrument.[53] Others resolutely refused even to look through the\ntelescope, giving it as their firm conviction that they would not be\nable to see appearances which Aristotle had not said a word about in\nall his books! The answer that Aristotle was not acquainted with the\ntelescope, and could not have known anything of telescopic appearances,\nrebounded without effect from the petrified infallibility of Aristotelian\nwisdom. Nor must it be supposed that these short-sighted conservatives\nonly numbered a few would-be _savans_ of the Peripatetic school; on the\ncontrary, celebrities like Cesare Cremonino da Cento, and Julius Libri,\ndenied Galileo\u2019s discoveries _a priori_.[54] When Libri died in December,\n1610, without having been willing to look through a telescope, and\nprotesting against Galileo\u2019s \u201cabsurdities,\u201d Galileo wrote in a letter of\n17th December that this rigid opponent of his \u201cabsurdities,\u201d as he was\nnever willing to look at them from earth, might perhaps see them on his\nway to heaven![55]\n\nSome passages from a letter of Galileo\u2019s to Kepler, of 19th August,\n1610, will best show how some of these men of science turned away with a\nrighteous awe from the inconvenient recognition of the truth. Galileo\nwrites among other things:\u2014\n\n    \u201cYou are the first and almost the only person who, even after\n    but a cursory investigation, has, such is your openness of mind\n    and lofty genius, given entire credit to my statements.... We\n    will not trouble ourselves about the abuse of the multitude,\n    for against Jupiter even giants, to say nothing of pigmies,\n    fight in vain. Let Jupiter stand in the heavens, and let the\n    sycophants bark at him as they will.... In Pisa, Florence,\n    Bologna, Venice, and Padua many have seen the planets; but\n    all are silent on the subject and undecided, for the greater\n    number recognise neither Jupiter nor Mars and scarcely the\n    moon as planets. At Venice one man spoke against me, boasting\n    that he knew for certain that my satellites of Jupiter, which\n    he had several times observed, were not planets because they\n    were always to be seen with Jupiter, and either all or some\n    of them, now followed and now preceded him. What is to be\n    done? Shall we side with Democritus or Heraclitus? I think, my\n    Kepler, we will laugh at the extraordinary stupidity of the\n    multitude. What do you say to the leading philosophers of the\n    faculty here, to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own\n    accord to show my studies, but who with the lazy obstinacy of\n    a serpent who has eaten his fill have never consented to look\n    at planets, nor moon, nor telescope? Verily, just as serpents\n    close their ears, so do these men close their eyes to the light\n    of truth. These are great matters; yet they do not occasion me\n    any surprise. People of this sort think that philosophy is a\n    kind of book like the \u00c6neid or the Odyssey, and that the truth\n    is to be sought, not in the universe, not in nature, but (I\n    use their own words) _by comparing texts_! How you would laugh\n    if you heard what things the first philosopher of the faculty\n    at Pisa brought against me in the presence of the Grand Duke,\n    for he tried, now with logical arguments, now with magical\n    adjurations, to tear down and argue the new planets out of\n    heaven.\u201d[56]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_REMOVAL TO FLORENCE._\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Fame and Pupils.\u2014Wishes to be freed from Academic\n    Duties.\u2014Projected Works.\u2014Call to Court of Tuscany.\u2014This change\n    the source of his Misfortunes.\u2014Letter from Sagredo.\u2014Phases of\n    Venus and Mercury.\u2014The Solar Spots.\u2014Visit to Rome.\u2014Triumphant\n    Reception.\u2014Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.\u2014The\n    Inquisition.\u2014Introduction of Theology into the Scientific\n    Controversy.\u2014\u201cDianoja Astronomica.\u201d\u2014Intrigues at Florence.\n\n\nGalileo\u2019s fame, especially through his telescopic discoveries, and partly\nalso through the exertions of his noisy opponents, had long extended\nbeyond the narrow bounds of Italy, and the eyes of all central Europe\nwere directed to the great astronomer. Numbers of pupils flocked to him\nfrom all countries, so that no lecture room in Padua was large enough to\nhold them. There were some distinguished personages among them, such as\nthe Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the\nprinces of Alsace, Mantua, etc., who mostly came to attend the lectures\nof the versatile master on fortification. It is, however, another fable\nof over zealous biographers to state that even Gustavus Adolphus,\nthe hero of the thirty years\u2019 war, went to school for some months to\nGalileo.[57]\n\nThis close occupation, with lectures and private lessons of all kinds,\ntook him too much away from his own studies, and after twenty years\u2019\nprofessorship Galileo longed for a post in which he could prosecute\nhis own researches, and devote himself to the completion of his works,\nfree from academic duties. A letter from Padua, even in the spring of\n1609,[58] shows his longing for this salaried leisure. But he is aware\nthat the republic can never offer him such a post, \u201cfor it would not be\nsuitable to receive a salary from a free state, however generous and\nmagnanimous, without serving the public for it; because if you derive\nbenefit from the public, you have the public to please, and not a mere\nprivate person.\u201d He also mentions that he can only hope for such a favour\nfrom some absolute sovereign; but it must not be supposed that he wishes\nfor an income without doing anything for it; he was in possession of\nvarious inventions, was almost daily making new ones, and should make\nmore if he had the necessary leisure. Galileo adds that it has always\nbeen his intention \u201cto offer them to his own sovereign and natural lord\nbefore any other, that he may dispose of them and the inventor according\nto his pleasure; and if it seemed good to his serene highness to accept\nit, to present him not only with the jewel but with the casket also.\u201d\n\nThis first attempt of Galileo\u2019s, however, to gain a footing at the court\nof Tuscany seems to have been unsuccessful. At any rate in the extant\ncorrespondence of this period there is not a word more on the subject;\nand a few months later, after the construction of the telescope, he\nthankfully accepted the chair of mathematics at Padua offered to him for\nlife by the republic. But this invention and the consequent discoveries\nhad meanwhile acquired such vast importance, and had, as we have seen,\nraised such a storm in the whole educated world, that it now appeared\nvery desirable to the court of Tuscany to attach to itself for ever the\nman on whom the eyes of scientific Europe were fixed.\n\nThe first steps towards this end were taken when Galileo went to Florence\nin the Easter recess of 1610 to show his telescopic discoveries to Cosmo\nII., especially the stars which bore the name of the reigning house.\nWe afterwards find Galileo entering eagerly into the negotiations which\nfollowed. In the letter to Vinta before mentioned, of May 7th, 1610,\nhe presses for a decision, for, he says, observing that day after day\ngoes by, he was determined to set a definite purpose before him in the\nordering of the life that may be left to him, and to devote all his\npowers to perfect the fruits of his previous efforts and studies, from\nwhich he might look for some fame. He then mentions the conditions on\nwhich he at present serves the republic, perhaps in order that they might\nbe guided by it at Florence; but what he lays most stress on is that it\nis of the utmost moment to him that leisure should be assured him for\nthe completion of his labours, by his being freed from the obligation to\ngive public lectures; but it will always confer on him the highest honour\nto give lectures to his sovereign, to whom also he will dedicate all his\nwritings.\n\nThe same letter is also of the highest interest as giving us an insight\ninto the scientific projects he was then cherishing. He communicates to\nthe Tuscan secretary of state the works the completion of which lies so\nnear his heart. He says:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThe works which I have to finish are chiefly two books _de\n    systemate, seu constitutione universi_, a vast project full\n    of philosophy, astronomy, and geometry; three books _de motu\n    locali_, an entirely new science, for no other inquirer,\n    ancient or modern, has discovered any of the wonderful\n    phenomena which I show to be present in natural and induced\n    motion; I may therefore with perfect justice call it a new\n    science discovered by me from its first principles; three\n    books on mechanics, two relating to the demonstration of the\n    principles and fundamental propositions, one containing the\n    problems; although others have treated of the same subject,\n    what has been hitherto written upon it is neither as to extent\n    nor in other respects a fourth part of what I am writing. I\n    have also various smaller works in view on matters connected\n    with nature, such as _de sono et voce_, _de visu et coloribus_,\n    _de maris \u00e6stu_, _de compositione continui_, _de animalium\n    motibus_, and others. I am also thinking of writing some books\n    for the soldier, not only to cultivate his mind, but to teach\n    him by select instruction all those things connected with\n    mathematics which it would be an advantage to him to know, as,\n    for instance, castrametation, military tactics, fortification,\n    sieges, surveying, estimate of distances, artillery, the use of\n    various instruments, etc.\u201d[59]\n\nWe regard with astonishment the wonderful versatility which we find\ndisplayed in Galileo\u2019s works. And amongst them are not only all the\nlarger ones announced in the above letter; his important telescopic\ndiscoveries and his ceaselessly active mind led him far to surpass the\nbounds he had set himself, for he was the first to infuse conscious life\ninto the slumbering idea of the Copernican system.\n\nThis memorable letter of Galileo\u2019s soon brought the court of Tuscany\nto a decision. Fourteen days later, 22nd May, Vinta wrote to him, as a\npreliminary, that the Grand Duke seemed well disposed to recall him to\nhis native country and to grant all his wishes.[60] He promised to inform\nGalileo as soon as it was all settled. On 5th June he wrote that Cosmo\nII. was willing to nominate him as first philosopher and mathematician\nof the University of Pisa, with an annual stipend of 1000 Florentine\nscudi, without any obligation to live at Pisa or to give lectures. Vinta\nrequested Galileo to let him know whether he agreed to these conditions,\nin order that he might have the necessary application drawn up in\nGalileo\u2019s name, as well as the decree and rescript; the time of their\npublication shall be left to Galileo, and meanwhile all shall be kept\nsecret.[61] Galileo wished particularly that nothing should be known at\nVenice of these negotiations, which did not place his gratitude to the\nrepublic which had shown him so much favour in the best light, until all\nwas decided and therefore irrevocable.\n\nHaving declared himself entirely satisfied with the proposed conditions,\nin a letter to the secretary of state, the only alteration being that he\nshould like not only to be first mathematician at Pisa, but also first\nmathematician and philosopher to the Grand Duke himself,[62] the decree\nsummoning him to the court of Tuscany in this twofold capacity was issued\non 12th July, 1610.\n\nNotwithstanding all the great advantages which this new post secured to\nhim, it was a very bad exchange for Galileo from the free republican\nsoil to the doubtful protection of a princely house which, although very\nwell disposed towards him, could never offer so decided an opposition\nto the Roman curia as the republic of Venice. It was indeed the first\nstep which precipitated Galileo\u2019s fate.[63] In the Venetian republic\nfull liberty of doctrine was really enjoyed, in religious Tuscany it was\nonly nominal. In Venice politics and science were secure from Jesuitical\nintrigues; for when Pope Paul V. thought proper to place the contumacious\nrepublic under an interdict in April, 1606, the Jesuit fathers had been\ncompelled to quit the soil of Venice \u201cfor ever.\u201d[64] In Tuscany, on the\ncontrary, where they felt quite at home, their influence weighed heavily\non everything affecting their own interests, and especially therefore\non politics and science. Had Galileo never left the pure, wholesome\nair of the free city for the stifling Romish atmosphere of a court, he\nwould have escaped the subsequent persecutions of Rome; for the republic\nwhich, not long before, had been undaunted by the papal excommunication\nof their doge and senate, would assuredly never have given up one of its\nuniversity professors to the vengeance of the Inquisition.\n\nAt the beginning of September, 1610, Galileo, to the no small displeasure\nof the Paduans, left their university, at which eighteen years before\nhe had found willing reception and support when his longer tarriance\nat Pisa had become impossible; deserted his noble friends, Fra Paolo\nSarpi, Francesco Sagredo, and others; and proceeded to the capital of\nthe court of Tuscany on the lovely banks of the Arno, where at first,\nit is true, much honour was done him, but where afterwards envy,\njealousy, narrowness, ill will, and fanaticism combined together to his\ndestruction. One of his most devoted friends, Francesco Sagredo, foresaw\nit. When Galileo left Venice he was in the East, in the service of the\nrepublic, and did not return till the spring of 1611, when he wrote\na remarkable letter to his friend at Florence. After having heartily\nexpressed his regret at not finding Galileo on his return home, he\nstates his doubts about the step his friend had taken. He asks, among\nother things, \u201cwhere will he find the same liberty as in the Venetian\nterritory? And notwithstanding all the generous qualities of the young\nruler, which permitted the hope that Galileo\u2019s merits will be justly\nvalued, who can promise with any confidence that, if not ruined, he may\nnot be persecuted and disquieted on the surging billows of court life,\nby the raging storms of envy?\u201d It is evident from another passage in the\nletter that Galileo\u2019s behaviour had made a bad impression at Venice,\nwhere they had not long before raised his salary to a thousand florins,\nand conferred his professorship on him for life; towards the end of the\nletter Sagredo lets fall the ominous words that he \u201cwas convinced _that\nas Galileo could not regain what he had lost_, he would take good care to\nhold fast what he had gained.\u201d[65]\n\nOnly a month after Galileo\u2019s arrival at Florence he made a fresh\ndiscovery in astronomy which eventually contributed to confirm the\nCopernican theory, namely, the varying crescent form of the planet Venus.\nWith this the important objection to the new system seemed to be removed,\nthat Venus and Mercury did not exhibit the same phases of light as the\nmoon, which must be the case if the earth moved, for they would vary\nwith her position in the universe. Galileo communicated this appearance,\nwhich entailed conclusions so important, and which he therefore wished\nto investigate more thoroughly before making it known, to his friend and\ncorrespondent Julian de\u2019 Medici at Prague, in an alphabetical enigma, as\nin the case of the singular appearance of Saturn. It was as follows:\n\n    \u201cH\u00e6c immatura a me jam frustra leguntur o y.\u201d[66]\n\nHaving fully convinced himself by nearly three months\u2019 observations\nthat Venus and Mars exhibited phases similar to those of the moon, he\nmade it known in two letters of 30th December[67] to Father Clavius, at\nRome, and to his former distinguished pupil Benedetto Castelli, abbot of\nthe congregation of Monte Cassino, in Brescia; and in a letter of 1st\nJanuary, 1611, he sent the following solution of the anagram to Julian\nde\u2019 Medici:\u2014\n\n    \u201cCynthi\u00e6 figuras \u00e6mulatur mater amorum.\u201d\n\nIn this letter he draws the important conclusions, first that none of the\nplanets shine by their own light, and secondly \u201cthat necessarily Venus\nand Mercury revolve round the sun; a circumstance which was surmised of\nthe other planets by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, and their followers,\nbut which could not be proved by ocular demonstration, as it could now\nin the case of Venus and Mercury. Kepler and the other Copernicans may\nnow be proud to have judged and philosophised correctly, and it may well\nexcite disgust that they were regarded by the generality of men of book\nlearning as having little understanding and as not much better than\nfools.\u201d[68]\n\nAt this time Galileo was also eagerly occupied with a phenomenon which\nwas to be a further confirmation of the Copernican view of the universe,\nthe spots on the sun. By attentively observing their motions on the\nsun\u2019s disk he afterwards discovered the sun\u2019s motion on its own axis,\na fatal blow to the Ptolemaic system. Although to science it may be\nquite indifferent whether Galileo, or Fabricius, or the Jesuit father\nScheiner first espied the spots on the sun (for they all lay claim to the\ndiscovery), for us it has its importance, because the bitter contention\nbetween Galileo and Scheiner on the subject materially contributed to set\nthe stone rolling which, in its fall, was no less disastrous to the moral\ngreatness of Galileo than to the erudition of Rome.\n\nIn consideration of the intense interest excited by Galileo\u2019s\n\u201cepoch-making\u201d discoveries, the Roman curia, which still held it to be\none of its most important duties to guard mankind as much as possible\nfrom precocious knowledge, was of course eager to learn more about them,\nand above all, of the conclusions which the discoverer drew from them.\nIt must also have appeared of great importance to Galileo to acquaint\nthe Roman _savans_ and dignitaries of the Church with his scientific\nachievements, for the authority and influence then exercised by them over\nthe free progress of science made their opinions of the utmost moment\nto him. They must, if possible, be first made to see the premises with\ntheir own eyes, that they might afterwards be able to comprehend and\nassent to the conclusions. Galileo clearly saw this, as appears from a\nletter of 15th January, 1611, to Vinta[69] (who was then with the court\nat Pisa), in which he urgently begs permission for a visit to the papal\nresidence. The request was not only immediately granted, but the court\nplaced a litter at his disposal, undertook to defray all his expenses,\nand directed the Tuscan ambassador at Rome to prepare quarters for him\nat the embassy and to entertain him during the whole of his stay.[70]\nMeanwhile, however, Galileo was attacked by an illness which delayed his\njourney for nearly two months. On 22nd March he received a cordial letter\nof introduction[71] from Michel Angelo the younger to Cardinal Barberini,\nafterwards Urban VIII., and on the next day he set out provided with his\nmost convincing arguments, namely several excellent telescopes.\n\nHe was received with the greatest honour. His triumphs were really\nextraordinary, so great that they were sure to secure for him numerous\npersonal enemies in addition to the opponents of his doctrines. He\nexhibited the oft discussed appearances to cardinals and learned men\nthrough the telescope, and, whenever he could, dispelled their doubts by\nthe incontrovertible evidence of their own eyes. People could not refuse\nto believe this, and Galileo\u2019s success in the papal city was complete. Of\nstill greater importance, however, was the opinion given on 24th April\nby four scientific authorities of the Roman College, on the character\n\u201cof the new astronomical discoveries of an excellent astronomer,\u201d at the\nrequest of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This commission, consisting of\nthe learned fathers Clavius, Griemberger, Malcotio, and Lembo, confirmed\nwhat they had long denied and ridiculed, convinced by the evidence of\ntheir own senses of the truth of the facts maintained by Galileo.[72] By\nthis opinion of the papal experts his discoveries received, to a certain\nextent, the sanction of the Church, and became acknowledged truths. The\ncare with which the mention of Galileo\u2019s name is avoided both in the\nrequest and the opinion is remarkable.\n\nAttentions of all sorts were heaped upon the astronomer. Pope Paul V.\ngranted him a long audience and graciously assured him of his unalterable\ngood will, which however did not remain quite unaltered in the sequel.\nThe highest dignitaries of the Church testified their admiration; the\nAccad\u00e9mia dei Lincei (of the Lynxes), founded six years before by Prince\nCesi, made the renowned guest a member; when he took his departure at the\nbeginning of June he left behind him in the metropolis of catholicism as\nmany sincere friends and admirers as envious foes, the fate of all really\ngreat men.\n\nA letter from Cardinal del Monte of 31st May, 1611, to Cosmo II., best\nshows how successful Galileo\u2019s visit to Rome was. He writes with real\nenthusiasm:\u2014\n\n    \u201cGalileo has during his stay at Rome given great satisfaction,\n    and I think he must have felt it no less himself, for he had\n    the opportunity of showing his discoveries so well that to all\n    clever and learned men in this city they seemed no less true\n    and well founded than astonishing. Were we still living under\n    the ancient republic of Rome, I verily believe there would have\n    been a column on the Capitol erected in his honour. It appeared\n    to me to be my duty to accompany his return with this letter,\n    and to bear witness to your Highness of the above, as I feel\n    assured that it will be agreeable to you, since your Highness\n    entertains such gracious good will towards your subjects, and\n    to distinguished men like Galileo.\u201d[73]\n\nBut the watchful Inquisition had already directed its attention to\nthe man who had made such portentous discoveries in the heavens. How\nfar this had gone we unfortunately do not exactly know. The only well\nauthenticated indication we possess is the following notice in the\nprotocols of the sittings of the Holy Congregation: \u201cFeria iii. die,\n17 Maii, 1611. Videatur an in Processu Doctoris C\u00e6saris Cremonini sit\nnominatus Galilaeus Philosophi\u00e6 ac Mathematic\u00e6 Professor.\u201d[74] This is\nthe first time that the name of Galileo occurs in the papers of the\nCongregation of the Holy Office, and it was in the midst of the applause\nwhich greeted him in the eternal city. Whether, and in what way, this\nofficial query was answered is not to be found in the documents of the\nInquisition. But it looks ominous that there should be an inquiry about a\nconnection between Galileo and Cremonini who was undergoing a trial. The\ncauses and course of the trial of Cremonini by the Inquisition are not\nyet known. All that is known is that he was Professor of the philosophy\nof Aristotle at the University of Padua; and it appears from the letters\nof Sagredo to Galileo, that his lectures and writings had given rise to\nsuspicions of atheism. For the rest, Cremonini was all his life one of\nGalileo\u2019s most decided enemies.\n\nThe very triumphs of Galileo and his telescopic discoveries were\nthe causes, to a great extent, of those ceaseless and relentless\npersecutions which were to restrict his labours and embitter his life.\nThe Aristotelians perceived with rage and terror the revolutionary\ndiscoveries of this dangerous innovator were surely, if slowly, gaining\nground. Every one of them, with its inevitable logical consequences,\npulled down some important stone in the artistic structure of their views\nof nature; and unless some measures were taken to arrest the demolition,\nit was clear that the venerable edifice must fall and bury the inmates\nbeneath the ruins. This must be averted at any price, even at the price\nof knowledge of the acts of nature. If Galileo\u2019s reformed physics offered\nno point of attack, his astronomy did; not indeed in the honourable\ncontest of scientific discussion, but by bringing theology into the field\nagainst science.\n\nGalileo had never openly proclaimed his adoption of the earth\u2019s double\nmotion, but the demonstration of his telescopic observations alone\nsufficed to make it one of the burning questions of the day. What were\nthe phases of Venus and Mercury, the motions of the solar spots, and\nabove all Jupiter and his moons, this little world within our large\none, as Galileo afterwards called it himself,[75] but telling proofs of\nthe truth of the Copernican theory? The question of the two systems had\nbeen hitherto an exclusively scientific one. How else could the famous\nphilosopher and astronomer Nicholas of Casa, who taught the double motion\nof the earth in the fifteenth century, have gained a cardinal\u2019s hat?\nHow could the German, Widmanstadt, have explained his theory, which was\nbased upon the same principles, to Pope Clement VII. in 1533? How could\nlearned men like Celio Calganini, Wurteis, and others, have given public\nlectures on the subject in Italy in the second half of the sixteenth\ncentury? Neither Casa, however, nor Widmanstadt, Calganini, Wurteis, nor\neven Copernicus, had ventured openly to declare war with the school of\nAristotle, nor to overthrow by the crushing evidence of experiment the\ndogmas of natural science based upon philosophy and _a priori_ arguments\nalone. These learned men had been tolerated because they fought with the\nsame weapons as the followers of Ptolemy, logic and philosophy. They did\nnot possess the powerful lever of direct evidence, because they were\nnot acquainted with the telescope. But Galileo, with his fatal system\nof demonstration by observation of nature, was far too dangerous a foe.\nPeripateticism was no match for the home thrusts of arguments obvious\nto the senses, and its defenders were well aware that if they would not\nyield their position they must call in some other ally than mere science.\nAnd they adopted the means best adapted for putting a temporary drag on\nthe wheels of truth, and for ruining Galileo; in order to prop up the\nfailing authority of Aristotle they called in the inviolable authority of\nHoly Scripture!\n\nThis dragging of the Bible into what had previously been a purely\nscientific controversy, a proceeding which proved so fatal to Galileo,\nmust not however, as has been done by several authors, be attributed\nsolely to party considerations or even personal motives. This is\nabsolutely false. Greatly as these factors were concerned in it, it must\nbe admitted that at first they were only incidentally mixed up with it.\nThe multitude of the learned, who still adhered entirely to the old\nsystem of the universe, and regarded the theories of Copernicus (not yet\nbased on ocular demonstration) as mere fantasies, were really aghast at\nthe telescopic discoveries of Galileo which threatened to overturn all\ntheir previous beliefs. The learned, and still more the semi-learned,\nworld of Italy felt the ground tremble beneath their feet; and it seemed\nto them as if the foundations of all physics, mathematics, philosophy,\nand religion, were, with the authority of Aristotle, which had reigned\nfor two thousand years, being borne to the grave. This did not present\nitself to them as progress but as sacrilege.\n\nA young fanatic, the monk Sizy (the same who seven years later was broken\non the wheel for political crimes at Paris), was the first to transfer\nwhat had been a purely scientific discussion to the slippery arena of\ntheology. At the beginning of 1611 he published at Venice a work called\n\u201cDianoja Astronomica\u201d[76] in answer to the \u201cSidereus Nuncius,\u201d in which\nhe asserted that the existence of the moons of Jupiter was incompatible\nwith the doctrines of Holy Scripture. He appropriately dedicated his\nbook to that semi-prince of the blood, John de\u2019 Medici, who was known\nto be the mortal enemy of Galileo. The author, as we learn from his own\nwork, was one of those contemptible men who carefully abstained from even\nlooking through a telescope, although firmly convinced that the wonders\nannounced by Galileo were not to be seen. Galileo did not vouchsafe\nto defend himself from this monkish attack any more than from Horky\u2019s\nlibel the year before. He contented himself with writing on the back of\nthe title page of the copy still preserved in the National Library at\nFlorence the following lines from Ariosto:\u2014\n\n    \u201cSoggiunse il duca: Non sarebbe onesto\n    Che io volessi la battaglia torre,\n    Di quel che m\u2019 offerisco manifesto,\n    Quando ti piaccia, innanci agli occhi torre.\u201d[77]\n\nBut Galileo\u2019s envious foes at once consorted with the, at all events,\nhonourable fanatics of the old school, and eagerly seized the opportunity\nof pursuing their miserable designs \u201cto the glory of God and imperilled\nreligion.\u201d It was in Florence itself, in the palace of the Tuscan\nArchbishop Marzimedici, who had once studied under Galileo at Pisa,\nthat secret consultations were held, presided over by this prelate, how\nthe inconvenient philosopher and his revolutionary system might best be\nruined. They even then went so far as to request a preacher to hurl at\nGalileo from the pulpit the accusation, more dangerous than any other\nin the sixteenth century, that he was attacking the Bible with his\ndoctrines. But for this time these pious gentlemen had gone to the wrong\nman, for the priest, seeing through the foul purpose of the commission,\ndeclined it.\n\nGalileo had not the slightest knowledge of the secret conspiracy which\nwas plotting against him, and was first roused from the security into\nwhich he had been lulled by the brilliant success of his visit to Rome\nby a letter from his friend there, Cigoli the painter, of 16th December,\n1611.[78] But he did not at first attach to these communications the\nimportance they deserved, and it was not until several months afterwards\nthat he addressed himself to Cardinal Conti, who was very friendly\nto him, to ask how far the Holy Scriptures did really favour the\nAristotelian views of the universe, and whether the Copernican system\ncontradicted them.\n\nConti answered him in a letter of 7th July, 1612,[79] that the statements\nof Holy Scripture were rather against the Aristotelian principle of\nthe unchangeableness of the heavens than in favour of it, for all the\nfathers had held the contrary opinion. But the case was different with\nthe doctrine of the earth\u2019s revolution round the sun, as held by the\nPythagoreans, Copernicus and others. This certainly did not seem to agree\nwith Holy Scripture, unless it was assumed that it merely adopted the\ncustomary mode of expression. But, added the cardinal, that was a method\nof interpretation to be employed only in case of the greatest necessity.\nDiego di Zu\u00f1iga had indeed explained in this way, conformably with the\nCopernican opinions, the passage in which Joshua commanded the sun to\nstand still; but the explanation was not generally admitted.\n\nFather Lorini also, professor of ecclesiastical history at Florence,\nafterwards a ringleader of the base intrigues against Galileo and an\ninformant against him, wrote to him 5th November, 1612,[80] to deny a\nreport that he had publicly preached against Galileo. He only confessed\nto having given it as his opinion, in a conversation about the two\nsystems, that the View of this _Ipernic_, or whatever his name might\nbe, appeared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Galileo wrote in a\nletter of 5th January, 1613,[81] to Prince Cesi: \u201cThe good man is so\nwell acquainted with the author of these doctrines that he calls him\n_Ipernic_. You can see how and by whom poor philosophy suffers.\u201d It\nappears also from the same letter that Galileo was now well aware of the\nintrigues being carried on against him in Florence, for he says among\nother things: \u201cI thank you and all my dear friends very much for your\nanxiety for my protection against the malice which is constantly seeking\nto pick quarrels even here, and the more so since the enemy is so near at\nhand; but as they are but few in number, and their \u2018league,\u2019 as they call\nit among themselves, is but of limited extent, I laugh at it.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY._\n\n    Treatise on Floating Bodies.\u2014Controversy with Scheiner about\n    the Solar Spots.\u2014Favourable reception of Galileo\u2019s work\n    on the subject at Rome.\u2014Discussion with the Grand Duchess\n    Christine.\u2014The Bible brought into the controversy.\u2014Ill-fated\n    Letter to Castelli.\u2014Caccini\u2019s Sermon against Galileo.\u2014Lorini\n    denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.\u2014Archbishop Bonciani\u2019s\n    attempts to get the original Letter.\u2014\u201cOpinion\u201d of the\n    Inquisition on it.\u2014Caccini summoned to give evidence.\u2014Absurd\n    accusations.\u2014Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo\u2019s\n    favour.\n\n\nWhile the storm which was to burst over Galileo\u2019s head was thus slowly\ngathering, he was making important progress in the departments of physics\nand mechanics.\n\nHis treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important\nresults.[82] In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic\nphilosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating\nor partial immersion of bodies in water depended chiefly on their\nform, for by his approved method of studying the open book of nature\nhe clearly showed the error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid\nthe foundations of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old\nschool rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of course; but their\npolemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of antiquated wisdom had\nin their impotence mostly to content themselves with wretched sophisms as\nopposed to Galileo\u2019s hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the\nauthority of Aristotle.\n\nThe combatants who took the field with various writings to defend\nthe Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were\nthe professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle\nColombo, in 1612, and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered\nby Benedetto Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the\nNational Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity for his\nopponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune.\nAlthough professing to be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to\nbelong to the Greek Non-Uniat church, which entailed the loss of his\nprofessorship at the University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to\nanswer Palmerini, but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not\nwishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The lame objections\nof the other two received a brilliant refutation in a work published in\n1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in the National Library\nat Florence, which is mostly in Galileo\u2019s handwriting, it is evident that\nhe was the real author.[83]\n\nDuring the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the\ntreatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy\nwith the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of\nmathematics at Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of\ntheir discovery. In three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there\nin 1612) he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym of \u201cApelles,\u201d\nthe earliest observation of these appearances, and explained them\nconformably to the traditional opinions. He propounded the ingenious idea\nthat these spots were a multitude of little planets, passing over the\nsun\u2019s disk as they revolved round the earth. By this clever explanation\nhe secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed\nhimself the decided foe of Galileo. Challenged to do so by Welser,\nGalileo replied in three letters addressed to him, in which \u201cApelles\u201d\ncame off but poorly.[84] Galileo convincingly refuted his opponent\u2019s\nexplanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his own right to the\npriority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made\nit known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner\u2019s, were published\nin March, 1613, under the title \u201cHistory and Explanation of the Solar\nSpots,\u201d[85] with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a dedication to his\nillustrious friend Salviati, of the \u201cAccad\u00e9mia dei Lincei.\u201d\n\nThe publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was\nthe first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican\nsystem. This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these\nessays. The controversy on the two systems came more and more to the\nfront. And yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem\nat first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical\ncircles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals Maffeo Barberini[86]\n(afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and Federigo Borromeo,[87] thanking\nGalileo in the most friendly terms for sending them his work, and\nexpressing their sincere admiration for the researches described in it.\nAnd Battista Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of\nRome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a similar letter\nof thanks,[88] not only fully endorsed these opinions, but expressed his\nfirm belief that they would in time be universally acknowledged, although\nnow they had many opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable\ncharacter, and partly from the envy and obstinacy of those who had from\nthe first maintained the contrary view.\n\nThe scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less\nfriendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics at the\npapal residence. Father Castelli, who in October of the same year was\ncalled to the chair of mathematics at this university, reports in a\nletter of 6th November,[89] in which he tells Galileo what reception\nhe had met with from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of\nthe university, Mgr. d\u2019Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his first\ninterview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of the earth, or\neven to take occasion in any digression to mention it as probable!\n\nAn accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate cause of turning\nthe controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo. One\nday in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were guests\nat the Grand Duke\u2019s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. The\nconversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena of the Medicean\nstars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia, professor\nof physics at the university, was constrained with a heavy heart to\nconfirm, in answer to a question of the Grand Duke\u2019s mother, Christine.\nCastelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo\u2019s splendid\ndiscovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master\nhis displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that\nall Galileo\u2019s telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth,\nonly the double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay impossible,\nas the Holy Scriptures were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then\nover, and Castelli took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace when\nhe saw Christine\u2019s porter hastening after him and calling him back. He\nobeyed, and found the whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke\u2019s\napartments. Christine now began, after a few introductory remarks, to\nattack the Copernican doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli\nat first made some humble attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into\nthe controversy; but as this was of no avail he resolutely took the\ntheological standpoint, and defended the modern views of the universe\nso impressively and convincingly that nearly all present, even the\nGrand Duke and his consort, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone\nmade any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause of the\nunedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion.\n\nCastelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but remarked\nexpressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand\nDuchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear\nhis replies.[90]\n\nThis then was the provocation to that famous letter of Galileo\u2019s to\nhis friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological\ndigressions occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended\nfor publication, was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents,\nand to form the groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been\nrelated it will be seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo\nthat it was he who first introduced the theological question into the\nscientific controversy about the two systems is entirely unwarranted.\nOn the contrary, these explanations to Castelli, of 21st December, bear\ntelling testimony to the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the\nScriptures involved in a purely scientific discussion, and that the right\nof deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He sharply\ndefines the relation in which the Bible stands to natural science,\nmarking the limits which it can only pass at the expense of the healthy\nunderstanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully admits that the\nScriptures cannot lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold good of\nall their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions,\nnay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always interpret the Bible\nin an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must attribute\nto God hands, feet, and ears, human feelings such as anger, repentance,\nhatred, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future.\n\n\u201cAs therefore,\u201d continues Galileo, \u201cthe Holy Scriptures in many places\nnot only admit but actually require a different explanation from what\nseems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be\nreserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like\nnature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by\nthe Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands;\nit was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate\nitself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which\napparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is\ninexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and\nmodes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and\nnever deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to\nme therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before\nour eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should\nbe rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands\nof words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of\nScripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature.\u201d\n\nGalileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself\nintelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even\nits main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God\nwhich are unlike His character and even opposed to it, who will maintain\nthat in speaking incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes to\nclothe its real meaning in words literally true? Proceeding on the\nprinciple that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo\ngoes on to draw the following conclusions.\n\n\u201cSince two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is\nthe part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to\nfind out the real meaning of its statements, in accordance with the\nconclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the\nclear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the\nBible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons\ngiven above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the\nliteral one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that\n_all_ interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of\nwisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a\nway as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature\nthe contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of\nour senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to man\u2019s\nunderstanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be known in\nthe world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best not to\nadd, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation\nand the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are\nin no danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against them,\nespecially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who,\nalthough quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are\nobviously destitute of those faculties which are needed, I will not say\nfor the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations\nby which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.\n\nI am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended\nto convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation,\nand which being far above man\u2019s understanding cannot be made credible\nby any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit.\nBut that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and\nunderstanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us\nin any other way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire\nfor ourselves by means of those faculties, _that_ it seems to me I am not\nbound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the\nHoly Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and\nthis is precisely the case with astronomy, of which there is so little\nthat the planets are not even all enumerated.\u201d\n\nHaving emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a\nscientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his opponents, who,\nfeeling that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had\nentrenched themselves behind an unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds\nto discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were\nfond of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern\nviews and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries with\ntheir own weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally,\nand God really arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua\u2019s\nprayer, and thus prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the\nimpossibility, of the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican\nagrees with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes\non, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west to east, and the\ndaily one from east to west. Being diametrically opposed to each other,\nthey cannot both be the sun\u2019s own motions. The annual motion is the one\nwhich belongs to it; the other originates in the _primum mobile_, which\ncarries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions day\nand night. If therefore God desired to prolong the day (supposing the\nPtolemaic system to be the right one) He must have commanded, not the\nsun but the _primum mobile_, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the\nBible that God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the\nheavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained them to\nbe, or the literal meaning must be departed from, and we must conclude\nthat the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God commanded the sun to stand\nstill, meant the _primum mobile_, but, accommodating themselves to the\ncomprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand the rising and\nsetting of the sun, said just the opposite of what they would have said\nto scientifically educated people. Galileo also says that it was highly\nimprobable that God should have commanded the sun alone to stand still,\nand have allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature\nwould have been deranged by it without any occasion, and his belief\nwas that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the whole system of the\nuniverse, at the expiration of which all the heavenly bodies, undisturbed\nin their mutual relations, could have begun to revolve again in perfect\norder: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like\nirony.\n\nAt the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the\npassage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar\nspots the revolution of the sun on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it\nis also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature,\nthe heart of the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with\ncertainty, is the source of light to the planets revolving round it, but\nalso lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a\nrevolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal motion on its own axis, it\nwould certainly suffice merely to stop the sun in his course, in order\nto bring the whole system to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day\nwithout disordering nature.[91]\n\nCastelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to the Grand\nDuchess Christine\u2019s objections, and took care to give it a wide\ncirculation by means of numerous copies. Galileo\u2019s enemies, however,\neagerly grasped the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their\nhands by his friend. They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which\nexactly adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo\u2019s emphatic\nopinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific controversy\ninto the reproach that he assailed the universal authority of the Bible;\nby making Joshua\u2019s miracle the subject of his disquisitions he laid\nhimself open to the cutting remark that the statements of Holy Scripture\nmust be protected from the arbitrary interpretations of profane laymen.\n\nGherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely\nunaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged about the system\nthat Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened\nto bring the matter before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified\nby being informed that the founder of that system was not any man then\nliving in Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before,\nand that his work had been dedicated to Pope Paul III., and had been\ngraciously accepted by him.\n\nMeanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in\nFather Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right tool for setting on foot\nthe long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse of the\npulpit, for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And\nas the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared\nas Galileo\u2019s first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon\nagainst the astronomer and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent,\n1614, in the church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his\nwit by selecting as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter\nof Joshua and the first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: _Viri\nGalil\u00e6i quid statis aspicientes in c\u0153lum_: \u201cYe men of Galilee, why\nstand ye gazing up into heaven?\u201d Astronomy was thus happily introduced\ninto the pulpit. The furious preacher asserted that the doctrine taught\nby Galileo in Florence, of the earth\u2019s revolution round the sun, was\nquite irreconcilable with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly\ncontradicted several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning\nof which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, as he\nfurther asserted that no one was permitted to interpret the Bible in any\nother sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as good as denounced\nthe doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a coarse attack on\nmathematicians in general, whose science he called an invention of the\ndevil; and with a wish that they should be banished from all Christian\nstates, since all heresies proceeded from them.\n\nAs was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi\nMaraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for his learning, who was all\nhis life an admirer of Galileo, told him in a letter of 10th January,\n1615,[92] how heartily he regretted this miserable exhibition. He said,\namong other things: \u201cI have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which\nhas taken place, and the more so because the author of it is a brother of\nmy order; for, unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities\n(_tutte le bestialit\u00e0_) which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and\ndo actually commit.\u201d This sentence has caused all Galileo\u2019s biographers\nwho mention this letter, with the exception of Nelli,[93] to conclude\nthat Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a glance at\nthe _Scriptores Ordinis Pr\u00e6dicatorum_, etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif\nand Echard, would have shown them that from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin\nSecco, of Pavia, was general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.[94]\nPerhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the\nDominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.[95]\n\nGalileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the\ninsult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But\nPrince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any\nsteps were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the\naffair and to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal\nBellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told him\n(Cesi) that _he held the opinion to be heretical, and that the principle\nof the earth\u2019s double motion was undoubtedly contrary to Holy Scripture_.\nIn this complicated state of affairs the prince recommended that several\nmathematicians should complain of the public insults to the science of\nmathematics and its disciples. But he gave another express warning to\nleave the Copernican system entirely alone, or they might take occasion\nat Rome to consult whether the further spread of this opinion was to\nbe permitted or condemned. Cesi added that in that case it would very\nlikely be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there,\nand its opponents were generally hated; besides, it was very easy to\nprohibit and suspend.[96]\n\nAlthough Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently\nallowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus to all the\nlater persecutions of Galileo.\n\nThe questionable merit of having brought Galileo\u2019s affairs before\nthe tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend\nof Caccini, and brother of the same order. Galileo\u2019s fatal letter to\nCastelli had fallen into his hands; and when, later on, thanks to\nCaccini\u2019s zeal, a great ferment began about it in monkish circles at\nFlorence, Lorini was moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a\ncopy of it secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement,\nwhich was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the Congregation\nof the Index, is couched in a most artful and miserable style. The\ndenunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention Galileo by name\n(for he still had powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of\nthe Church), only speaks of the \u201cGalileists\u201d in general, \u201cwho maintain,\nagreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and the\nheavens stand still.\u201d He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus,\nin order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question.\nLorini goes on to say: \u201call the fathers of this (his own) devout convent\nof St. Mark find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or\npresumptuous, as when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture\nare indefinite; that in discussions about natural phenomena the lowest\nplace must be assigned to them; that the commentators have often been\nmistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should\nnot be mixed up with anything but matters of religion; that in nature\nphilosophical and astronomical evidence is of more value than holy and\nDivine (which passages your reverence[97] will find underlined by me in\nthe said letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when\nJoshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only understand that the\ncommand was addressed to the _primum mobile_, as this itself is the sun.\u201d\nIn these statements Lorini perceives great peril for the Church; he is\nindignant \u201cthat they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures\nafter their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation\nof the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy Scriptures\nappear to be entirely opposed to.... They tread the entire philosophy of\nAristotle, of which scholastic philosophy has made so much use, under\nfoot,\u201d he exclaims: \u201cin short, to show how clever they are, they (the\nGalileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter them abroad in\nour city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its own\ngood spirit and the watchfulness of our august rulers.\u201d He feels moved\nto inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and\nthat if any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures.\nAfter this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: \u201cI, who hold that all\nthose who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians,\nbut a little over wise and self conceited in their opinions, declare\nthat I am actuated by nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred\ncause.\u201d After this assurance he begs that this letter of his, (\u201cI do not\nsay the enclosed letter,\u201d) he hastens to add in a parenthesis, \u201cmay be\nkept secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion between\nservant and master,\u201d and not as a legal deposition.[98] In conclusion, he\nexpressly mentions the celebrated sermon of Caccini, probably in order\nthat he might be called as a witness against Galileo, an object which,\nas we shall see, was attained.\n\nIn consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called\nupon at once to institute a secret inquiry about the astronomer. As\nLorini had only been able to show a copy of Galileo\u2019s letter to Castelli\nin confirmation of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be\nof great importance to obtain possession of the original, written and\nsigned by Galileo. To attain this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the\nprinciple that \u201cthe end sanctifies the means.\u201d Cardinal Mellini, under\ndate of 26th February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to\nwrite to the Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were\nto procure that document \u201cin a skilful manner.\u201d On the very next day the\norder was despatched.[99]\n\nIt happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short\nstay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco\nBonciani. He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With\nthis end in view he began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken\naback by such an exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions,\nparticularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it would\nbe to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his ruin, for those\nopinions (to say nothing of their folly) were dangerous, repulsive,\nand mischievous, for they were directly opposed to Holy Scripture. The\nphilosophical arguments with which the archbishop tried to convert\nCastelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax in the profound remark\nthat as all things (_creatura_) had been created for the use and benefit\nof man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a star.[100]\nAfter giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the same\nfor Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the\nworld the folly of that opinion. But, in order to do it successfully,\nhe must first acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo\u2019s arguments;\nand, therefore (and now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently begs\nCastelli to let him see Galileo\u2019s apologetic letter.\n\nFortunately it was no longer in Castelli\u2019s possession, for he had\nreturned it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive\nthe trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo\nof the request and warmly to second it.[101] But Galileo had suspicions,\nand delayed to reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two\nletters to Rome, of 8th and 28th of March,[102] that Castelli was\nconvinced that he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and\nas the common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo had\nnot sent it. Bonciani therefore asks \u201cwhether he shall be more open with\nCastelli?\u201d But this time cunning did not attain its end; at the repeated\nurgency of Castelli,[103] Galileo at last sent him a mere copy without\nsignature, and with the express reservation that he was not to let it go\nout of his hands. From a letter of Castelli\u2019s[104] to Galileo we learn\nthat in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop\nin presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically concealed his\nannoyance at the failure of his intrigue, and put a good face on it, for\nCastelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly\npraised Galileo\u2019s demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics present\nthe modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed.\n\nSo Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo\u2019s\ncriminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for\nhis opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in\nthe document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they\nlooked ill, they were capable of being taken in a good sense, and were\nnot of that nature that they could be said to deviate from Catholic\ndoctrine.[105]\n\nMeanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of 19th March,\nto summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially well informed about\nGalileo\u2019s errors.[106] He appeared before the holy tribunal the very\nnext day, and eloquently poured forth his accusations; but, although\nupon oath, he did not adhere very strictly to truth. For not only did he\ndenounce the opinion of Copernicus as _quasi_ heretical, being opposed\nto all scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of many\npassages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines were to be found\nboth in the letter to Castelli and in the purely scientific treatise\non the solar spots, but added the far more serious charge that he had\nheard that Galileo maintained the three following propositions: \u201cGod is\nnot a self existent being, but an accident; God is sentient because the\nDivine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be performed by the\nsaints are not real miracles.\u201d He further says that Galileo is at any\nrate \u201csuspicious in religious matters,\u201d because he belongs to \u201ca certain\nAccad\u00e9mia dei Lincei,\u201d and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi\nat Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions from\nreal facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of heresy out of\nan academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety, and to place\nGalileo\u2019s religion in doubt on account of his scientific correspondence\nwith magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost\nlike madness.[107]\n\nIn confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the\ntestimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman,\nAttavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the\nsame year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper\nbut a bad listener. Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple\nof the Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with\nXimenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition\nconcerning the nature of the Godhead, but it originated entirely in\nscholasticism and had nothing to do with Galileo. Caccini, listening\nbehind a partition, caught something of the conversation; and, thinking\nthat Attavanti was a well instructed follower of Galileo, and was\nmerely repeating what he had taught him, explained the fragments of\nthe disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these stupid\naccusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and Attavanti\nthat neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo, except\nthat he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.[108]\n\nAfter the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of\nCaccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry\ninto the \u201cHistory and Explanation of the Solar Spots.\u201d[109] This, and the\noft discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which\nGalileo\u2019s enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological\nerror.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_HOPES AND FEARS._\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Fears.\u2014Allayed by letters from Rome.\u2014Foscarini\u2019s\n    work.\u2014Blindness of Galileo\u2019s Friends.\u2014His Apology to the\n    Grand Duchess Christine.\u2014Effect produced by it.\u2014Visit to\n    Rome.\u2014Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.\u2014Caccini\n    begs pardon.\u2014Galileo defends the Copernican system at Rome.\u2014His\n    mistake in so doing.\n\n\nGalileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the secret proceedings\nof the Inquisition against him and his system. He had only discovered\nthat some Dominican monks wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli\nto effect the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, and that they\nwere spreading all sorts of calumnies against him based upon it. Fearing\nthat the copy of it on which they relied might have been tampered\nwith, he sent a correct copy on 16th February, 1615, to his sincere\nfriend Mgr. Dini at Rome, with a request that he would forward it to\nthe mathematician, Father Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal\nBellarmine. Galileo observed in the accompanying letter that he had\nwritten the one to Castelli \u201c_currente calamo_,\u201d that since then he had\nmade many researches into the subject therein discussed, and announced\nthe speedy completion of a larger work, in which he should carry out\nhis reasoning far more in detail; as soon as it was finished he would\nsend it to Mgr. Dini. (This was his great Apology to the Grand Duchess\nChristine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his enemies were\ndaily increasing in number, and, in order to injure him the more, were\nspreading the strange report among the people that he was the founder\nof the system of the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to\nincidents like that with Bishop Gherardini.[110]\n\nThe philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited, received\nin reply consolatory assurances from Mgr. Dini and others of his\necclesiastical friends. But they earnestly advised him to treat the\nsubject of the Copernican system purely from the mathematical, physical\npoint of view, and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint\ncame rather late in the day, and could not now be of much use to Galileo,\nwhen his doctrines were already attacked as heretical, although secretly\nat that time, and the accusation was based on the purely scientific work\non the solar spots. War had been declared with the Copernican system in\nthe name of the Bible.\n\nGalileo\u2019s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th March,[111]\nplainly show how unwillingly he had been driven into the theological\nfield by his opponents. After he had in the second letter decidedly\nrejected Dini\u2019s suggestion that he should treat the Copernican system\nmerely as a hypothesis, he added that it had been his earnest desire to\nkeep strictly to his part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to\ndefend his astronomical system against religious scruples. He entirely\nagrees with those who say that the task of bringing natural science into\nagreement with Holy Scripture should be left to theologians, and shows\nthat he has been compelled to defend himself on this dangerous ground.\nHe says besides that his letter to Castelli was not originally intended\nto go any farther, and regrets that Castelli had had copies made of it\nwithout his knowledge.\n\nIt is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when the secret\ndenunciation had been laid before the tribunal of the Inquisition at\nRome, all the letters and reports which Galileo received from Rome, even\nfrom trustworthy friends, Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were\ncalculated to allay his anxious fears. None of those persons, although\nin influential positions, and likely it would seem to have been better\ninformed, knew, as appears from their correspondence with Galileo,\nanything of the proceedings which were being instituted at Rome against\nhim and the Copernican system. The Inquisition knew well enough how to\nkeep its secrets. On 28th February[112] Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently\nto Galileo that, notwithstanding all the inquiries he had made, he could\nlearn nothing of any measures against him or the new doctrines; he sets\ndown the whole rumour to the incautious talk of some hot-headed fellow.\n\nOn 7th March[113] Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine had said\n\u201che did not think that the work of Copernicus would be prohibited, and\nthe worst that would happen would be that some addition would be made to\nit, stating that this theory was only accepted to explain phenomena,[114]\nor some such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able to\ndiscuss the subject whenever he had occasion.\u201d Under the same date Prince\nCesi tells Galileo that a work had just been published by a Dominican\nmonk, which brilliantly defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it\nagree with Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have appeared\nmore opportunely.[115]\n\nBut what seems the most strange are the express and repeated assurances\nof the cardinals Barberini, Del Monte, and Bellarmine, to Galileo,\nthrough Dini and Ciampoli, that so long as he did not go beyond the\nprovince of physics and mathematics, nor enter into any theological\ninterpretations of Scripture, he had nothing to fear.[116] How could\nCardinal Bellarmine, who had not long before expressly stated to Prince\nCesi that the new system was not compatible with the doctrines of Holy\nScripture, and who, as a member of the Inquisition, must have been\naware of the transactions which had been going on about Galileo since\n5th February, give these assurances so directly opposed to the truth?\nAnd yet these three prelates afterwards gave many proofs of good will\ntowards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct to be explained? It\nwas simply that they were friendly to Galileo, but not to his doctrines.\nThey certainly desired to shield his person, and afterwards honestly\nendeavoured to do so even under most difficult circumstances; but the\nsystem he defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be\nsuppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared advisable\nto keep it a secret from Galileo that the statement of Copernicus that\nthe earth moved was assailed from the theological standpoint, until the\nHoly Office had issued the interdict against its circulation and defence.\nIt was thus that they prudently rounded the rocks which the dreaded\ndialectics of the clever Tuscan had exposed to view.\n\nAnd the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict of the Church\nwas to be pronounced on the Copernican theory, and the more eagerly the\nsecret inquiries about Galileo were being prosecuted, the more confident\nbecame the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where\nthis ominous web was being woven. It seems as if all Galileo\u2019s trusty\nadherents had been struck with blindness, for we should not be justified\nin doubting the sincerity of a Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who\nafterwards proved by their actions their true friendship for the great\nastronomer. On 20th March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on the\n21st Ciampoli communicates to Galileo the consoling observations of the\ncardinals Del Monte and Bellarmine mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds\nto these comforting assurances by telling him that Foscarini\u2019s work was\nno doubt in great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of\nthe Holy Office to take place next month, _but only because it meddled\nwith matters concerning Holy Scripture_. He goes on to say with real\nsatisfaction that he can only confirm his previous information, and that\nall this noise originated with four or five persons who are hostile\nto Galileo; he and Dini had taken all possible pains to find out this\nassumed agitation, but had discovered absolutely nothing. He repeats this\nmost decidedly in a letter of a week later;[117] and in another of 16th\nMay[118] he cannot at all understand what has so disconcerted Galileo,\nand adds that it was no longer doubtful that the Copernican doctrine\nwould not be prohibited, and expresses his conviction that it would be\na great satisfaction to every one if Galileo would come to Rome for a\ntime, and the more so because he had heard that many of the Jesuits\nwere secretly of Galileo\u2019s opinion, and were only keeping quiet for the\npresent.\n\nA private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo, of June\n20th, is equally sanguine. He tells him that Foscarini\u2019s work, of which a\nnew and enlarged edition is to appear immediately, has had great success\nat Rome, and that the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much\ncast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that treatise nor\nthe doctrines in question are in any danger, if only a little prudence\nis exercised. Cesi even thinks that the new edition, in which the author\nrefutes all the objections to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical\nauthorities, convince opponents, and put an end to the whole business.\n\u201cThen,\u201d continues the prince confidently, \u201cwhen every difficulty is\nremoved and attack rendered impossible, the doctrine will be so fully\npermitted and recognised, that everybody who wishes to maintain it will\nbe at liberty to do so, as in all other purely physical and mathematical\nquestions.\u201d[119]\n\nThis is the last letter we have from Galileo\u2019s friends of this period.\nFrom this date to the time of his stay in Rome, in 1616, there are no\nletters to him extant. This is the more to be regretted, as the gap\noccurs at a very interesting juncture. Perhaps after the Copernican\ndoctrines were condemned Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence\nout of regard for his friends, for it may have contained allusions to\nvery delicate matters.\n\nMeanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by Mgr. Dini,[120]\nhe had completed his great apologetic treatise, in the form of a letter\nto the Grand Duchess Dowager, Christine. As it accurately defines the\nstandpoint which Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and\nsincere Catholic, with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems necessary\nto give a sketch of its contents.\n\nGalileo begins with the motive of his Apology. Several years ago he\nhad made many discoveries in the heavens, the novelty of which, and\nthe vast consequences they involve, which are opposed to many of the\nprinciples of the modern Aristotelian school, have incensed no small\nnumber of professors against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in\nthe heavens with his own hands in order to overturn nature and science.\nPlacing a greater value on their own opinions than on truth, these men\nhad taken upon themselves to deny the existence of these discoveries,\nwhereas if they had only consented to observe them, they would have\nbeen convinced. Instead of this, they assailed the new discoveries with\nempty arguments, and worst mistake of all, interwove them with passages\nof Scripture which they did not understand. But when the majority of\nthe scientific world was convinced with its own eyes, so that it was\nimpossible any longer to doubt the truth of these phenomena, their\nopponents tried to consign them to oblivion by obstinate silence; and\nwhen that did not avail they took another course. Galileo says that he\nshould pay no more heed to these attacks than to former ones, at which,\nconfident of the final result, he had always laughed, but they seek to\ncast an aspersion on him which he dreads more than death. His opponents,\nknowing that he favoured the opinion of the double motion of the earth,\nand thereby attacked the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian principles, and\nperceiving since the universal recognition of his observations that they\ncould never combat him successfully on the field of natural philosophy,\nare trying now to make a shield for their false statements out of a\nfictitious piety and the authority of Holy Scripture. They have therefore\nfirst tried to spread the opinion that the views he defends are opposed\nto the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy of condemnation. They\nthen easily found some one to denounce them from the pulpit, and he\nhurled his anathemas not only at the Copernican doctrines, but against\nmathematicians in general. They also gave out that the modern views of\nthe system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical by the\nhighest authorities.\n\nGalileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of these\ndoctrines, was not only a good Catholic, but a priest highly esteemed\nby the Roman curia, both for his learning and piety. He had dedicated\nhis famous work: \u201cDe Revolutionibus Orbium C\u0153lestium,\u201d to Pope Paul\nIII., and no one had felt any scruples about his doctrines, although\nsome ill-disposed persons want to have the book pronounced heretical,\nwithout ever having read, to say nothing of studied it. As an adherent of\nthe Copernican theory, Galileo now feels compelled, in order to justify\nhimself, to discuss in detail these arguments from Scripture brought\nforward by his opponents, and he hopes to prove that he is animated by\na greater zeal for true religion than his adversaries; for he by no\nmeans demands that the book should not be condemned, but that it should\nnot be condemned without being understood or even looked at. Before\nproceeding to discuss these arguments, he protests that he will not only\nalways be ready publicly to rectify the errors he may from ignorance\nhave fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that it\nwas not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with any one\non such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these remarks, to incite\nothers to deliberations useful to the Church. As to the decision about\nthe Copernican system, we must bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical\nauthorities, and should it be adverse to him, let his work be torn up and\nburnt, for he had neither wish nor intention to promote results that were\nnot catholic and pious.\n\nAfter this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes to the matter\nitself,\u2014the discussion of the principles of exegesis of Scripture with\nrespect to natural science. He employs the same arguments as in his\nletter to Castelli, only more in detail, and cites several passages\nfrom St. Augustine in support of his views, as to how far questions of\nnatural philosophy should be left to the understanding and to science.\nHe also quotes a saying of Cardinal Baronius: \u201cThe Holy Spirit intended\n_to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go_.\u201d Galileo\nthen illustrates by examples how derogatory it will be to the dignity of\nHoly Scripture if every unauthorised scribbler is permitted to adduce\npassages from it in support of his views, which he often does not\ninterpret rightly; and experience shows the futility of this method of\nproof. He then turns to the claim of theologians to enforce upon others\nin scientific discussions opinions which they hold to agree with passages\nof Scripture, while maintaining that they are not bound to explain the\nscientific phenomena which are opposed to their decisions. In support of\nthis they affirm that theology is the queen of all the sciences, and need\nnot condescend to accommodate herself to the teachings of other sciences\nfar beneath her: they must submit to her as their sovereign, and modify\ntheir conclusions accordingly. This leads Galileo to some considerations\nwhich he will here set forth, that he may learn the opinions of others\nmore expert on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions he is\nalways ready to bow.\n\nHe is in doubt whether some ambiguity has not crept in for want of more\nprecision in defining why theology is entitled to be called a queen. It\nmust either be because all that is taught by other sciences is comprised\nin and explained by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology\ntreats of a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects\nof which profane science treats. But even the theologians themselves\nwill hardly maintain that the title belongs to theology in the first\nsense; for no one can say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine,\nare better treated of in Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes,\nPtolemy, Boccius, and Galen. It appears then that the royal prerogative\nof theology must be derived from some other source. Galileo here remarks:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIf then theology occupies herself solely with the highest\n    problems, maintains her throne by reason of the supreme\n    authority conferred on her, and does not condescend to the\n    lower sciences as not affecting salvation, the professors of\n    theology should not assume authority on subjects which they\n    have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler\n    should demand, without being a physician or an architect, that\n    people should treat themselves, or erect buildings, according\n    to his directions, to the great peril of poor sick people and\n    obvious ruin of the edifices.\u201d\n\nGalileo then demonstrates the vast difference between doctrinal and\nexact sciences, and says that in the latter opinions cannot be changed\nto order. Supported by the authority of St. Augustine, he maintains\nthat opinions on natural science which have been proved to coincide\nwith actual facts cannot be set aside by passages of Scripture, but\nthese must be explained so as not to contradict the indisputable results\nof observation. Those, therefore, who desire to condemn an opinion in\nphysics must first show that it is incorrect. But it must be made the\nsubject of close investigation, and then a different result will often be\nobtained from the one desired. Many learned men who intended to refute\nthe Copernican theory have been changed, by examination, from opponents\nto enthusiastic defenders of it. In order to banish it from the world,\nas many desired, it would not be enough to shut the mouth of any one\nindividual, it would be necessary to prohibit not only the writings of\nCopernicus and his followers, but astronomy altogether. But to suppress\nhis work now, when new discoveries are daily confirming his theory, after\nit has been quietly submitted to for so many years, appears to Galileo\nlike opposition to truth itself; and to permit the book and condemn the\ndoctrine would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it would\nallow them the opportunity of convincing themselves of the truth of an\nopinion which it was a sin to believe. To forbid astronomy altogether\nwould be like rejecting hundreds of passages of Scripture which teach us\nhow the glory of God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be\nstudied in the open book of nature.\n\nGalileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican theory.\nAccording to many, it ought to be pronounced erroneous because it is\nopposed to the apparent meaning of many passages in the Bible, while\nthe opposite opinion is to be believed _de fide_. He sharply defines\ntwo kinds of scientific questions: those on which all man\u2019s researches\ncan only lead to probability and conjecture, as for instance, whether\nthe stars are inhabited or not; and those on which, by experience,\nobservation, and inevitable deduction, we either have attained certainty\nor may safely reckon on doing so,\u2014as whether the earth or the heavens\nmove. In the first case, Galileo is decidedly of opinion that it behoves\nus to be guided by the literal sense of Scripture; in the second, he\nrepeats what he has said before, that two truths can never contradict\neach other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and of the earth\nas standing still to accommodate itself to the understanding of the\npeople, and not to confuse them, otherwise they might refuse to believe\nthe dogmas which are absolutely _de fide_. For the same reason the\nfathers have spoken about things not appertaining to salvation, more\nin accordance with usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by\nquotations from St. Jerome and St. Thomas.\n\nEven the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation of any\npassage of Scripture of scientific import should, in Galileo\u2019s opinion,\nonly confer authority on it when the question has been discussed by many\nfathers with knowledge of both sides. But this is not the case with the\nquestion of the double motion of the earth, for it had not come up at\nall at that time, and it could not occur to the holy fathers to dispute\nit, for the current opinion was in entire agreement with the literal\nmeaning of the Bible. It was not enough to say that the fathers had all\nbelieved that the earth stood still, and that therefore it was to be\nheld _de fide_, for it was very possible that they never investigated\nit, and only held it as generally current. If they had done so and found\nit deserving of condemnation, they would have said so, but it had never\nbeen discovered that they had. The writings of Diego di Zu\u00f1iga show, on\nthe contrary, that when some theologians began to consider the Copernican\ntheory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture.\nMoreover, no argument could be drawn from an unanimous opinion of the\nfathers, for some of them spoke of the sun as stationary, others of the\n_primum mobile_.\n\nGalileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise and well\ninformed theologians on the Copernican theory. Since no investigation\nof it was instituted by the ancient fathers, it might be done now by\ntheologians fitted for it, who, after they had carefully examined all\nthe scientific arguments for and against, would establish on a firm\nfooting what was dictated to them by Divine inspiration. He once more\nlays great stress on the need of first convincing one\u2019s self of the\nactual facts of nature under the guidance of science, and then proceeding\nto interpret texts of Scripture. He is indignant with those who, from\nmalice or blinded by party interest, say that the Church should draw\nthe sword without delay, since she possesses the power. As if it was\nalways desirable to do whatever was in our power! He shows that the\nfathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and exclaims\nto these wranglers: \u201cTry first to refute the arguments of Copernicus\nand his followers, and leave the task of condemning them to those to\nwhom it belongs; but do not hope to find among the fathers, who were as\ndiscreet as they were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who cannot\nerr, those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal interests\nand passions. It is doubtless true that concerning these and similar\nstatements which are not strictly _de fide_, his Holiness the Pope has\nabsolute authority to approve or condemn; _but it is not in the power of\nany human being to make them true or false, or other than they de facto\nare_.\u201d\n\nThis lengthy treatise concludes with a disquisition on the passage in\nthe book of Joshua, which he treats in the same way as in the letter to\nCastelli.\n\nNotwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this apology[121] not\nto give any handle to his enemies, it contained far too many liberal and\nmerely human principles not to do the author more harm than good in the\neyes of the orthodox party, both on religious and scientific questions.\nHis opponents saw this plainly enough, and agitated against him all the\nmore vehemently at Rome.\n\nOminous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious enough before;\nbut he could not any how learn anything definite about these attacks,\nonly so much eked out, that something was brewing against him, and that\nit was intended to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought he\ncould best meet these intrigues by his personal appearance at Rome; he\nwanted to learn what the accusations against him were, and to show that\nthere was nothing in them; he desired energetically to defend the new\nsystem, to aid truth in asserting her rights. So, early in December,\n1615, provided with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke,\nhe set out for Rome.[122]\n\nSome older authors, and recently Henri Martin,[123] have repeated as a\nfact the report circulated at the time by Galileo\u2019s enemies,[124] that\nthis visit to Rome was by no means so voluntary as he thought fit to give\nout. Martin appeals in support of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi\nto Cardinal Alexander d\u2019Este, of 1st January, 1616,[125] in which he\nsays that the philosopher had been _cited_ to appear at Rome, that he\nmight explain how he made his doctrines, which entirely contradict Holy\nScripture, agree with it. Martin also states that the Tuscan ambassador\nat Rome, in a despatch of 11th September, 1632, announced that a document\nhad been discovered in the books of the Holy Office, which showed that\nGalileo had been summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise\nexcellent biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of probability which,\nhowever, are not conclusive. Besides, these arguments, in the face of\nother facts, are not valid. Even if Galileo\u2019s contemporary letters from\nRome, in which he repeatedly expresses his satisfaction that he had come\nthere,[126] are not relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent\ncarrying out of the fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th April,\n1633, bears clear witness that Martin is in error. Being asked if he\ncame at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a\nsummons, he answered: \u201cIn the year 1616 I came to Rome of my own accord,\nwithout being summoned.\u201d[127] It was impossible that he should then have\npersisted in the assumed fiction, for he could not have denied before\nthe Inquisition a summons issued by itself seventeen years before, since\nit would certainly have been entered in their registers.[128] According\nto the statement of the Tuscan ambassador mentioned above, such a\ndocument had been discovered _one_ year previously in the protocols of\nthe Holy Office. But in the face of the question put at the examination\nthis does not seem very credible. Moreover, in none of the documents now\nopen to historical research relating to the transactions of 1616, is\nthere any such record to be found, nor anything to indicate that this\nvisit of Galileo\u2019s to Rome did not originate with himself.\n\nNeither does the flattering reception he met with at all agree with\nthe assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his correspondence with\nPicchena, successor in office to Vinta, though very cautious, shows\nthat notwithstanding the comforting assurances he had received from his\nfriends at Rome, he found that a zealous agitation was going on, not\nonly against the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.[129] In\nanother letter of 8th January, 1616, he says he sees every day what a\ngood idea it was to come here, for he had found so many snares laid for\nhim that it would have been quite impossible not to be caught by one or\nother of them, and he would not have been able to extricate himself for\na long time, perhaps never, or only with the greatest difficulty. He is\nconfident that he shall now very soon destroy the traps of his enemies,\nand be able to justify himself in a way that will bring all their\nunworthy calumnies to light. They have spread the false report that he\nwas in disgrace at the grand ducal court in consequence of the enormity\nof his offence, and that the proceedings against him had the Grand Duke\u2019s\nentire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him by Cosmo II.\nproved precisely the contrary, the assertions of his enemies would lose\nall credit, and he would be believed all the more, so that he should be\nable to justify himself completely.[130]\n\nJudging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later to the Tuscan\nSecretary of State, Galileo had not found it so easy to defend himself as\nhe anticipated. Indeed it seems to have been a very complicated business.\nA passage from the letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:\u2014\n\n    \u201cMy business is far more difficult, and takes much longer owing\n    to outward circumstances, than the nature of it would require;\n    because I cannot communicate directly with those persons\n    with whom I have to negotiate, partly to avoid doing injury\n    to any of my friends, partly because they cannot communicate\n    anything to me without running the risk of grave censure.\n    And so I am compelled, with much pains and caution, to seek\n    out third persons, who, without even knowing my object, may\n    serve as mediators with the principals, so that I may have\n    the opportunity of setting forth, incidentally as it were,\n    and at their request, the particulars of my interests. I have\n    also to set down some points in writing, and to cause that\n    they should come privately into the hands of those whom I wish\n    should see them; for I find in many quarters that people are\n    more ready to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for\n    the former permits them to agree or dissent without blushing,\n    and then finally to yield to the arguments used\u2014for in such\n    discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, whereas people\n    do not so readily change their opinions if it has to be done\n    publicly.\u201d[131]\n\nGalileo at length succeeded by his strenuous efforts in freeing himself\nfrom all false accusations and in refuting the slanders of Caccini.\nHis affairs took so favourable a turn that the monk found it advisable\nto pay an obsequious visit of several hours to Galileo, humbly begged\npardon for his previous conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power,\nand assured Galileo that the agitation going on was not in any way to\nbe laid at his door.[132] But he could not refrain from trying to prove\nthat the Copernican doctrines were erroneous, in which however he had no\nmore success than in convincing Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to\nPicchena that he had found in Caccini \u201cgreat ignorance and a mind full\nof venom.\u201d[133]\n\nBut Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy adjustment of\nthe difficulties affecting himself; the more important and grander part\nof it, the preservation of the Copernican system from the interdict of\nthe Church, had yet to be accomplished. His letter of 6th February to\nPicchena tells him of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well as\nof the noble purposes by which he was animated. He writes:\u2014\n\n    \u201cMy business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed; all\n    the exalted personages who have been conducting it have told me\n    so plainly, and in a most obliging manner, and have assured me\n    that people are fully convinced of my uprightness and honour,\n    and of the devilish malice and injustice of my persecutors. As\n    far as this point is concerned, therefore, I might return home\n    without delay, but there is a question concerning my own cause\n    which does not concern myself alone, but all those who, during\n    the last eighty years, have advocated in printed works or\n    private letters, in public lectures or private conversations,\n    a certain opinion, not unknown to your Grace, on which they\n    are now proposing to pronounce judgment. In the conviction\n    that my assistance may be of use in the investigation of the\n    matter, as far as a knowledge of those truths is concerned\n    which are proved by the science to which I have devoted myself,\n    I neither can nor ought to neglect to render this assistance,\n    while I shall thereby follow the dictates of my conscience and\n    Christian zeal.\u201d[134]\n\nThis was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few others were,\nto appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately his warm and\nperhaps too solicitous efforts for the Copernican cause had a result\nprecisely opposite to the one he intended. He was still under the great\ndelusion that the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of\nthe correctness of the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought out\nscepticism on the subject everywhere in the eternal city, combated it\neagerly and apparently with signal success. In many of the first houses\nin Rome, such as the Cesarini\u2019s, Ghislieri\u2019s, and others, he unfolded\nbefore numerous audiences his views about the construction of the\nuniverse. He always began these discourses by carefully enumerating all\nthe arguments for the Ptolemaic system, and then proved that they were\nuntenable by the telling arguments with which his own observations had so\nabundantly supplied him; and as he not seldom added the biting sarcasm of\nhis wit to serious demonstration, thus bringing the laugh on his side, he\nprepared signal defeats for the orthodox views of nature.[135]\n\nBut by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. He would not see\nthat the Romanists cared far more for the authority of Scripture than for\nthe recognition of the laws of nature; that his system, running counter\nto orthodox interpretation of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of\nthe Church. And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way of\nlooking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the true system of\nthe universe would be of greater importance, even to the servants of the\nChurch, than her own mysteries, it was but a natural consequence of these\nfalse premises that, instead of attaining his end, he only widened his\ndistance from it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED PROHIBITION\nTO GALILEO._\n\n    Adverse Opinion of the Inquisition on Galileo\u2019s\n    Propositions.\u2014Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute\n    Prohibition to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.\u2014Discrepancy\n    between Notes of 25th and 26th February.\u2014Marini\u2019s\n    documents.\u2014Epinois\u2019s Work on Galileo.\u2014Wohlwill first doubts\n    the Absolute Prohibition.\u2014Doubts confirmed by Gherardi\u2019s\n    Documents.\u2014Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican\n    system.\u2014Attitude of the Church.\u2014Was the Absolute Prohibition\n    ever issued to Galileo?\u2014Testimony of Bellarmine in his\n    favour.\u2014Conclusions.\n\n\nThe Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo\u2019s active propagandism,\neven among the learned world of Rome, and by his brilliant defence of the\nnew system, now hastened to bring to a conclusion the transactions which\nhad been going on for a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th\nFebruary, 1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were not\njudges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) and required\nthem to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo\u2019s\nwork on the solar spots:\u2014\n\nI. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place.\n\nII. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not immovable, but\nmoves, and also with a diurnal motion.[136]\n\nIn accordance with the papal decree, these theologians met four days\nafterwards, at 9 a.m. on 23rd February, and published the result of their\ndeliberations the next day, as follows:\u2014\n\nThe first proposition was unanimously declared to be false and absurd\nphilosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly\ncontradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many passages, both\nif taken in their literal meaning and according to the general\ninterpretation and conceptions of the holy Fathers and learned\ntheologians.\n\nThe second proposition was declared unanimously \u201cto deserve the like\ncensure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least\nerroneous in the faith.\u201d[137]\n\nThe Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against Galileo as the\nchief advocate of the Copernican system, as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThursday, 25th February, 1616. The Lord Cardinal Mellini\n    notified to the Reverend Fathers the Assessors and the\n    Commissary of the Holy Office, that the censure passed by the\n    theologians upon the propositions of Galileo\u2014to the effect\n    particularly that the sun is the centre of the world, and\n    immovable from its place, and that the earth moves, and also\n    with a diurnal motion\u2014had been reported; and His Holiness has\n    directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the\n    said Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the said opinion;\n    and in case of his refusal to obey, that the Commissary is to\n    intimate to him, before a notary and witnesses, a command to\n    abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion\n    and doctrine, and even from discussing it; and if he do not\n    acquiesce therein, that he is to be imprisoned.\u201d[138]\n\nThis is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended to look like an\nofficial report on the course of the proceedings ordained above. Every\nunbiassed reader will expect to find in it either that Galileo refused to\nobey the admonitions of the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of\nthe Inquisition then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo\nimmediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition\nwould not have had to interfere. Instead of this we find the following\ndocument, couched half in a narrative tone, half like the report of a\nnotary:\u2014\n\n    \u201cFriday, the 26th.\u2014At the Palace, the usual residence of the\n    Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been summoned\n    and brought before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in presence\n    of the Most Revd. Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of the order of\n    preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said\n    Cardinal warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion, and\n    admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before\n    me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine being\n    still present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary\n    commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope,\n    and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish\n    altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the\n    world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth\n    to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or\n    in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in\n    the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced\n    in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid,\n    in presence of Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of\n    Cyprus, and Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy\n    of Rottz, in the diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said\n    Cardinal\u2019s house, witnesses.\u201d[139]\n\nThe discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February is obvious:\nthat says that the Pope had ordered that Cardinal Bellarmine should\nadmonish Galileo to renounce the opinions of Copernicus, and only _in\ncase he should refuse_, was the Commissary to issue the order to him to\nabstain from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here in\nthe report of the 26th we read, that \u201cimmediately after\u201d the admonition\nof the cardinal, the Commissary issued this stringent order, and with the\nsignificant modification, \u201cnor to hold, teach, or defend it in any way\nwhatsoever.\u201d In this report of the proceedings it is not expressly stated\nwhether Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording of\nthe report, it is almost impossible that he could have done so, since it\nrepresents that the Cardinal\u2019s admonition was followed immediately by the\n_absolute_ prohibition from the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure\nwas by no means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would rather\nhave been an arbitrary deviation from it.\n\nUntil within the last ten years, in all the works, great or small, which\ntreat of Galileo\u2019s trial, we find this absolute prohibition which he was\nsaid to have received related as an established historical fact. It was\nthe sole legal ground on which the indictment was based against Galileo\nsixteen years later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by\nan ostentatious appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document had been\nseen by any of the authors who wrote so confidently of the stringent\nprohibition of 1616, which confirmed its historical truth. And yet it\ncould but exist among the inaccessible archives relating to the trial\nof Galileo, since the Inquisitors relied upon it in 1633, and it was\nthe pole and axis of the famous trial. And what the world had accepted\nin good faith on the somewhat doubtful veracity of the Inquisition was\nat length, apparently confirmed by the testimony of Mgr. Marino Marini,\nprefect of the Vatican Archives. In that year he published at Rome a\nbook entitled, \u201cGalileo e l\u2019Inquisizione, Memorie storico-critiche,\u201d\nwhich, as the author stated, was founded upon the original documents\nof the trial. It actually contained many \u201cextracts\u201d from the original\nprotocols; and founded upon documentary materials accessible only to\nthe author, it was encircled with the convenient halo of inviolability.\nAnd for nearly twenty years no serious objection was raised to it. Many\nhistorians did shake their heads and say that the work of the right\nreverend gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition\nas one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by the author\u2019s\nhigh-flown assertion that \u201cthe entire publication of the documents would\nonly redound to the glory of the Inquisition,\u201d[140] but drily remarked\nthat it was really a great pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid\nan opportunity to slip of performing a great service alike to history\nand the Church, while the fragments produced were of little value to\neither one or the other. None of this served to refute a single sentence\nof the apology in question. It became, on the contrary, notwithstanding\nits obvious partizanship, the chief source for subsequent narratives\nof the trial. And it could not fail to be so; for even taking this\npartizanship into account, how could the dates given be doubted? Could\nany one suspect a misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did suspicions\nof an arbitrary use and distortion of the documents at the author\u2019s\ncommand seem justified? Assuredly not. Besides, the papal archivist\nappealed with apparent scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although,\ntherefore, the light thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed\nto be one-sided, the correctness of his facts in general admitted of no\ndoubt. Among these the special prohibition of 1616 played a conspicuous\npart. It is laid before the reader as beyond all question, and fully\nconfirmed by documents. The author, however, prudently refrained from\npublishing these \u201cdocuments\u201d verbatim,\u2014the reports of the Vatican MS. of\n25th and 26th February. The discrepancy between them would then have come\nto light. That was to be avoided, and so Marini, by the approved method\nof rejecting all that did not suit his purpose, concocted from the two\nreports a story of the assumed prohibition to Galileo so precise as to\nleave nothing to be desired.[141]\n\nIn 1867 Henri de L\u2019Epinois surprised the learned world with his work,\n\u201cGalil\u00e9e, son Proc\u00e8s, sa Condemnation d\u2019apr\u00e8s des Documents in\u00e9dits.\u201d He\nreproduced for the first time in full the most important documents which\nhad been at Marini\u2019s command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he\nhad used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th and 26th\nFebruary verbatim. But the story of the prohibition of 1616 had so firmly\nrooted itself in history, that neither Epinois himself nor the next\nFrench historian, Henri Martin, who published a comprehensive work on\nGalileo based on the published documents, thought of disturbing it.\n\nIt was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, in Germany\nand Galileo\u2019s own country, simultaneously and independently, of the\nauthenticity of the prohibition of 1616. In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill\nwho first shook this belief after careful and unbiassed investigation\nof the Roman MS. published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: \u201cDer\nInquisitions Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Pr\u00fcfung seiner rechtlichen\nGrundlage nach den Acten der R\u00f6mischen Inquisition.\u201d (The Trial of\nGalileo Galilei. An Examination into its Legal Foundation by the Acts\nof the Roman Inquisition.) And just when German learning was seeking\nto prove by keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual\nnarrative, the document was published in Italy which raised Wohlwill\u2019s\nconjectures to certainty.\n\nUp to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment resist the\ncardinal\u2019s admonition, but submitted at once, could only be drawn, as\nit was drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the wording of the report of\nthe proceedings of 26th February, 1616, partly from Galileo\u2019s sincere\nCatholic sentiments, for he was to the end, from conviction, a true son\nof the Church. However much there might be to justify the conclusion,\ntherefore, it was founded only on probability, was confirmed by no\ndocuments, and was therefore open to assault. It was attacked by\nFriedlein in a review of Wohlwill\u2019s brochure.[142] But when Friedlein\nwas trying to prove that Galileo must have resisted the cardinal\u2019s\nadmonitions, and only submitted to the peremptory threats of the official\nof the Inquisition, the document had been already published in Italy\nwhich placed the question beyond doubt. This is an extract of the\nprotocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 3rd\nMarch, 1616, and forms part of the collection of documents published by\nProfessor Silvestro Gherardi in the _Rivista Europea_, 1870. It is as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n                                                \u201c_3rd March, 1616._\n\n    \u201cThe Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo\n    Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of the\n    Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon (deserendam)\n    [disserendam (discuss) was the word originally written] the\n    opinion he has hitherto held, that the sun is the centre of\n    the spheres and immovable, and that the earth moves, and had\n    acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of\n    the Index having been presented, prohibiting and suspending\n    respectively the writings of Nicholas Copernicus (De\n    Revolutionibus orbium c\u0153lestium....) of Diego di Zu\u00f1iga on Job,\n    and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite Friar\u2014His Holiness\n    ordered this edict of prohibition and suspension respectively,\n    to be published by the Master of the Palace.\u201d[143]\n\nThis document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater importance\nthan merely for the evidence it affords that Galileo at once submitted\nto the Cardinal\u2019s admonition; it permits the conclusion, almost to a\ncertainty, that a proceeding like that described in the note of 26th\nFebruary never took place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal\nBellarmine was giving a report of the proceedings of 26th February at a\nprivate sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office under the personal\npresidency of the Pope. His report agrees precisely with the papal\nordinance of 25th February: he had admonished Galileo to give up the\nCopernican doctrines, and he had consented. This was to all appearance\nthe end of the business. The cardinal does not say a word about the\nstringent proceedings said to have taken place in his presence before\nnotary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would have been of far\ngreater importance than the first. It may perhaps be said that it was\nnot the cardinal\u2019s business to report the doings of the Commissary of\nthe Inquisition. But the objection is not valid; for in the first place\nthe conditions did not exist which would have justified the interference\nof the Commissary, and in the second, his report would certainly also\nhave been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th February\nwere reported. But in the note of 3rd March there is not a trace of the\nreport of Brother Michael Angelo Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however,\nso incredible that no communication should be made to the Congregation\nabout the most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, and\nthat Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the slightest reference\nto it in his report, that this document of 3rd March, 1616, discovered\nby Professor Gherardi, would be sufficient of itself to justify the\nsuspicion that the course of the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was\nnot at all that reported in the note relating to it in the Vatican MS.,\nbut was in accordance with the papal ordinance of 25th February, and\nended with the cardinal\u2019s admonition.\n\nLet us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree better with\nthis suspicious note. Two days after the sitting of 3rd March, in\naccordance with the order of Paul V., the decree of the Congregation of\nthe Index on writings and books treating of the Copernican system was\npublished. It ran as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAnd whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said\n    Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine\u2014which is false\n    and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture\u2014of the motion of the\n    earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is also taught by\n    Nicholas Copernicus in _De Revolutionibus orbium C\u0153lestium_,\n    and by Diego di Zu\u00f1iga in (his book on) Job, is now being\n    spread abroad and accepted by many\u2014as may be seen from a\n    certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled, _Letter of\n    the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the\n    opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the\n    motion of the earth, and the stability of the sun, and the new\n    Pythagorean system of the world, at Naples, printed by Lazzaro\n    Scorriggio, 1615_: wherein the said father attempts to show\n    that the aforesaid doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the\n    centre of the world, and of the earth\u2019s motion, is consonant\n    with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in\n    order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further\n    to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has\n    decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus\n    orbium_, and Diego di Zu\u00f1iga, on Job, be suspended until they\n    be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo\n    Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and\n    that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be\n    prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns,\n    and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the\n    present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and\n    with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal\n    of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March,\n    1616.\u201d[144]\n\nIn this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, a\ndistinction is drawn between two classes of writings: those which\nadvocate the positive truth of the Copernican system\u2014which are absolutely\ninterdicted and condemned; and those to which, by some modifications, a\nhypothetical character can be given\u2014these are to be suspended until the\nneedful corrections have been made. This indicated the precise attitude\nwhich the Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican system.\nAs a mere working hypothesis it was not dangerous to the Roman Catholic\nreligion; but as irrefragable truth it shook its very foundations. They\nwere, therefore, determined at Rome that it should not make way as\ntruth\u2014it was to be tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a\nmathematical hypothesis, the use of which was obvious even to the Romish\n_savans_, it might be allowed to stand. The cardinal\u2019s admonition and\nthe decree are in logical agreement with this intention. Galileo was to\n\u201crenounce\u201d the opinions of Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain\nthem as established fact; as a hypothesis, like the rest of the world he\nmight retain them. But according to the document of 26th February, entire\nsilence was enjoined upon Galileo upon the subject of the double motion\nof the earth, for in the injunction neither to hold, teach, or defend\nit in any way (_quovis modo_), the hypothetical treatment was obviously\nincluded.\n\nPerhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the most\ndistinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of the Copernican\nsystem, who by his telescopic discoveries had made the controversy a\nburning question of the day. But this conjecture does not stand the test\nof close investigation, for Galileo\u2019s work on the solar spots, which was\nbased upon the sun\u2019s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of\nforbidden or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings of the curia\nagainst him at that period, the friendly feeling for him personally, of\npowerful patrons in the Church, is obvious, and it makes any specially\nrigorous action against him very improbable. We have also other\nindications that this categoric prohibition to Galileo had not then been,\n_de facto_, issued.\n\nHis letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. We cannot\nexpect to find in them precise information about the proceedings of\n26th February, as it was contrary to the rules of the Inquisition to\nmake public its secret orders, under the severest penalties; but they\ncontain no trace of the deep depression which would have been caused by\nthe stringent orders of the Holy Office against him personally. On the\ncontrary, he writes on the 6th March (the day following the issue of the\ndecree) to Picchena: \u201cI did not write to you, most revered sir, by the\nlast post, because there was nothing new to report; as they were about to\ncome to a decision about that affair which I have mentioned to you _as a\npurely public one, not affecting my personal interests_, or only so far\nas my enemies very inopportunely want to implicate me in it.\u201d He goes on\nto say that he alludes to the deliberations of the Holy Office about the\nbook and opinions of Copernicus; and mentions with evident satisfaction,\nthat the purpose of Caccini and his party to have that doctrine denounced\nas heretical and contrary to the faith had not been attained, for the\nHoly Office had simply stated that it did not agree with Holy Scripture,\nand therefore only prohibited the books which maintained, _ex professo_,\nthat the Copernican doctrine was not contrary to the Bible. Galileo\nthen tells him more particularly what the decree contained, and that\nthe correction of the works of Copernicus and Zu\u00f1iga was entrusted to\nCardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations will be\nconfined to such passages as aim to prove the agreement of the modern\nsystem with Scripture, and \u201chere and there a word, as when Copernicus\ncalls the earth a star.\u201d He adds: \u201cI have, as will be seen from the\nnature of the case, no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said\nbefore, have troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn me into\nit.\u201d He means by this that the prohibition to try and make the doctrine\nof the double motion square with Scripture was indifferent to him; he\nwould never have concerned himself with theology if he had not been\ndriven to it. He then goes on: \u201cIt may be seen from my writings in what\nspirit I have always acted, and I shall continue to act, so as to shut\nthe mouth of malice, and to show that my conduct in this business has\nbeen such that a saint could not have shown more reverence for the Church\nnor greater zeal.\u201d[145]\n\nIn the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo repeats what\nhe has said about the correction of the work of Copernicus, and says\nemphatically that it is clear that no further restrictions will be\nimposed. From a reply from Galileo\u2019s faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters\nunfortunately not extant, it is evident that he had by no means expressed\nhimself as cast down by the issue of the affair. Sagredo writes in the\nbest of spirits: \u201cNow that I have learnt from your valued letters the\nparticulars of the spiteful, devilish attacks on and accusations against\nyou, and the issue of them, which entirely frustrates the purposes of\nyour ignorant and malicious foes, I, and all the friends to whom I have\ncommunicated your letters and messages, are quite set at rest.\u201d[146]\n\nIt is clear, then, from Galileo\u2019s correspondence, that he took the decree\nof the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks with satisfaction of the\ntrifling alterations to be made in Copernicus\u2019s work. How could the man,\nwho was forbidden to \u201chold, teach, or defend\u201d the repudiated doctrine \u201cin\nany way,\u201d write in this style?\n\nA document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating to these\ntransactions, is of the utmost importance to the assertion that no such\nprohibition had ever been issued to Galileo. After the publication of\nthe decree of 5th March he remained three months at Rome. His enemies\ntook advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been obliged\nformally to recant, and absolutely to abjure his opinion. Galileo\nseems to have been indignant at this; he pacified his adherents who\nsent anxious inquiries to their master, and complained bitterly of the\nunscrupulousness of his enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were\ntoo bad. But in order to confute these calumnies and guard himself\nagainst them in future, before leaving Rome he begged a certificate from\nCardinal Bellarmine to prove the falsity of this perfidious fiction. This\ndignitary consented, and wrote the following declaration:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWe, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is\n    calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our\n    hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance,\n    and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare,\n    that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, either in our\n    hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or anywhere\n    else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him,\n    neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him; but\n    only the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by\n    the sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to\n    him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to\n    Copernicus, that the earth moves round the sun, and that the\n    sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move\n    from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and\n    therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we\n    have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this\n    26th day of May, 1616.\u201d[147]\n\nWohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and\nthat of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks,\n\u201cthe secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the\nexpense of truth,\u201d[148] it would not have put forth so downright a lie\nin _optima forma_ as the cardinal\u2019s testimony contained, if the assumed\nprohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of\nthe Inquisition. This prohibition might easily have been passed over in\nsilence, while the calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the\ncardinal was not content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had\n\u201conly\u201d been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the\nIndex about the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine\u2019s\nglaringly contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it\nnot only entirely accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also\nwith Bellarmine\u2019s report of the proceedings of 26th February in the\nprivate sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the\ncardinal certified nothing more nor less than what had actually taken\nplace. It leads therefore to the following conclusions:\u2014\n\n1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal\u2019s\nadmonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine.\n\n2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him.\n\n3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616,\nis therefore untrue.\n\nThese three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of\nhistorical events will confirm them step by step, while it can by\nno means be made to tally with the assumed strict injunction of the\nCommissary-General. Next however, the question immediately arises,\nThrough whose means did the falsehood get into the acts of the trial,\nand was it _bona_ or _mala fide_? Historical research can only partially\nanswer this question. All these notifications were entered by a notary\nof the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, 1616, also. Did\nhe, perhaps merely from officious zeal, enter a note of an official\nproceeding as having actually taken place, which undoubtedly was to have\ntaken place under certain circumstances, but in their absence did not\noccur, or even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal\ninstructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power which had long\nbeen inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the failure for the time\nof its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters for future\nuse by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge\nof the motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; as\nhowever we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or independent\nfalsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in probability\nthat we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo\u2019s\nenemies,[149] which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its\npurpose.\n\nWohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long been of opinion\nthat this note originated, not in 1616, but in 1632, in order to legalise\nthe trial of Galileo. But after having repeatedly and very carefully\nexamined the original acts of the trial, preserved among the papal\nsecret archives, we were compelled to acknowledge that the material\nnature of the document entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent\nfalsification.[150] The note was not falsified in 1632; no, in 1616\nprobably, with subtle and perfidious calculation, a lie was entered which\nwas to have the most momentous consequences to the great astronomer.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT._\n\n    Galileo still lingers at Rome.\u2014Guiccardini tries to effect\n    his recall.\u2014Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the\n    Decree repealed.\u2014Intrigues against him.\u2014Audience of Pope Paul\n    V.\u2014His friendly assurances.\u2014His Character.\u2014Galileo\u2019s return to\n    Florence.\n\n\nGalileo had humbly submitted, had witnessed the issue of the decree of\n5th March by the august council; he knew that the only correct doctrine\nof the system of the universe had been reduced to the shadow of a\nhypothesis, and yet he could not make up his mind to leave the capital of\nthe hierarchy where such a slap in the face had been given to science.\nThe story told in most works on Galileo, that though he had submitted\nto the Holy Office he afterwards used his utmost endeavours to effect a\nreversal of the decree, is another of the firmly rooted and ineffaceable\nmistakes of history. It originated in the reports of the Tuscan\nambassador, Guiccardini, to the Grand Duke.[151]\n\nThis diplomatist, who was no great friend of Galileo\u2019s, found himself\nin an awkward position; he had been, on the one hand, enjoined by his\nsovereign to support Galileo as far as it lay in his power, while on the\nother he knew that the influential female members of the house of Medici\nwere very anxious to maintain the good relations of Tuscany with the Holy\nSee; and he tried to extricate himself from this dilemma by urgently\nseeking to effect the recall of the inconvenient guest to Florence.\nThis object runs through all the ambassador\u2019s despatches to Cosmo II.\nHe could not depict in colours too glaring the passion, fanaticism, and\npertinacity with which, in spite of all advice to the contrary, Galileo\ndefended the Copernican cause at Rome, though he was thereby doing it\nmore harm than good. The long report of Guiccardini to the Grand Duke,\nof 4th March, 1616,[152] held to be authentic by most of Galileo\u2019s\nbiographers, is couched in this tone. Among other things a dramatic scene\nis narrated which was the immediate cause of the condemnation of the\nCopernican system. Cardinal Orsini, one of Galileo\u2019s warmest friends, to\nwhom the Grand Duke had sent an autograph letter of introduction, had\nspoken to the Pope in favour of Galileo in the consistory of 2nd March.\nThe Pope replied that it would be well if he would persuade Galileo to\ngive up this opinion. Orsini then tried to urge the Pope further, but he\ncut him short, saying that he had handed over the whole affair to the\nHoly Office. No sooner had Orsini retired than Bellarmine, the celebrated\nJesuit theologian, was summoned to the Pope, and in the conversation that\nensued it was determined that this opinion of Galileo\u2019s was erroneous and\nheretical.\n\nGuiccardini must have been greatly misinformed to send reports so\nincorrect to his court. As we have seen, on 19th February the Qualifiers\nof the Holy Office were summoned to pronounce an opinion on the\nCopernican doctrines, and as the result Galileo was summoned seven days\nlater to appear before Bellarmine, who informed him of the decree, and\nadmonished him to renounce the prohibited doctrine. But all this seems\nto have escaped the acuteness of the Tuscan ambassador. He supposes that\nthe catastrophe had been brought about by a fit of papal anger! On 4th\nMarch he only knows what was known the next day to all the world\u2014by the\ndecree of the Congregation of the Index\u2014that the writings of Copernicus\nand other authors on the subject of the double motion were to be partly\ncondemned, partly corrected, and partly prohibited.\n\nGuiccardini in this despatch represented, on the one hand, the\ndifficulties into which the imprudent astronomer \u201cmight\u201d bring himself\nby his vehemence, and on the other the embarrassment in which those\nwho took his part would be placed; he reminded the Grand Duke of the\nattitude which his house had at all times assumed in the past towards\nsuch attacks on the Church of God, and of the services it had rendered to\nthe Inquisition, adding that he \u201ccould not approve that we should expose\nourselves to such annoyances and dangers without very good reason, and a\ndifferent prospect from that of great damage.\u201d The most potent argument,\nhowever, which he saved for the close of his long epistle of 4th March,\nas the climax, was the endeavour to inspire Cosmo II. with the fear that\nhis brother, Cardinal Carlo de\u2019 Medici, who was just coming to Rome,\nwould compromise himself by his relations with Galileo.\n\nFrom Galileo\u2019s correspondence with Picchena, we learn in contradiction to\nthis despatch what it was that induced him to linger at Rome after the\nissue of the decree of 5th March. He did not wish to return to Florence\nunder the impressions produced by the alarming reports of Guiccardini\nand the rumours spread by many of his opponents. It is evident that he\nwas aware of what was said of him from a passage in a letter to Picchena\nof 6th March. After expressing a fear that somebody not friendly to him\nmight represent his affairs to the Tuscan Secretary of State and others\nin a false light, he entreats Picchena to maintain, until his return,\nthe good opinion of him which his sincerity deserves. He is convinced\nthat the arrival of Cardinal de\u2019 Medici will relieve him from the need of\nuttering one word of self-justification, as he will hear at once what an\nexcellent reputation he enjoyed at the Court of Rome. He then goes on, as\nif directly refuting Guiccardini\u2019s accusations:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThen your Grace will learn, above all, with what composure\n    and moderation I have conducted myself, and what regard I\n    have had for the honour and good repute of those who have\n    eagerly tried to injure mine and certainly your Grace will be\n    surprised. I say this to you, most honoured sir, in case any\n    false accusations of the kind should reach your ears from any\n    quarter; and I hope that credit will be given to a party not\n    adverse to me, so that a more just understanding may be arrived\n    at.\u201d\n\nMeanwhile Galileo\u2019s position became more favourable, because the Pope\nreceived the submissive philosopher very graciously on 11th March,\nand gave him an audience which lasted three-quarters of an hour. He\nseized the opportunity of speaking to Paul V. of the intrigues of his\nenemies, and of some of the false accusations against him; to which the\nPope replied that he was well aware of the rectitude and sincerity of\nhis sentiments. And when Galileo, in conclusion, expressed his fears\nof the perpetual persecutions of relentless malice, the Pope consoled\nhim by saying that he need not fear, for he was held in so much esteem\nby himself and the whole Congregation, that they would not listen to\nthese calumnies, and as long as he occupied the chair of St. Peter,\nGalileo might feel himself safe from all danger. Paul V. also repeatedly\nexpressed his readiness to show his favour by his actions.\n\nGalileo hastened on the very next day to make known the favourable\nresult of this audience to Picchena, the Secretary of State, in a\nlong letter.[153] The effect of it, however, was quite different from\nwhat he probably expected. The Court of Tuscany, which had been not a\nlittle disquieted by Guiccardini\u2019s alarming despatch, thought it a good\nopportunity to press upon Galileo, now that his fame was so brilliantly\nre-established, to leave Rome and return to Florence. This was the tenor\nof Picchena\u2019s reply of 20th March.[154] Their highnesses, evidently still\nunder the impression of Guiccardini\u2019s letter, implored Galileo to be\nquiet, and no longer to discuss this dangerous subject, but to return.\n\nEncouraged by the Pope\u2019s friendly words, however, Galileo showed no\ndisposition to take these plain hints, and we learn from his further\ncorrespondence that his tarriance at Rome was fully approved by the\nTuscan Court. Thus we read in a letter of 26th March: \u201cAs to my return,\nunless his Highness wishes it otherwise, I shall, in accordance with your\ncommands, await the arrival of his Reverence the Cardinal.\u201d And further\non: \u201cAfter the arrival of the Cardinal I shall stay here as long as his\nHighness or the Cardinal pleases.\u201d[155]\n\nTo the great annoyance of Guiccardini, Galileo remained three months\nlonger at Rome\u2014beneath those skies which, according to the ambassador,\nmust prove dangerous to him in consequence of his vehement temperament,\n\u201cespecially at a time when the ruler of the eternal city hates\nscience and polite scholars, and cannot endure these innovations and\nsubtleties.\u201d This portrait of Paul V. was undoubtedly a correct one.\nHe cared very little for learning, and displayed a harsh and sometimes\nsavage character; while the inviolability of the dogmas of the Church,\necclesiastical privileges, and blind obedience to the faith, were\nsupreme in his eyes. We will just remind our readers that it was Paul V.\nwho, just after his elevation to the papacy, had a poor wretch, named\nPiccinardi, beheaded, because, for his private amusement, he had written\na biography of Clement VIII., in which he was not very aptly compared\nwith the Emperor Tiberius, although the work was not intended for\npublication,\u2014a sentence which occasioned great consternation.\n\nAt a time, therefore, when the tiara was worn by a man of this character,\nthe atmosphere of Rome might certainly have been dangerous to an ardent\nexplorer in the fields of natural science. But as Galileo did not suffer\nany sort of papal persecution during his stay there, it is obvious that\nthe character drawn of him by Guiccardini was very much exaggerated. This\nalso refutes the constantly reiterated fable that Galileo was eagerly\ntrying to get the decree of 5th March repealed. The vehement agitation\nimputed to him by the ambassador, and this bold attempt, would have been\nspeedily followed by penalties. But history knows nothing at this period\nof misunderstandings between Galileo and the Church; indeed we possess\na document which entirely contradicts the reports of Guiccardini. This\nis a letter from Cardinal del Monte to the Grand Duke at the time of\nGalileo\u2019s departure from Rome, written expressly \u201cto bear witness that\nhe was leaving with the best reputation and the approval of all who have\nhad transactions with him; for it has been made manifest how unjust the\ncalumnies of his enemies have been.\u201d The cardinal adds, \u201cthat having\nconversed much with Galileo, and being intimate with those who were\ncognisant of all that had taken place, he could assure his Highness that\nthere was not the least imputation attaching to the philosopher.\u201d[156]\n\nBut to return to the course of events. The Tuscan ambassador continued to\nsend disquieting letters to the Grand Duke about Galileo in order that\nhe might be recalled. He wrote in a despatch of 13th May: \u201c ... Galileo\nseems disposed to emulate the monks in obstinacy, and to contend with\npersonages who cannot be attacked without ruining yourself; we shall soon\nhear at Florence that he has madly tumbled into some abyss or other.\u201d[157]\n\nCosmo II., not a little alarmed by these gloomy prognostications of his\nambassador, and really in care for the revered philosopher, at length\nissued the order for his long-desired return. Picchena then wrote the\nfollowing drastic letter to Galileo, on 23rd May:\u2014\n\n    \u201cYou have had enough of monkish persecutions, and know now what\n    the flavour of them is. His Highness fears that your longer\n    tarriance at Rome might involve you in difficulties, and would\n    therefore be glad if, as you have so far come honourably out\n    of the affair, you would not tease the sleeping dog any more,\n    and would return here as soon as possible. For there are\n    rumours flying about which we do not like, and the monks are\n    all powerful. I, your servant, would not fail to warn you, and\n    to inform you, as in duty bound, of the wishes of our ruler,\n    wherewith I kiss your hand.\u201d[158]\n\nGalileo complied without delay with Cosmo\u2019s wishes, and set out on his\nhomeward journey on the 4th of the following month.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS._\n\n    Studious Seclusion.\u2014Waiting for the Correction of the Work of\n    Copernicus.\u2014Treatise on Tides.\u2014Sends it to Archduke Leopold\n    of Austria.\u2014The Letter which accompanied it.\u2014The three Comets\n    of 1618.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Opinion of Comets.\u2014Grassi\u2019s Lecture on\n    them.\u2014Guiducci\u2019s Treatise on them inspired by Galileo.\u2014Grassi\u2019s\n    \u201cAstronomical and Philosophical Scales.\u201d\u2014Galileo\u2019s Reply.\u2014Paul\n    V.\u2014His Death.\u2014Death of Cosmo II.\u2014Gregory XV.\u2014\u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d\n    finished.\u2014Riccardi\u2019s \u201cOpinion\u201d on it.\u2014Death of Gregory\n    XV.\u2014Urban VIII.\n\n\nSeven years passed by, during which Galileo lived a secluded and studious\nlife in the Villa Segni, at Bellosguardo, near Florence, without\npublishing any new work. How could he do so? The acceptance and further\napplication of the Copernican system was the mainspring of all his\nscientific pursuits, of which, multifarious as they were, the principle\nof the double motion of the earth was both foundation and keystone. The\ngeneral permission to employ the theory as a working hypothesis was of\nlittle service to him. The lofty structure of correct knowledge of our\nuniverse could not be raised on a pedestal of sand; it required the\nimperishable marble of truth. Galileo was compelled to withhold the\nresults of his researches until, perchance, some altered state of things\nshould change the mind of the papal court, at present so inimical to the\nCopernican cause. The publication of any researches in accordance with\nthe Copernican system appeared especially dangerous, until the promised\ncorrections had been made in the famous work of the Canon of Frauenburg,\nwhich had been temporarily placed on the Index. These corrections would\ngive more precise information as to how they wished the new doctrine\nhandled at Rome, what limits had been set by ecclesiastical despotism to\nresearches into nature. Galileo watched with great anxiety the labours\nof the papal censors, and tried to hasten them through his friend Prince\nCesi.[159] This eager interest in the earliest possible publication of\nthe corrections is another thing which does not accord with the assumed\nstringent prohibition of February 26th. What difference would it have\nmade to Galileo whether any facilities were offered for the discussion of\nthe Copernican theory or not, if absolute silence on the subject had been\nenjoined on him?\n\nDuring this period, when he could not venture to have the results of his\nvarious researches published, he was careful to make them known to some\nfriends of science by means of long letters, numerous copies of which\nwere then circulated in Europe. Very few of them, unfortunately, have\ncome down to us, but there is one of them that deserves special notice.\nIt indicates precisely Galileo\u2019s position: on the one hand he feels\nconstrained to make way for the recognition of the truth; but on the\nother, as a good Catholic, and from regard to his personal safety, he\ndoes not wish to clash with ecclesiastical authority. This letter, too,\nadds weight to the conclusion _that there was no prohibition enjoining\nabsolute silence on the Copernican theory on Galileo_.\n\nDuring his last stay at Rome, at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini, he\nhad written a treatise on the tides in the form of a letter to that\ndignitary, dated January 8th,[160] in which he expressed his firm\nconviction, erroneously as we now know, that this phenomenon could\nonly be explained on the theory of the double motion of the earth. He\nrepresented it as an important confirmation of the truth of it. In May,\n1618, he sent a copy of this treatise to the Archduke Leopold of Austria,\nwho was friendly to him, and was a brother of the Grand Duchess. But as\nsince it was written the decree of March 5th had been issued, which only\npermitted discussion of the subject as a hypothesis, Galileo thought it\nadvisable to add a sort of accompaniment to his treatise, in which he\ntook the utmost pains to comply with the conditions imposed by the Church\non her dutiful and orthodox son. He wrote:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWith this I send a treatise on the causes of the tides, which\n    I wrote rather more than two years ago at the suggestion of\n    his Eminence Cardinal Orsini, at Rome, at the time when the\n    theologians were thinking of prohibiting Copernicus\u2019s book and\n    the doctrine enounced therein of the motion of the earth, which\n    I then held to be true, until it pleased those gentlemen to\n    prohibit the work, and to declare that opinion to be false and\n    contrary to Scripture. Now, knowing as I do, that it behoves\n    us to obey the decisions of the authorities, and to believe\n    them, since they are guided by a higher insight than any to\n    which my humble mind can of itself attain, I consider this\n    treatise which I send you merely to be a poetical conceit, or\n    a dream, and desire that your Highness may take it as such,\n    inasmuch as it is based on the double motion of the earth, and\n    indeed contains one of the arguments which I have adduced in\n    confirmation of it. But even poets sometimes attach a value to\n    one or other of their fantasies, and I likewise attach some\n    value to this fancy of mine. Now, having written the treatise,\n    and having shown it to the Cardinal above-mentioned, and a few\n    others, I have also let a few exalted personages have copies,\n    in order that in case any one not belonging to our Church\n    should try to appropriate my curious fancy, as has happened\n    to me with many of my discoveries, these personages, being\n    above all suspicion, may be able to bear witness that it was\n    I who first dreamed of this chimera. What I now send is but\n    a fugitive performance; it was written in haste, and in the\n    expectation that the work of Copernicus would not be condemned\n    as erroneous eighty years after its publication. I had intended\n    at my convenience, and in the quiet, to have gone more\n    particularly into this subject, to have added more proofs, to\n    have arranged the whole anew, and to have put it into a better\n    form. But a voice from heaven has aroused me, and dissolved all\n    my confused and tangled fantasies in mist. May therefore your\n    Highness graciously accept it, ill arranged as it is. And if\n    Divine love ever grants that I may be in a position to exert\n    myself a little, your Highness may expect something more solid\n    and real from me.\u201d[161]\n\nOn reading such passages one really does not know which to be the most\nindignant at,\u2014the iron rule by which a privileged caste repressed the\nprogress of science in the name of religion, or the servility of one\nof the greatest philosophers of all times in not scorning an unworthy\nsubterfuge in order to disseminate a grain of supposed truth in the world\nwithout incurring personal danger.\n\nBut in spite of all precautions, in spite of \u201cchimeras,\u201d \u201cfictions,\u201d\n\u201cfantasies,\u201d and even \u201cthe voice from heaven,\u201d the circulation of this\ntreatise, based upon the theory of the double motion, would have been\nan infringement of the assumed absolute prohibition to Galileo, while,\nthanks to the ingenious accompaniment, it in no way clashed with the\ndecree of 5th March. Galileo\u2019s conduct shows plainly enough that he\nhumbly submitted to the ecclesiastical ordinance, but there is not a\ntrace of the prohibition to discuss the doctrine \u201cin any way.\u201d\n\nLittle, however, as Galileo desired to engage, thus hampered, in any\nperilous controversies, the next time it was nature herself who enticed\nhim into the field in which his genius and his polemical ingenuity\nacquired for him both splendid triumphs and bitter foes.\n\nIn August, 1618, three comets appeared in the heavens, and the brilliant\none in the constellation of the Scorpion strongly attracted the attention\nof astronomers. Although it was visible until January, 1619, Galileo\nhad very little opportunity of observing it, as he was confined to his\nbed by a severe and tedious illness.[162] But he communicated his views\non comets to several of his friends, and among others to the Archduke\nLeopold of Austria, who had come to see the sick philosopher.[163] He\ndid not consider them to be real heavenly bodies, but merely atmospheric\nappearances, columns of vapour which rise from earth to the skies, to a\nvery considerable height, far beyond the moon, and become temporarily\nvisible to the inhabitants of the earth, in the well-known form of a\ncomet, by the refraction of the sun\u2019s rays. As he judged comets to be\nwithout substance, and placed them on a par with mock suns and the aurora\nborealis, he concluded that they could have no parallax determinations.\n\nIn the same year, 1619, a Jesuit, Father Grassi, delivered a lecture on\nthe three comets in the Roman College, in which he gave out that such\nphenomena were not mere appearances, but real heavenly bodies; copies of\nthis lecture were widely circulated, and Galileo was strongly urged by\nhis adherents to publish his opinion. He was prudent enough to evade for\nthe time a fresh controversy, which, in the existing critical state of\naffairs, might bring him into danger, and apparently took no part in the\nscientific feud which was brewing. But he induced his learned friend and\npupil, Mario Guiducci, consul of the Academy at Florence, to publish a\ntreatise on comets. Numerous alterations and additions, however, which\nare found in the original MS. in the Palatina Library at Florence, attest\nthat he had a direct share in the editorship.[164] The opinions hitherto\nheld by philosophers and astronomers on this subject were discussed,\nand the author\u2019s own\u2014that is Galileo\u2019s\u2014expounded. Grassi\u2019s views were\nsharply criticised, and he was reproachfully asked why he had passed over\nGalileo\u2019s recent astronomical discoveries in silence.\n\nGrassi, who recognised the real originator of the work, in the reply\nwhich he issued a few months later entirely ignored the pupil, that he\nmight the more vigorously attack the master. Under the pseudonym of\n_Lothario Sarsi Sigensano_, he published a pamphlet against Galileo,\nentitled, \u201cThe Astronomical and Philosophical Scales.\u201d[165] It is\nwritten with caustic bitterness, and is a model of Jesuitical malice\nand cunning. The comet question was for the time a secondary matter with\nGrassi, and he begins with a personal attack on Galileo, by disputing the\npriority of several of his most important discoveries and inventions, and\nreproaching him, with pious indignation, with obstinate adherence to a\ndoctrine condemned by theologians. Up to this point he is only angry and\nspiteful, but as he goes on he becomes cunning. He sets up for a warm\ndefender of the Peripatetic physics, and attacks the Copernican system,\nand its advocate Galileo, to compel him either to ignominious silence or\ndangerous demonstrations. Under pretext of meeting Guiducci\u2019s reproach\nthat he (Grassi) had taken Tycho as his authority, he asks whether it\nwould have been better to follow the system of Ptolemy, which had been\nconvicted of error, or that of Copernicus, which every God-fearing\nman must abhor, and his hypothesis, which had just been condemned? In\ndiscussing the causes of the movements of comets, it seemed to him that\nthe arguments were insinuated on which the forbidden doctrines were\nbased. \u201cAway!\u201d he exclaims in righteous indignation, \u201cwith all such\nwords so offensive to truth and to every pious ear! They were prudent\nenough certainly scarcely to speak of them with bated breath, and not to\nblazon it abroad that Galileo\u2019s opinion was founded upon this pernicious\nprinciple.\u201d\n\nThus attacked, Galileo prepared to defend himself. The greatest caution\nwas necessary, for Grassi was backed by the powerful party of the\nJesuits, who made a great boast of this work.[166] The letters of this\nperiod from Prince Cesi and Galileo\u2019s ecclesiastical friends at Rome\nshow that they were very anxious that he should not make the influential\norder of Jesuits his enemies by a direct collision with them. But as they\nsaw the absolute necessity of a reply, they gave him all sorts of good\nadvice, how to parry the attack without incurring their hatred. They\nwere of opinion that he should not honour an adversary concealed behind\na pseudonym with a reply written by himself, but should depute the task\nto a pupil, or, if he intended to conduct his defence in person, clothe\nhis reply in the form of a letter instead of a treatise, not addressed\nto Sarsi himself, but to one of his own party.[167] He decided for the\nlatter; and adopting a hint from Mgr. Ciampoli,[168] he addressed the\nreply to Mgr. Cesarini, one of his most devoted friends and dauntless\ndefenders.\n\nBut the completion of this afterwards famous rejoinder was delayed for\ntwo years, and its publication, which, according to custom with all works\nby members of the Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, was undertaken by the Society,\nwas delayed fully another year owing to the scruples of Prince Cesi and\nother \u201clynxes.\u201d Galileo\u2019s procrastination is to be explained partly by\nhis continued ill health, but more so by the position of affairs at Rome\nas well as in Tuscany, which was by no means encouraging for a contest\nwith a Jesuit.\n\nThe imperious Paul V. was still the reigning Pope, and his good will\ntowards Galileo would certainly only have lasted so long as he was\nentirely submissive. His dialectic reply, which was pervaded by cutting\nirony aimed at a father of the order of Jesuits, even sometimes making\nhim appear ridiculous, could not have been much to the taste of a Pope to\nwhom the inviolability of the Church and her ministers was all in all. It\nis characteristic of this pontiff that, as appears from the negotiations\nwith James I., he seriously claimed the right of deposing kings, and\ncalled every attempt to make him relinquish this claim \u201ca heretical\nproceeding,\u201d and pronounced the writings of some Venetian ecclesiastics\nwho disputed it, to be worse than Calvinistic. Just as this stern\npontiff was gathered to his fathers (16th January, 1621), in consequence\nof an attack of apoplexy on the occasion of the celebration of the\nvictory on the Weissenberg, and the good-natured and infirm old man,\nGregory XV., ascended the papal chair, Galileo sustained a blow which was\nmost disastrous to him. This was the death, on 28th February, 1621, of\nhis kind protector and patron, Cosmo II. The protection of an energetic\nprince who sincerely respected him, which he had hitherto enjoyed, was\nreplaced by the uncertain favour of a feminine government, as the widowed\nGrand Duchess, whose tendencies were thoroughly Romish, assumed the\nregency for Ferdinand II., who was still in his minority.\n\nUnder these circumstances Galileo was but little inclined to bring out\nhis reply; and perhaps the time when they were founding the Propaganda\nat Rome, and enrolling Loyola and Xavier among the saints, did not seem\nvery opportune. From the new Pope personally there was nothing to fear.\nThe phlegmatic little man, who was so bowed down by age and sickness\nthat those about him often feared to lay complicated business matters\nbefore him, lest he should entirely break down, was certainly not likely\nto inspire awe; besides, Gregory had expressed himself to Ciampoli very\nfavourably of Galileo.[169] But the Pope\u2019s infirmities made it all the\nmore necessary to proceed with caution; for they allowed the Romish\nadministration to exercise full sway. And the man who guided it with\nalmost sovereign authority was the Pope\u2019s nephew, Cardinal Lodovico\nLodovisi, a former pupil and therefore zealous friend of the Jesuits.\n\nNevertheless Galileo\u2019s adherents, and especially his clerical friends at\nRome, considered it absolutely necessary to publish his reply as soon as\npossible, with the precautions before mentioned, because his opponents\nconstrued his silence into a triumph for Grassi and the Aristotelian\nschool.[170] Prince Cesi, Mgrs. Cesarini and Ciampoli\u2014the latter of whom\nmeanwhile had become Secretary of the Papal Briefs to Gregory XV., a post\nwhich he also held under his successor, Urban VIII., until he fell into\ndisgrace about Galileo\u2014urged him repeatedly to finish his reply.[171]\n\nFrancesco Stelluti, a member of the Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, a learned\nfriend of Galileo\u2019s, did indeed at this time (June, 1622) bring out\na work against \u201cLothario Sarsi,\u201d but he only defended Guiducci, and\nstudiously avoided touching on the reproaches cast on Galileo, in order\nnot to anticipate him.[172]\n\nAt length, in October of the same year, Galileo sent the MS. of his\ncelebrated work, \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d (The Assayer), to Mgr. Cesarini, at\nRome.[173] For five months it passed from hand to hand among the members\nof the Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, who carefully criticised it, and with\nGalileo\u2019s consent, altered the passages which might possibly have been\ntaken advantage of by his enemies to renew their intrigues against him.\nThe Jesuits meanwhile had got wind of the completion of the reply, and\ndid their utmost to get hold of one of the numerous copies of the MS.;\nbut Cesarini, Cesi, Ciampoli, and the other \u201cLynxes,\u201d took good care of\nthem, well knowing that if the Jesuits once made acquaintance with this\ncrushing reply, they would use every endeavour to prevent its receiving\nthe _imprimatur_.[174] This was granted on 2nd February, 1623, by the\nsupreme authorities of the censorship, not only without hesitation, but\nthey spoke of the work in very favourable and flattering terms. The\nopinion\u2014which was drawn up by Father Nicolo Riccardi, a former pupil of\nGalileo\u2019s, who will often be mentioned in the sequel, then examiner, and\nafterwards even Magister Sacrii Palatii\u2014was as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cBy command of the Master of the Palace I have read the work,\n    \u2018Il Saggiatore,\u2019 and not only have I detected nothing in it\n    which is contrary to good morals, or deviates from the divine\n    truth of our religion, but I have found in it such beautiful\n    and manifold observations on natural philosophy, that I think\n    our age will not have to boast merely of having been the\n    inheritor of the labours of earlier philosophers, but also of\n    having been the discoverer of many secrets of nature which they\n    were not able to penetrate, thanks to the subtle and solid\n    researches of the author, whose contemporary I think myself\n    happy to be, for now the gold of truth is no longer weighed\n    wholesale and with the steelyard, but with the delicate scales\n    used for gold.\u201d[175]\n\nThe commencement of the printing was again delayed till the beginning\nof May,[176] and then proceeded but slowly, for it was not until 27th\nMay that Ciampoli sent the first two sheets of the \u201cSaggiatore\u201d to\nthe author, in order to prove to him the falseness of a report which\nhad meanwhile gained currency, that the printing of the work had been\nprohibited.[177]\n\nAn event then took place which seemed likely to produce a great change\nin Galileo\u2019s relations with Rome; indeed in the whole attitude of\necclesiastical authority towards the free progress of science. At all\nevents, as we shall see, Galileo flattered himself with this hope, and\nnot without some justification. On 8th July, 1623, Gregory XV. succumbed\nto age and infirmity in the second year of his pontificate. The man who\nat the age of fifty-five was now elevated to the papacy, not only did\nnot in the least resemble his immediate predecessors, but his tendencies\nwere in striking contrast to theirs. He was previously Cardinal Maffeo\nBarberini, and now ascended the papal throne as Urban VIII.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII._\n\n    His Character.\u2014Taste for Letters.\u2014Friendship for Galileo when\n    Cardinal.\u2014Letters to him.\u2014Verses in his honour.\u2014Publication of\n    \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d with Dedication to the Pope.\u2014Character of the\n    Work.\u2014The Pope\u2019s approval of it.\u2014Inconsistency with the assumed\n    Prohibition.\n\n\nScarcely any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation of his\ncharacter and aims in his own trenchant utterances as Urban VIII. When\nshown the marble monuments of his predecessors, he proudly observed that\nhe \u201cwould erect iron ones to himself.\u201d And the fortress of Castelfranco\non the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort\nUrbino), the new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the Vatican\nLibrary turned into an arsenal, the new manufactory of arms at Tivoli,\nand finally the costly harbour of Civita Vecchia, are so many silent\ntestimonies to the cherished desire of this _pontiff_ to transform the\neternal city into an inviolable symbol in stone of the temporal power\nof the Pope, and to accredit himself as a true medi\u00e6val vicegerent of\nChrist with the two-edged sword of the world. His athletic physique\nand iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of his ideas. In his\nself-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel with the Sacred College,\nsaying that he \u201cknew better than all the cardinals put together,\u201d and\nboldly set himself above all ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard\nof reason that \u201cthe sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the\ndecrees of a hundred dead ones.\u201d And finally, to leave his flock, the\nChristian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral humility, he\nrevoked the resolve of the Romans never again to erect a monument to a\nPope in his lifetime, saying, \u201csuch a resolution could not apply to a\nPope like himself.\u201d\n\nThe desire for unlimited temporal power rises like a column out of the\nlife of Urban VIII. Still it is not destitute of the embellishments of\nart, poetry, and love of learning. It is no fiction that this imperious\npontiff found pleasure in turning passages of the Old and New Testaments\ninto Horatian metre, and the song of Simeon into two sapphic strophes!\nHis numerous and often cordial letters to Galileo bear witness also of\nhis interest in science and its advocates; but if these scientific or\npoetic tastes clashed for a moment with the papal supremacy, the patron\nof art and science had to give place at once to the ecclesiastical ruler,\nwho shunned no means, secret or avowed, of making every other interest\nsubservient to his assumption of temporal and spiritual dominion.\n\nIt is simply a psychological consequence of these traits of character,\nthat arbitrary caprice, the twin brother of despotic power, often played\nan intolerable part in his treatment of those who came in contact with\nhim.[178]\n\nThis then was the character of the new head of the Catholic Church, on\nwhom Galileo placed great hopes for the progress of science in general,\nand the toleration of the Copernican system in particular, though they\nwere to result in bitter disappointment. Yet to all appearance he was\njustified in hailing this election, for not only was Urban VIII. a\nrefreshing contrast to his immediate predecessors, who cared little for\nart or science, but as Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, he had for years shown\nthe warmest friendship for and interest in Galileo.\n\nMany letters from this dignitary to Galileo which have come down to us\nbear witness to this.[179] Thus he wrote to him from Bologna on 5th June,\n1612: \u201cI have received your treatise on various scientific questions,\nwhich have been raised during my stay here, and shall read them with\ngreat pleasure, both to confirm myself in my opinion, _which agrees with\nyours_, and, with the rest of the world, to enjoy the fruits of your rare\nintellect.\u201d[180] The words, \u201cin order to confirm,\u201d etc., have led some\nnot very careful writers to conclude that, at all events when cardinal,\nUrban VIII. was a follower of Copernicus. But this is quite beside the\nmark. For the work in question was the one on floating bodies, with\nwhich, though the Peripatetics got the worst of it, neither Ptolemy or\nCopernicus had anything to do. A little more attention would have saved\nPhilarete Chasles and others from such erroneous statements.\n\nAnother letter to Galileo from the cardinal, 20th April, 1613, after the\npublication of his work on the solar spots, shows the interest he took in\nthe astronomer and his achievements. He writes:\u2014\n\n    \u201cYour printed letters to Welser have reached me, and are very\n    welcome. I shall not fail to read them with pleasure, again and\n    again, which they deserve. This is not a book which will be\n    allowed to stand idly among the rest; it is the only one which\n    can induce me to withdraw for a few hours from my official\n    duties to devote myself to its perusal, and to the observation\n    of the planets of which it treats, if the telescopes we have\n    here are fit for it. Meanwhile I thank you very much for your\n    remembrance of me, and beg you not to forget the high opinion\n    which I entertain for a mind so extraordinarily gifted as\n    yours.\u201d[181]\n\nBut the cardinal had not confined himself to these assurances of esteem\nand friendship in his letters, but had proved them by his actions in 1615\nand 1616, by honestly assisting to adjust Galileo\u2019s personal affairs\nwhen brought before the Inquisition. And Maffeo Barberini attributed the\nsuccess then achieved in no small degree to his own influence, and used\neven to relate with satisfaction when Pope, that he had at that time\nassisted Galileo out of his difficulties. But here we must remind those\nauthors who represent Barberini, when cardinal, as a Copernican, in order\nto paint his subsequent attitude as Pope in darker hues than history\nwarrants, that although in 1615 and 1616 he exerted himself for Galileo\npersonally, he in no way sought to avert the condemnation of the system.\n\nIn 1620, however, Barberini gave Galileo a really enthusiastic proof of\nhis esteem. He celebrated his discoveries in some elegant and spirited\nverses, in which astronomy was allied with morality, and he sent them to\nGalileo, under date of 28th August, with the following letter:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThe esteem which I always entertain for yourself and your\n    great merits has given occasion to the enclosed verses. If\n    not worthy of you, they will serve at any rate as a proof of\n    my affection, while I purpose to add lustre to my poetry by\n    your renowned name. Without wasting words, then, in further\n    apologies, which I leave to the confidence which I place in\n    you, I beg you to receive with favour this insignificant proof\n    of my great affection.\u201d[182]\n\nWhen this dignitary, who was generally regarded as a friend and protector\nof science, had ascended the papal chair, the \u201cAccad\u00e9mia dei Lincei\u201d\nhastened to dedicate \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d to his Holiness, in order to spoil\nthe sport of the author\u2019s enemies beforehand.\n\nTo the annoyance of Galileo\u2019s opponents and delight of his friends,\nby the end of October, 1623, \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d appeared. This work\nis a masterpiece of ingenuity; for the author not only dexterously\navoids falling into the snares laid for him by Father Grassi, but\nprepares signal defeats for him. Galileo takes his attack on him,\n\u201cThe Astronomical and Philosophical Scales,\u201d paragraph by paragraph,\nthrows light on each, and disputes or confutes it. And it is done in so\nsparkling and spirited a style, and the reasoning, pervaded by cutting\nsarcasm, is so conclusive, that \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d certainly deserves to be\ncalled a model of dialectic skill. Our limits preclude going further\ninto its scientific contents. For our purpose it will suffice to say\nthat Galileo took occasion in it to lash many errors in Grassi\u2019s work\nunmercifully, and thereby incurred the eternal hatred of the all powerful\nJesuit party. Thus it was to a great extent the purely scientific\n\u201cSaggiatore\u201d which subsequently conjured up the tragic element in\nGalileo\u2019s fate.\n\nAnother interesting point in the work is the way in which Galileo replies\nto Grassi\u2019s interpellations about the system of the universe. Admirable\nas is the ingenuity with which he performs this ticklish task, one\ncannot sympathise with the denial of his inmost convictions. He parries\nthe provocations of his adversary by demonstrating that the Ptolemaic\nand Copernican doctrines had nothing to do with the controversy about\ncomets, and that this question was only raised by \u201cSarsi\u201d in order to\nattack him (Galileo). He adds the ambiguous remark: \u201cAs to the Copernican\nhypothesis, I am fully convinced that if we Catholics had not to thank\nthe highest wisdom for having corrected our mistake and enlightened our\nblindness, we should never have been indebted for such a benefit to\nthe arguments and experiences of Tycho.\u201d[183] He then shows that the\nCopernican system, \u201cwhich, as a pious Catholic, he considers entirely\nerroneous and completely denies,\u201d perfectly agrees with the telescopic\ndiscoveries, which cannot be made to agree at all with the other systems.\nBut since, in spite of all this caution, a defence of the new system\nmight have been detected in these statements, Galileo hastens to the\nconciliatory conclusion, that since the Copernican theory is condemned\nby the Church, the Ptolemaic no longer tenable in the face of scientific\nresearch, while that of Tycho is inadequate, some other must be sought\nfor.\n\nNotwithstanding all this fencing, however, no one can fail to see in\n\u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d an underhand defence of the Copernican system, as is\nevident from the passages quoted. Such a vague discussion of it as this,\nhowever, did not compromise Galileo according to the decree of 5th March,\n1616; but \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d would have directly contravened the assumed\nabsolute injunction to silence on that system of 26th February, and\nGalileo would certainly not have ventured to write in this style if the\nCommissary-General of the Holy Office had, in 1616, solemnly forbidden\nhim to discuss the said doctrine in any way whatever (_quovis modo_).\nThis is another proof that this famous prohibition was not issued to\nGalileo in the form in which it occurs in the archives of 26th February.\n\n\u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d was, indeed, denounced to the Inquisition in 1625,\nby Galileo\u2019s opponents, as containing a concealed endorsement of the\nCopernican system, and a motion was made in the Congregation of the Holy\nOffice to prohibit it, or at any rate to have it corrected; but it was\nnot carried, and the party only prepared a defeat for themselves. In\nconsequence of the denunciation, a cardinal was charged to investigate\nthe matter, and to report upon it. He selected Father Guevara, General\nof the Theatines, to assist him, who, after careful examination of\nthe work in question, spoke in high praise of it, recommended it most\nwarmly to the cardinal, and even gave him a written statement, in which\nhe explained that the opinion of the earth\u2019s motion, even if it had\nbeen maintained, would not have appeared to him a reason for condemning\nit.[184] Even Urban VIII., who, we must suppose, was perfectly acquainted\nwith the proceedings of 1616, does not appear to have had any scruples\nabout \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d for he had it read aloud to him at table,\nimmediately after its publication,[185] and, as Galileo was assured,\nenjoyed it highly.[186]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_PAPAL FAVOUR._\n\n    Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his\n    Accession.\u2014Favourable Reception.\u2014Scientific discussions\n    with the Pope.\u2014Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th\n    March.\u2014Nicolo Riccardi.\u2014The Microscope.\u2014Galileo not the\n    Inventor.\u2014Urban\u2019s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.\u2014Galileo\u2019s\n    reply to Ingoli.\u2014Sanguine hopes.\u2014Grassi\u2019s hypocrisy.\u2014Spinola\u2019s\n    harangue against the Copernican System.\u2014Lothario Sarsi\u2019s reply\n    to \u201cIl Saggiatore.\u201d\u2014Galileo writes his \u201cDialogues.\u201d\n\n\nOn the accession of Urban VIII. Galileo formed a project of offering his\ncongratulations to the new Pope at Rome, and of using all his personal\ninfluence on the occasion to obtain toleration for the Copernican system,\nnow no longer opposed by the weighty influence of Cardinal Bellarmine,\nfor he had died two years before. But he first consulted his friends at\nRome, whether he would be well received, and especially by his Holiness.\nHe wrote among other things to Prince Cesi, on 9th October, 1623: \u201cI\nhave in my head plans of no small importance for the learned world, and\nperhaps can never hope for so wonderful a combination of circumstances\nto ensure their success, at least so far as I am able to conduce to\nit.\u201d[187] Cesi, who well understood Galileo\u2019s mode of speaking, confirmed\nhim in his intentions in his answer of 21st October, and urged him to\ncarry out his project speedily. \u201cIt is necessary for you to come, and\nyou will be very welcome to his Holiness,\u201d wrote the Prince.[188] Thomas\nRinuccini, brother of the Archbishop of Fermo, of whom Galileo made\nthe same inquiries, replied as commissioned by the new Pope\u2019s nephew,\nCardinal Francesco Barberini, that Urban VIII. would always be pleased\nto receive him, and told him that he had had a long audience of the Pope\nhimself three days ago, of which he reported to Galileo:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI swear to you that nothing pleased his Holiness so much\n    as the mention of your name. After I had been speaking of\n    you for some time, I told him that you, esteemed sir, had an\n    ardent desire to come and kiss his toe, if his Holiness would\n    permit it, to which the Pope replied that it would give him\n    great pleasure, if it were not inconvenient to you, and if the\n    journey would not be injurious to your health; for great men\n    like you must spare themselves, that they may live as long as\n    possible.\u201d[189]\n\nGalileo now resolved to go to Rome as soon as he could, but his uncertain\nhealth and the unprecedentedly bad weather, which had laid whole tracts\nof land under water, delayed his departure. His friends at Rome wrote\nmeanwhile again and again, encouraging him to set out, for the Pope,\nCardinal Barberini, and all his exalted patrons and numerous adherents\nwere longing for his presence;[190] and Mgr. Ciampoli assured him that\nhe \u201cwould find that his Holiness had a special personal affection for\nhim.\u201d[191]\n\nAt length, on the 1st April, Galileo was able to set out, although the\nstate of his health was still such that he could only perform the journey\nin a litter. He reached Aquasparta on 8th April, spent a fortnight with\nPrince Cesi in his fine place there, and discussed the affairs which\nlay so near his heart with his learned and influential friend. He did\nnot arrive in Rome till towards the end of April. The long-expected\nguest would have been sure of a distinguished reception, even without\nthe Grand Duchess Christine\u2019s letter[192] of recommendation to her son,\nCardinal de\u2019 Medici. Every one was aware of the favour which the new Pope\nentertained for the great astronomer. His old adherents, therefore,\nreceived him with greater delight than ever; and his enemies, for the\ntime, only ventured to clench their fists behind his back. His letters\nof this period express the great satisfaction which this flattering\nreception afforded him.[193] The prospect did not indeed look quite\nso favourable for his cause. Within six weeks he had had six long\naudiences of Urban VIII., had been most affably received by him, and\nhad found opportunity to lay before him all his arguments in defence\nof the Copernican system;[194] but he would not be convinced, and in\none of these discussions tried to turn the tables, and to convince the\nadvocate of the modern system of its incorrectness, in which he met with\nno success. And not only did Urban, in spite of his esteem for Galileo,\nturn a deaf ear to his arguments, but he would not grant his petition for\ntoleration of the new doctrine; on this point he was quite inexorable.\n\nIn vain did Galileo obtain the support of several of the cardinals who\nwere friendly to him, to gain permission from the supreme ruler of\nChristendom to teach the Copernican system _as true_. The Pope said to\nCardinal Hohenzollern, who, at Galileo\u2019s request, warmly took up the\nquestion, and had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great\ncaution was required in dealing with it, \u201cthat the Church neither had\ncondemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine as heretical, but only as\nrash.\u201d[195] This language was, as Henri Martin justly observes,[196] more\nthan wanting in precision; for in the first place the Church had never\ncondemned it at all, either as \u201cheretical\u201d or \u201crash,\u201d for the Qualifiers\nof the Holy Office never mean the \u201cChurch\u201d; and in the second place,\nthis commission had, in 1616, not condemned this opinion as \u201crash,\u201d but\n\u201cfoolish and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical,\u201d and this\nwithout the papal confirmation, so that no condemnation by the Church\ncould be said to exist.\n\nGalileo, finding that Urban, with all his friendly feeling towards\nhim personally, would never be persuaded to revoke the decree of 5th\nMarch, 1616, resolved to return home after a stay of six weeks at\nRome. There was little to be gained by remaining longer. As soon as\nthe attitude which Urban intended to assume towards the prohibited\ndoctrine became evident, Galileo\u2019s clerical adherents as far as possible\navoided expressing themselves on the subject, and the moderate party\namong the Romanists merely advised him to take care that his scientific\nspeculations did not contradict Holy Scripture.\n\nFather Nicolo Riccardi, who was much attached to Galileo and took a great\ninterest in his subsequent trial, was very ingenious in maintaining a\nsafe neutrality between the two systems. This good man, to whom from his\neloquence, or as others said because he was so fat, the King of Spain\nhad given the nickname of \u201cIl Padre Mostro,\u201d prudently agreed neither\nwith the Ptolemaic nor the Copernican system, but contented himself with\na view as peculiar as it was convenient. He saw no difficulty in the\nstars being moved, as we see them to be moved in the vault of heaven, by\nangels, a proceeding which demanded nothing on our part but wonder and\nadmiration.[197]\n\nMeanwhile Galileo\u2019s stay at Rome had been of essential service to\nscience, although in quite a different way from that which he intended\non his arrival. In 1622 a certain Jacob Kuppler, from Cologne, came\nto Rome with a microscope made by a relative of his, a Dutchman of\nthe name of Drebbel, in order to lay the new discovery, of which\nDrebbel claimed to be the inventor,[198] before the papal government.\nKuppler, however, died before he had an opportunity of exhibiting his\ninstrument to the court. Soon afterwards many other microscopes were\nsent to Rome, where, however, no one knew how to use the complicated\ninstrument. Galileo not only at once perceived its use, but greatly\nimproved it.[199] He afterwards sent many of these improved instruments\nto his friends, and before long his microscopes were in as great request\nas his telescopes.[200] In order to rectify a mistake that has been\noften repeated, that Galileo was the inventor of this instrument of\nsuch vast importance to science, we mention here that he never claimed\nthis merit himself; it was his eulogist, Viviani, who first claimed it\nfor him, and his thoughtless followers have repeated it. Galileo had\nindeed, as he mentions in his \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d discovered a method of\nusing the telescope to magnify objects as early as 1610, but it required\nan over-zealous biographer to claim Galileo as the inventor of the\nmicroscope from this. It was, however, he who, in 1624, brought the\nmicroscope to a degree of perfection on which for a long time no advance\nwas made.\n\nUrban VIII. heaped favours of all sorts on Galileo before his departure.\nHe promised him a pension for his son,[201] three days afterwards he sent\nhim a splendid picture, then again two medals\u2014one of silver, the other\nof gold, and quite a number of Agnus Dei[202]; poor consolation, it is\ntrue, for the disappointment of the great expectations with which he came\nto Rome. However, he did not return to Florence entirely without hope.\nAlthough there could be no longer any expectation of a public revocation\nof the famous decree, he was fain to believe that it would not be rigidly\nkept to, and thought that, supported by his papal patron, he should be\nable ingeniously to circumvent it. He was far from thinking that the\nfetters placed by the ecclesiastical power on the free course of the\nCopernican doctrine were removed, but he was of opinion that they were\nconsiderably loosened. And ensuing events, as well as all the news which\nGalileo received from his friends at Rome, were calculated to confirm the\nidea. The Pope, wishing to give a strong official proof of his favour,\nhad himself addressed a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which,\nto the no small chagrin of Galileo\u2019s enemies, he had not only done full\njustice to his services to science, but had laid special stress on his\nreligious sentiments. In this letter of 7th June, 1624, Urban first\nmentioned Galileo\u2019s great discoveries, \u201cthe fame of which will shine on\nearth so long as Jupiter and his satellites shine in heaven.\u201d And after\ndeclaring that he felt a true fatherly affection for so great a man, his\nHoliness continued:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWe have observed in him not only the literary distinction,\n    but also the love of religion and all the good qualities\n    worthy of the papal favour. When he came to congratulate us on\n    our accession, we embraced him affectionately, and listened\n    with pleasure to his learned demonstrations which add fresh\n    renown to Florentine eloquence. We desire that he should not\n    return to his native country without having received by our\n    generosity manifold proofs of our papal favour.... And that you\n    may fully understand to what extent he is dear to us, we wish\n    to give this brilliant testimony to his virtues and piety. We\n    are anxious to assure you that we shall thank you for all the\n    kindness that you can show him, by imitating or even surpassing\n    our fatherly generosity.\u201d[203]\n\nWith his hopes raised still higher by these unusually gracious words of\nhis papal patron, Galileo ventured, soon after his return from Rome, to\nreply to a refutation of the Copernican system, which in 1616 had been\naddressed to him as its most distinguished advocate in the then favourite\nform of a public letter, by a certain Ingoli, then a lawyer at Ravenna,\nand afterwards secretary of the Propaganda at Rome. Ingoli, though an\nadherent of the old system, was at the same time a sincere admirer of\nGalileo, so that his arguments against the theory of the double motion\nof the earth were characterised by great objectivity. After the events\nof 1616, Galileo had wisely refrained from answering it; in 1618,\nhowever, it had been done by another corypheus of science, Kepler, in his\n\u201cExtracts from the Astronomy of Copernicus,\u201d[204] in which he valiantly\ncombated Ingoli\u2019s objections. But the latter did not consider himself\nbeaten, and replied in a letter addressed to a chamberlain of Paul V.\n\nNow, after the lapse of eight years, Galileo thought that, protected by\nthe favour of Urban VIII., he might venture on a reply to Ingoli. But he\nagain took care in writing it not to come into collision with the decree\nof 5th March. With the assumed imperious prohibition of February, 1616,\nthis step of Galileo\u2019s can be no more made to agree than his sending\nhis treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, 1618, or\nthe publication of \u201cIl Saggiatore.\u201d Galileo undertakes, in the reply to\nIngoli, to defend the Copernican doctrine under a double pretext. On the\none hand, he says he wishes to show that, as he had given currency to\nthe new system of the universe before it was condemned by ecclesiastical\nauthority, he had not been the defender of an improbable or unreasonable\nidea; on the other hand, he wishes to prove to the Protestant Copernicans\nin Germany, that in Catholic Italy the views of their great countryman\nhad not been rejected from ignorance of their great probability, \u201cbut\nfrom reverence for Holy Scripture, as well as zeal for religion and\nour holy faith.\u201d After this ingenious introduction, and an assurance\nthat he had no intention whatever of representing the forbidden doctrine\n_as true_, he proceeds with equal politeness and vigour to refute all\nIngoli\u2019s objections.[205]\n\nIn spite of this diplomatic introduction, however, his friends at Rome,\nwell aware of the malice of his enemies, and having had but a few months\nbefore to defend \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d urgently dissuaded him from having this\nrather warm defence of a forbidden doctrine printed.[206] He gave heed to\ntheir warnings, and so this reply was only circulated in numerous copies\namong the learned world in Italy.\n\nMeanwhile the reports which Galileo was constantly receiving from his\nfriends at Rome tended to increase his confidence in the favourable\ninfluence which Urban\u2019s personal liking for him, and his taste for art\nand science, were likely to exercise on tolerance of the Copernican\nsystem. Thus his devoted adherent Guiducci, in several letters of 6th,\n13th and 24th September, 1624,[207] told him, that through the mediation\nof the Jesuit father, Tarquinio Galuzzi, he had had several interviews\nwith Galileo\u2019s former bitter adversary, Father Grassi, who had said that\nGalileo\u2019s theory that the phenomena of the tides were to be attributed to\nthe double motion of the earth \u201cwas very ingenious,\u201d and that when the\ntruth of these opinions was unanswerably established, the theologians\nwould bestir themselves to alter the interpretation of those passages of\nScripture which refer to the earth as being stationary! The guileless\nGuiducci added confidentially, quite taken with this Jesuit\u2019s amiability,\nthat he had not noticed any great aversion to the new system in Grassi,\nindeed he did not despair of estranging \u201cLothario Sarsi\u201d from Ptolemy.\n\nTwo months later, however, the same correspondent told Galileo that\na violent harangue had been delivered in the Jesuit College at\nRome against the adherents of the new doctrine, by Father Spinola,\nand some time afterwards he sent him a copy of it;[208] but as it\nattacked all those who did not profess to be followers of an antiquated\nPeripateticism, it made but little impression on Galileo, and that little\nwas entirely effaced when Mgr. Ciampoli wrote to him, on 28th December,\n1625, that he had acquainted the Pope with several passages of his reply\nto Ingoli, and that he had highly approved them.[209]\n\nBefore long Guiducci found out how bitterly he had been deceived in\nGrassi, and what a miserable game he had been playing with him as\nGalileo\u2019s friend. The memory of the favours by which the Pope had\ndistinguished the great Tuscan when at Rome had scarcely died away when\nGrassi threw aside the mask, and \u201cLothario Sarsi\u201d exhibited himself in\na new and revised edition, fulminating rage and venom against Galileo\nand his system. Notwithstanding the hypocritical moderation exhibited\nto Guiducci, he had not forgotten the mortifying defeat which \u201cIl\nSaggiatore\u201d had subjected him to, and, though circumstances had prevented\nhim from defending himself at once, he had by no means given up the\nintention of doing so. Two years having elapsed since Galileo\u2019s visit to\nRome, Grassi thought he might venture, under pretext of a reply to \u201cIl\nSaggiatore,\u201d to publish a new attack on its author. It was entitled, in\nbad Latin: \u201cRatio ponderum Libr\u00e6 et Simbell\u00e6, etc. Autore Lothario Sarsi\nSigensano.\u201d It contained many personal accusations against Galileo, and\nthe work altogether was characterized by a blind hatred, which repeatedly\nled the author into very foolish statements. For instance, Grassi tried\nincidentally to prove by very ingenious arguments that Galileo\u2019s physics\nwould lead to the denial of the real presence in the Lord\u2019s Supper![210]\nBut the enraged Jesuit went still further, and gave his readers pretty\nplainly to understand that since Galileo agreed on many questions of\nphysics with Epicurus, Telesius, and Cardanus, he must also approve their\ngodlessness, which strange assertion, however, he did not venture to\nsustain by any evidence.\n\nTo Galileo it seemed an encouraging sign of the times that it was\nconsidered desirable to seek a publisher for these accusations from a\nmember of the Roman College away from the papal residence. Grassi\u2019s\neffusions came out at Paris in 1626, and at Naples in 1627. The\nvery unfavourable reception of the work at Rome, except among a few\npettifogging enemies of Galileo, also tended to confirm him in his\nunfortunately mistaken opinion that Rome, under the pontificate of\nUrban VIII., would have little or nothing to object to in the rich\nharvest promised by the researches of Copernicus and Kepler, as well\nas by his own discoveries in the field of science. He thought he could\nreckon on papal tolerance, if only the defence of the new system were so\ncircumspectly handled as not to clash with the oft-mentioned decree of\nthe Congregation.\n\nOn this assumption he had resolved, immediately after his return from\nRome, to carry out the great work which he had long projected, and\nwhich, from the vast scientific knowledge it displayed, combined with a\nbrilliant style, was to meet with greater success and favour than had\never been attained by any scientific work. This was his \u201cDialogues on the\nTwo Principal Systems of the World.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n_PUBLICATION OF THE \u201cDIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE\nWORLD,\u201d AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_THE \u201cDIALOGUES\u201d ON THE TWO SYSTEMS._\n\n    Origin of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Their Popular Style.\u2014Significance\n    of the name Simplicius.\u2014Hypothetical treatment of the\n    Copernican System.\u2014Attitude of Rome towards Science.\u2014Thomas\n    Campanella.\u2014Urban VIII.\u2019s Duplicity.\u2014Galileo takes his MS.\n    to Rome.\u2014Riccardi\u2019s Corrections\u2014He gives the _Imprimatur_ on\n    certain Conditions.\u2014Galileo returns to Florence to complete the\n    Work.\n\n\nIt is a curious fact that the very work which was destined to be one of\nthe most powerful levers in obtaining general recognition for the true\norder of the universe originated in what we now know to be an erroneous\nidea. The famous book, \u201cDialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the\nWorld, the Ptolemaic and Copernican,\u201d[211] arose out of the treatise on\nthe tides which Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, at the suggestion of\nCardinal Orsini.[212] The important influence of these \u201cDialogues,\u201d both\non science and the subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss\nthem more particularly.\n\nThe book contains a great deal more than is promised by the title; for\nthe author included in it, in connection with the discussion of the two\nsystems, nearly all the results of his researches and discoveries in\nscience, extending over nearly fifty years. He also endeavoured to write\nin a style which should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but\nwhich would be both intelligible and attractive to every educated person;\nand in this he attained complete success, for he wished by means of\nthis book to extend as widely as possible a knowledge of the true order\nof nature. The form of the work was most happily chosen. The results\nof the researches of a lifetime were not given to the reader in a work\nredolent of the pedantry of the professor\u2019s chair, in which scientific\ndemonstrations drag on with wearisome monotony, but in the lively form\nof dialogue, which admitted of digressions and gave the author scope for\ndisplaying his seductive eloquence, his rare skill in dialectics and\nbiting sarcasm\u2014in short, for his peculiarly brilliant style.\n\nThe dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of whom adduce the\nscientific reasons for the double motion of the earth, while the third\nhonestly tries to defend the opinions of the Aristotelian school with\nall the scientific means at his disposal, and as these did not suffice,\nwith the arts of sophistry also. If he has but little success, the fault\nlies with the cause he advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders of the\nCopernican system the names of his two famous pupils and friends, neither\nof them then living, Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and Giovan Francesco\nSagredo, senator of Venice, thereby erecting a better monument to them\nthan he could have done in marble. Salviati is the special advocate of\nthe Copernican theory. Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman,\nintelligent, impartial, and desirous to learn. The advocate of the\nPtolemaic system was called briefly Simplicius, a pseudonym over which\nthe learned have often puzzled their heads. Did he give this name of\nsimpleton satirically to the champion of the ancient system, or was\nit merely an allusion to Simplicius, the commentator of Aristotle, as\nGalileo stated in his \u201cAvviso al lettore?\u201d\n\nThe selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous attitude\nwhich the author maintains in his \u201cDialogues.\u201d The sarcastic vein is\nobvious throughout, but is ingeniously concealed behind a mask intended\nto inspire confidence. Salviati conducts the arguments for the Copernican\ntheory with such convincing force and clearness, and annihilates so\ncompletely all the objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no\nunbiassed reader can fail to perceive the scientific superiority of the\nmodern theory to the old. And as Galileo conscientiously puts in the\nmouth of the Peripatetic philosopher every possible argument in favour of\nthe Aristotelian cause, as well as the objections to the other side, the\ntotal defeat of its advocate is a victory all the more brilliant for the\nimmortal Canon of Frauenburg.\n\nThe condition that the Copernican doctrine is only to be employed as a\nhypothesis is ostensibly fully complied with. If Salviati or Sagredo\ndemonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness of some Ptolemaic axiom, or\nadd an important stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to\ninterpolate some remark to weaken the impression. It must be confessed,\nhowever, that the agreement of this \u201chypothesis\u201d with all the phenomena\nof nature is as clear as daylight; and when, for instance, it is said\nthat the final decision in the present controversy rests neither with\nmathematics and physics, nor with philosophy and logic, but solely with\na \u201chigher insight,\u201d or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that he does\nnot in the least wish to maintain the truth of the Copernican doctrine,\nbut applies the word \u201cpossibly\u201d to it, or speaks of it as a \u201cfantasia\u201d\nor \u201cvanissima chimera,\u201d the reader cannot fail to perceive that these\nprudent reservations, which always occur at critical passages, are made\nwith the sole purpose of rendering the publication of the work possible.\n\nThe preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with the contents of\nthe \u201cDialogues,\u201d and owe their origin to the same motive. In the preface\nthe ecclesiastical prohibition of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is\nactually called a \u201csalutary edict\u201d (_un salutifero editto_)! The reader\nlearns further, to his no small astonishment, that the purpose of this\ncomprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion which has\ngained much credit abroad, that this adverse judgment of Rome was not the\nresult of mature deliberation, but merely of the hasty impulse of judges\nwho were not qualified to decide on these questions of natural science.\nGalileo asserts that his zeal did not permit him to keep silence in face\nof those audacious accusations, and that being in possession of all the\ncircumstances connected with that prudent decision, he felt constrained\nto bear witness to the truth before all the world. In bringing forward\nhere all his speculations on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show\nthat at Rome, where he had taken part in the consultations, they had been\nfully aware of all the arguments which could be adduced in favour of the\nnew doctrine.[213]\n\nOn the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which divergent\nand often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall enter in detail in its\nright place.\n\nThe conclusion of the work, which is divided into four \u201cdays,\u201d agrees\nno better with the rest of the contents than the preface. Although\nthe Copernicans everywhere gain the day, Galileo takes care, for very\ngood reasons, not to draw any conclusions from it on the fourth day.\nThe discussion ends apparently without coming to any result. Salviati\ndisclaims any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed to him\na \u201cchimera\u201d or a \u201cparadox.\u201d Addressing himself to Sagredo, he remarks\nthat Sagredo had often agreed with the opinions he had expressed, but\nhe thinks that this was often more from their originality than their\nconclusiveness. Having therefore thanked him for his \u201cpolite indulgence,\u201d\nhe apologises to Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, and\nassures him that he had no intention of offending him, but rather of\ninducing him to communicate his sublime ideas (!), which would certainly\nbe instructive to himself. In conclusion, they agree to meet again for a\nfinal discussion.[214]\n\nDid Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin thinks it probable,\n\u201cfor,\u201d he says, \u201cGalileo might at that period still have hoped that the\necclesiastical authorities would tolerate the new system during his\nlifetime, especially should some new discovery, as, for instance that\nof a small annual parallax of the fixed stars, afford certain proof\nin favour of his system. In that case Galileo would have been at last\nallowed to express his opinions without reserve.\u201d[215] We think it very\npossible, indeed probable, that Galileo did intend to add a fifth day\nat a favourable opportunity, in which he would have given the result of\nthe previous discussions; but he certainly was not waiting for \u201csome new\ndiscovery.\u201d It was his firm conviction that none was wanted, since his\ntelescopic observations amply proved the truth of his theory; neither\nwould the most convincing discovery have enabled him to express his\nviews without reserve, for they had by no means been condemned by the\nclergy from want of proof, but as \u201cfoolish and absurd philosophically and\nformally heretical.\u201d\n\nWe are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed the task of\ndefending the action of the curia against Galileo, maintain that the\necclesiastical party objected to the new system because its accordance\nwith the phenomena of nature had not been sufficiently proved.[216] But\neven were this granted, in view of the opposition raised on scientific\ngrounds and the rooted attachment to old opinions, every unbiassed person\nmust demur to the assumption that in the attitude of Rome towards the\nCopernican question the interests of science had any influence whatever.\nIt could not be an advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The\nsubsequent harsh proceedings against Galileo, when seventy years of age,\nthe hostile and peremptory attitude which Rome maintained towards him\nuntil his death, as well as towards the new system and all discussion\nof it, bear ample testimony, in our opinion, that the clergy had the\ninterests of science very little at heart, and that their sole desire\nwas to maintain the foundation-stone in its place on which the ingenious\nstructure of the Christian Catholic philosophy was raised; namely, the\ndoctrine that mother earth is the centre of the universe.\n\nIn December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated work on the\ntwo systems, except the introduction and a few finishing strokes.\nHe announced this to his friends in sundry letters,[217] and told\nPrince Cesi in two letters of 24th December, 1629, and 13th January,\n1630, that he intended coming to Rome to see to the printing of the\n\u201cDialogues.\u201d[218] The prince in his reply expressed entire approval of\nthe project, and encouraged Galileo to set out for Rome very soon, \u201cwhere\nhe would have no further trouble about the proofs than to give such\norders as he pleased.\u201d[219]\n\nAltogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably favourable for the\npublication of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d Galileo\u2019s devoted adherent, Castelli,\nhad been summoned to Rome in 1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great\nconsideration with the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest\nscion, Taddeo, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried friend\ninformed Galileo in a letter of 6th February,[220] that Father Riccardi,\nwho meanwhile had been raised to the office of chief censor of the press\n(Magister Sacri Palatii) had promised his ready assistance in Galileo\u2019s\naffairs. Castelli also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi\nwas concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of information\nin the same letter, however, was not quite so satisfactory; the personage\nsecond in importance at the papal court, Urban\u2019s brother, Cardinal\nAntonio Barberini, had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the\n\u201cDialogues,\u201d said nothing particular against the theory itself, so far\nas it was treated as a hypothesis, but had made the just remark that the\nearth, if it revolved round the sun, must be a star, an idea \u201cwhich was\ntoo far opposed to theological truth.\u201d Castelli appeased the cardinal\nby assuring him that Galileo had weighty arguments against this, and it\nis characteristic of the prevailing confusion of ideas on astronomical\nsubjects, that Barberini thought this possible, and that Castelli wrote\nto Galileo that he would not find it hard to steer clear of this rock.\nAnother instance of the trammels placed by religion on the advancement of\nscience.\n\nA second letter of Castelli\u2019s to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, contains\nfar more important and encouraging intelligence. According to this,\nThomas Campanella[221] had told the Pope at an audience, that a short\ntime before he had tried to convert some German nobles to the Catholic\nfaith, that he had found them favourably disposed, but when they heard of\nthe prohibition of the Copernican system, they were so indignant that he\ncould do nothing more with them. To this Urban replied: \u201cIt never was\nour intention; and if it had depended upon us, that decree would not have\nbeen passed.\u201d[222] These pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when\nrepeated to Galileo were well calculated to mislead him into infringing\nthe decree, in the spirit if not in the letter. They seem, however, to\nhave been at least as incorrect as the reply reported on the same subject\nto Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. Urban entirely forgot that he had not\ninterceded in any way in 1616 for the astronomical system threatened with\ncondemnation. And his conduct showed that he must have been a party to\nit. We need only call to mind how inexorable he had been on the question\nin 1624 to Galileo himself, and how sternly he afterwards allowed\nproceedings to be taken against him. Urban could only have acted in this\nway because he was convinced of the danger of the Copernican system to\nthe Christian philosophy. And he was far too shrewd not to perceive how\nthe modern views threatened a religion based upon ancient astronomy.\nHis remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing but smooth words, and\nthis is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But they could not fail\nto inspire Galileo with confidence that under Urban VIII. an ingenious\ncircumvention of the decree would give no offence at the Vatican. Besides\nthis, Castelli reported in the same letter that Mgr. Ciampoli, who\nwas also well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo\u2019s personal\nappearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty that might\noccur about publishing the \u201cDialogues.\u201d[223] Another letter from Castelli\nof 6th April urged him to set out for the papal residence, where, to\nquote the words of Ciampoli, \u201cthey were longing for him more than for a\nlady love.\u201d[224]\n\nFull of hope from these promising reports, on 3rd May Galileo arrived\nat Rome with the MS. of his \u201cDialogues.\u201d And events during his two\nmonths\u2019 stay seemed to realise his expectations. Soon after his arrival\nhe had a long audience of Urban VIII., and wrote on 18th May in high\nspirits to Florence:\u2014\u201cHis Holiness has begun to treat my affairs in a\nway that permits me to hope for a favourable result.\u201d[225] Riccardi\nalso met Galileo, as was to be expected from Castelli\u2019s letters, in\nthe most obliging way. Galileo showed him his work with the express\nrequest that he would examine it closely. The papal censor, however,\ncould not but perceive, with all his personal regard for Galileo, that\nin his \u201cDialogues\u201d he had by no means always kept, _de facto_, within\nthe limits of hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system, and in\nsome parts had far exceeded them. He decided, therefore, both as his\nofficial duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have the book\naltered to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections were to be\nmade, and both preface and conclusion were to be altered so as to agree\nwith them. Riccardi intrusted the first task to his official assistant,\nFather Rafael Visconti, who seemed well qualified for it in his capacity\nof professor of mathematics. He executed it with equal prudence and\ningenuity, improved many passages, and finally approved the work thus\nrevised.\n\nThe middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo was anxious to\nleave Rome on account of the heat. But Riccardi wished to look through\nthe \u201cDialogues\u201d once more after they had been revised by Visconti, before\ngiving them his _imprimatur_. Galileo represented that this second\nrevision was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi _to grant\npermission for the printing for Rome_.[226]\n\nOn the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning and end\nof the work in accordance with a plan of the supreme authorities of\nthe censorship. There were also still a few passages to be personally\ndiscussed with the author; and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome\nwithout danger to his health, which was already beginning to suffer,\nit was agreed that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile[227]\nhe would prepare the index and the dedication to the Grand Duke, and\nrevise the preface and conclusion. The main condition, however, under\nwhich Riccardi gave the book his _imprimatur_, was that after its final\ncompletion it should be submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of\ntime, he engaged to look it through sheet by sheet, and to send each at\nonce to press after inspection. As was usual in the case of members of\nthe Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, the work was to be published in the name of\nthis society, and the president, Prince Cesi, was to see it through the\npress.\n\nSo at the end of June[228] Galileo returned to Florence with his MS. and\nthe ecclesiastical _imprimatur_, which was granted _bona fide_ for Rome\nwithout reserve. There were indeed sundry conditions attached to it, to\nbe arranged privately; but they seemed to present so little difficulty,\nthat a few days after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli\nthat Signor Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly satisfied, and with\nhis affairs quite settled.[229]\n\nBut events were now at hand which long deferred Galileo\u2019s ardent desire\nto see the results of his unwearied researches and labours speedily given\nto the world, and which involved complications afterwards taken advantage\nof by his enemies to effect the ruin of their great opponent.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE \u201cDIALOGUES.\u201d_\n\n    Death of Prince Cesi.\u2014Dissolution of the Accad\u00e9mia dei\n    Lincei.\u2014Galileo advised to print at Florence.\u2014Difficulties and\n    Delays.\u2014His Impatience.\u2014Authorship of the Introduction.\u2014The\n    _Imprimatur_ granted for Florence.\u2014Absurd Accusation from the\n    style of the Type of the Introduction.\n\n\nSix weeks had scarcely elapsed after Galileo\u2019s return from Rome, when he\nreceived from his friend Francesco Stelluti the startling intelligence of\nthe death of his influential patron, Prince Cesi, who had been snatched\naway on 1st August by an attack of fever, after a few days\u2019 illness.[230]\nThis was a great blow to Galileo. It was not only that he lost in the\nprince an adherent, as influential as he was devoted, but his death just\nthen was of the greatest moment on account of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d There\nwas, perhaps, no one so well qualified to forward their publication as\nCesi, who, as president of the Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, seemed just the man\nfor it. The Academy, deprived of its strongest support, was gradually\ndissolved, after the hand was wanting which knew how to weave its\nmultitudinous threads into a firm and solid fabric.\n\nOnly the third week after the prince\u2019s death, Galileo felt the first\neffects of his heavy loss. In a letter of 24th August, Castelli urgently\nadvised him \u201cfor many most weighty reasons which he did not wish just\nthen to commit to paper, to have the work printed at Florence, and as\nsoon as possible.\u201d[231] Castelli added that he had inquired of Father\nVisconti whether this would present any difficulties, to which he had\nreplied that there was nothing to prevent, and he (Visconti) desired\nabove all things that the work should see the light. Galileo was the\nmore ready to fall in with this proposition because the plague, which\nhad made fearful ravages in North Italy, had now made its appearance in\nTuscany, and the precautionary measures taken by the neighbouring States\nmade all intercourse with them, and especially with the States of the\nChurch, very tedious and often impossible. Galileo therefore at once\ntook the needful steps for publishing his book at Florence. He applied\nto the Inquisitor-General of the city, to the Vicar-General, and to\nthe political authorities for permission, and it was granted without\nhesitation on 11th September, 1630.[232]\n\nGalileo next addressed himself to Riccardi; represented to him the great\nobstacles to publishing the work at Rome, and therefore asked permission\nto publish it at Florence. This was the beginning of troubles. The chief\nof the Roman censorship at first roundly refused, and when Galileo urged\nhis request again, he informed him through the Tuscan ambassador at the\npapal court, Francesco Niccolini, that the work must be sent in for final\nrevision as agreed upon, without which he should never have consented to\nthe publication. Castelli also wrote to Galileo on 21st September,[233]\nas commissioned by Riccardi, that as his coming himself to Rome, as\noriginally agreed upon, was rendered impossible by the outbreak of the\nplague, he had better send the manuscript to Riccardi, in order that he\nand Mgr. Ciampoli might make the final corrections. Castelli said further\nthat Riccardi was still very favourably disposed to Galileo, and that\nwhen his work had undergone this censorship, he could send it to press\nin Florence as well as anywhere else. After this Galileo made inquiries\nwhether, under present circumstances, a large packet of MSS. could be\nsent safely over the border. But he was everywhere met with a negative,\nand the remark that mere letters scarcely passed. In vain he applied\nto the postmaster, in vain he appealed to the Grand Ducal secretary of\nstate, Bali Cioli, for help; no means could be devised, under the strict\nclose of the frontiers, whereby the bulky work could be transmitted to\nRome with any prospect of safety.\n\nGreatly disconcerted, Galileo represented this state of things to\nRiccardi, and offered to send, at any rate, the preface and conclusion\nof the \u201cDialogues,\u201d that the ecclesiastical authorities might alter\nthese important parts of the work as seemed good to them, and said that\nhe was willing to designate the Copernican views mentioned in the book\nas mere chimeras, paralogisms, dreams, and fantasies, which, as is well\nknown, was afterwards actually done. As to the final revision, Galileo\nproposed that Riccardi should entrust it to some one at Florence.\nExceedingly annoyed by all these obstacles to an early publication of\nhis \u201cDialogues,\u201d Galileo at the same time asked the Tuscan ambassador,\nNiccolini, and his wife, who were well disposed towards him, to try and\ninduce Riccardi, whom he had often seen at their house, to accept this\nproposal. And what friends and colleagues of the chief censor and other\neminent men had failed in, was accomplished by the delicate mediation\nof a lady. On 19th October, 1630, Caterina Niccolini wrote to Galileo,\nthat the Padre Maestro, who was heartily devoted to him, would obligingly\nexcuse him from sending the whole work; let him send the introduction and\nconclusion, but on condition that the whole MS. should be revised before\npublication by some competent person at Florence, and by a theologian\nempowered by the ecclesiastical authorities, who must belong to the\nBenedictine order. Father Riccardi proposed Father Clement for the task.\nThe ambassador\u2019s wife added, however, commissioned by the Master of the\nPalace, that if this choice were not agreeable to Galileo, he might\nhimself propose a suitable person, who would be empowered to act.[234]\n\nAnd, in fact, Father Clement was not to Galileo\u2019s taste, and he proposed\nFather Hyacinthe Stephani, counsellor to the Holy Inquisition at\nFlorence, who was approved by Riccardi. This ecclesiastic revised the\nwork very thoroughly, and\u2014so at least Galileo reports[235]\u2014was moved\nto tears at many passages by the humility and reverent obedience which\nthe author had displayed. Having made some insignificant corrections,\nsuggested by extra caution, he gave the \u201cDialogues\u201d his approval, and\ndeclared that the famous author should be begged to publish them rather\nthan have obstacles placed in his way.\n\nRiccardi, notwithstanding his friendship for Galileo, seems to have been\nof a different opinion. The preface and conclusion had been sent, but\nhe had allowed weeks and months to pass without letting Galileo hear\nanything of them, to say nothing of sending them back. Castelli once\nwrote to Galileo that he had met Riccardi, and that he had told him that\nthese portions were now quite in order, and that he would send them to\nGalileo immediately; but months again went by without his fulfilling his\npromise.\n\nGalileo was in despair, and on 7th March, 1631, addressed a long letter\nto Bali Cioli, in which he first related the course of the negotiations\nrespecting the \u201cDialogues\u201d[236] in detail, and then asked for the\npowerful intervention of his Highness the Grand Duke, at Rome, to bring\nthe business to a conclusion, so that he (Galileo) might enjoy while he\nlived these fruits of the labours of over fifty years. Little did Galileo\nforesee what dire results these \u201cfruits\u201d were to bring. On 8th March\nhis request was granted, and he was informed that Niccolini, at Rome,\nwould be commissioned in the name of the Grand Duke to hasten as much\nas possible the termination of the negotiations with the Master of the\nPalace.[237]\n\nGalileo was all the more pleased with the success of this attempt,\nbecause meanwhile, weary of the long delays, he had begun to have his\n\u201cDialogues\u201d printed. This is confirmed by a letter from him of 20th March\nto his learned friend, Cesare Marsili, in which he says that six sheets\nof his work, which would consist of fifty or more, were finished.[238] We\nmay here remark that this proceeding of Galileo\u2019s has been the subject of\nsevere and unjustifiable blame on the part of some authors actuated by\nparty spirit. It seems the less called for, since Galileo made no secret\nof the printing having been begun, and he was not reproached for it at\nthe subsequent trial before the Inquisition. He quite supposed that after\nFather Stephani had inspected and sanctioned the work, all the conditions\nwere fulfilled. He therefore considered Riccardi\u2019s consent to the\npublication in Florence as certain. It never occurred to him that after\nall this he would raise new difficulties.\n\nA report of Niccolini\u2019s of 19th April to Cioli[239] confirmed him in this\nsupposition, and rejoiced his heart, as there seemed to be an immediate\nprospect of an end to these tiresome negotiations. Niccolini wrote that\nhe and his wife had a little while before had a long conversation with\nFather Riccardi about Galileo\u2019s affairs, which had resulted in his\npromising to grant permission for the publication, but with the addition\nof a declaration, for his own protection, which he was to forward to\nNiccolini in a few days. On the 28th Niccolini received it, but instead\nof its containing the promised _imprimatur_, it required new clauses\nand imposed fresh conditions on the publication. The chief censor\nindeed acknowledged, at the beginning of this letter, that he had given\nthe _imprimatur_ to the work, but stated that it was only with the\nreservation that the author should make some alterations as agreed upon,\nand send his book to Rome to be published, where with the help of Mgr.\nCiampoli all difficulties would have been overcome. \u201cFather Stephani,\u201d\ncontinues Riccardi, \u201chas no doubt subjected the book to a conscientious\nrevision; but as he was not acquainted with the Pope\u2019s views, he had no\npower to give any approval which would enable me to sanction the printing\nwithout incurring the danger both to him and myself that unpleasantnesses\nmight arise, if things were still found contrary to the proscriptions.\u201d\nRiccardi then asserts that he had no greater desire than to serve the\nGrand Duke, but he considers that it must be done so as to prevent any\ndanger to his Highness\u2019s reputation. And this would not be the case if\nhe gave his _imprimatur_, as it was not his province to give it for\nFlorence,[240] while it would be secured by his assuring himself that\neverything was in accordance with the commands of his Holiness. \u201cWhen I\nhave inspected the beginning and end of the work,\u201d he continued, \u201cI shall\neasily discover what I want to know, and will then give a certificate\nthat I have approved the whole work.\u201d\n\nThis sentence is, to say the least, very obscure. Riccardi had had these\ntwo portions of the work in his possession for months, and could long\nbefore have discovered from them what he wanted to know. Or had he not\ncondescended to look at them? This seems scarcely credible, and is in\ndirect opposition to what he said to Castelli months before. But a desire\nto spin the matter out is evident enough from this obscure sentence as\nwell as the rest of the letter. The Master of the Palace then proposed,\nif it were still impossible to forward the work, to send the ordinances\nof his Holiness to the Inquisitor at Florence, in order that he, after\nassuring himself that they had been complied with, might give the\n_imprimatur_. When Niccolini expressed his suspicions that these delays\nhad been caused by some intrigues of Galileo\u2019s enemies, Riccardi assured\nhim that no one but friends of the famous astronomer had spoken to him on\nthe subject, and that there really had been no cabal of any sort.[241]\n\nWhen Galileo received the news of this letter, which, contrary to all his\nexpectations, once more removed all hope of an end of these transactions\ninto the far future, he could not repress his ill humour. This is plain\nenough from a letter to Cioli of 3rd May. He begins with the tart remark:\n\u201cI have read what the Father Master of the Palace has written about the\npublication of the \u2018Dialogues,\u2019 and perceive, to my great vexation, that\nafter keeping me for nearly a year without coming to any conclusion, he\nmeans to pursue the same course with his Holiness, namely, to delay and\nspin out everything with empty words, which it is not easy to put up\nwith.\u201d He then bitterly complains that this letter of Riccardi\u2019s, instead\nof the promised _imprimatur_, contains nothing but fresh delays on the\npretext of conditions with which he had complied several months before,\nand in such a way as to prove to his Holiness and all who were willing to\nbe convinced that he had done so. \u201cAnd since I perceive,\u201d he continues\nbitterly, \u201cthat my affairs are afloat on a vast and boundless ocean,\nwhile the publication of my book is of the utmost importance to me, as\nI wish to see the fruits of my labours secured, I have been considering\nvarious ways by which it might be accomplished; but the authorization\nof his Holiness is indispensable for all.\u201d Galileo then says that in\norder to come to some result it might be of the highest importance some\nday, and that as soon as possible, to be summoned to appear before his\nHighness, with the Inquisitor and Father Stephani. He would like to\nshow them the work with all the corrections from the hands of Fathers\nRiccardi, Visconti, and Stephani, in order that, in the first place,\nthey might see how trivial the alterations were, and in the second,\nhow submissively and reverently he had designated all the evidence and\narguments which appeared to confirm an opinion not approved by the\nauthorities, as dreams, chimeras, and nullities. He concludes by saying:\n\u201cThose present will then perceive how true and just my doctrines are, and\nthat I have never entertained other views or opinions than those held by\nthe most venerable and holy fathers of the Church.\u201d[242]\n\nThe Grand Duke, Ferdinand II., however, with all his good will towards\nhis chief mathematician, was by no means inclined to interfere personally\nin the matter. He was desirous to use all the influence he possessed to\nbring about a decision at Rome, but it no more occurred to him now to\nexercise his rights as sovereign ruler, than it did afterwards when he\ngave up the infirm philosopher, at nearly seventy years of age, to the\nRoman tribunal. Galileo\u2019s suggestion, therefore, that the Grand Duke\nshould, to some extent, take the initiative was by no means acceptable,\nand was not followed. The summons to the Inquisitor and Father Stephani\nto appear with Galileo before the Grand Duke never came; Niccolini,\nhowever, made fresh efforts to bring about a solution of the question at\nRome. He went to the Master of the Palace and strongly represented to him\nthat through the dedication the Grand Duke himself was greatly interested\nin the publication of this work, at the head of which his exalted name\nwas placed.[243] Galileo finally succeeded, on 24th May, in inducing\nRiccardi to address a letter to Fra Clemente Egidio, the Inquisitor\nat Florence, in which he left it entirely to him, after examining the\nwork, to grant permission for the publication or not. The Master of the\nPalace again expressly mentioned in this letter that he had given the\nauthorization to print, but with the reservation that the necessary\nalterations should be made, and that after further revision it should\ngo to press in Rome, which conditions, however, had not been able to be\nfulfilled owing to the plague. The most interesting parts of the letter\nfor us are the hints which Riccardi gives the Inquisitor, in the course\nof it, as to the Pope\u2019s views on the subject, which are to guide him\nin sanctioning the work. Title as well as contents are only to relate\nto the mathematical aspects of the Copernican system, and so that \u201cthe\nabsolute truth of this view is never conceded, but made to appear as mere\nhypothesis, and without reference to Scripture.\u201d[244] \u201cIt must also be\nexplained,\u201d continued Riccardi, \u201cthat this work is only written to show\nthat all the arguments which can be adduced in favour of this view were\nwell known; that therefore the sentence of 1616 was not to be attributed\nto ignorance at Rome, and the beginning and end of the book must agree\nwith this statement, _which portions, properly arranged, I will send from\nhere_. By observance of these precautions the work will meet with no\nobstacles at Rome, and your reverence will be able to gratify the author,\nas well as to serve his Highness, who has shown so warm an interest in\nthe matter.\u201d[245] The Inquisitor replied on 31st May that he would act in\naccordance with the received instructions. He says further that he had\ngiven the MS. to Stephani, as a very eminent man and counsellor of the\nHoly Office, to be revised again, and this time in accordance with the\npapal instructions; also that Galileo consented most willingly to all the\ncorrections.[246]\n\nBut it would almost appear as if Riccardi had again repented of the\nsteps he had taken for the final settlement of the business, for weeks\nand months passed before Fra Clemente Egidio received the preface and\nconclusion. Not till Niccolini, at Galileo\u2019s request, had repeatedly\nurged him to send them, could he be induced to do so, after a further\ndelay of two months, and then, as the ambassador graphically describes\nthe situation, not \u201ctill formally pulled by the hair.\u201d[247] In the letter\nof 19th July, 1631, which accompanied them, Riccardi empowered the author\nto alter the style of the revised introduction as he pleased, and to\nornament it rhetorically, but so that the sense should remain the same.\nAs to the conclusion, he made the vague remark that it must be based upon\nthe same argument as the beginning.[248]\n\nThis seems to be the place to enter into the oft discussed question of\nthe real authorship of this remarkable introduction. Some, who rely upon\nthe letter of Riccardi\u2019s above quoted, attribute it to him; others even\nmaintain that it owes its origin to Urban VIII. himself; while, on the\nother hand, some are of opinion that Galileo had the chief share in it,\nthough assuredly only because he considered that it would secure his\nobject\u2014permission to publish the \u201cDialogues.\u201d All these opinions contain\nsome truth, contradictory as they seem; the truth lies between them.\nAfter careful examination of the documents relating to the subject, the\nhistorical facts appear to be as follows:\u2014\n\nWhen Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer of 1630, in\norder to submit his \u201cDialogues\u201d to the Roman censorship, an introduction\nwas sketched for him, which he was to complete at Florence, and on his\nintended return to Rome in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript\nbefore the Master of the Palace for final revision.[249] From the good\nunderstanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and\nGalileo, and from the contents of the introduction, we may conclude\nwith certainty that the sketch was made with Galileo\u2019s concurrence, or\neven that the main idea of it was his own. For on close examination we\nfind that the idea on which the whole introduction turns\u2014namely, that it\nwas by no means ignorance of the scientific arguments in favour of the\nCopernican system which led to the verdict of 1616\u2014is precisely the same\nas that stated by Galileo in his reply to Ingoli in 1624.[250] As we are\naware, since the plague prevented Galileo from returning to Florence\nor sending the whole MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to\nthe chief censor, who kept them for months, and did not return them to\nthe Inquisitor at Florence till 19th July. From Riccardi\u2019s letter we\nlearn two facts: firstly, that he had only concerned himself with the\nintroduction, leaving the conclusion to the author with the vague remark\nwe have quoted; and secondly, that Galileo\u2019s preface must have undergone\nconsiderable alterations by the chief censor, as he gave him leave to\nalter the style but not the sense. There can be no more doubt that the\nPope had some hand in the final composition of the preface than that it\nwas not penned by himself. Riccardi appeals in both his _ex officio_\nletters to the Inquisitor of 24th May and 19th July, to the \u201cviews\u201d and\ncommands of his Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst,\nthe Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo\u2019s affairs he\nhad always and in everything acted in concert with the papal secretary,\nMgr. Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly to special commands of\nUrban\u2019s.[251] Riccardi and Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion\nwith the loss of their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the\nsubject that, \u201cevidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet\nafforded by the fact of the witnesses being compelled to silence or\nsuffering punishment.\u201d[252]\n\nWith the arrival at last of the preface and conclusion, all the obstacles\nwhich had threatened the continuation of the printing of the \u201cDialogues\u201d\nwere removed. Stephani, who was charged by the Inquisitor at Florence to\nundertake the final censorship, was not the man to place difficulties\nin the way of the appearance of the book. He took great care, however,\nthat the Pope\u2019s commands as to the treatment of the Copernican doctrines\nshould, as far as the letter went, be strictly obeyed. The \u201cDialogues,\u201d\nfrom beginning to end, were opposed to the spirit both of the decree of\n5th March, 1616, and the papal ordinances, and there was great _naivet\u00e9_\nin the idea that the fine-spun preface and the various little diplomatic\narts which Galileo employed in the course of his work could disguise its\nreal meaning from the learned world. But that was not Stephani\u2019s affair;\nfor the MS. as a whole had been sanctioned by Father Visconti and had\nreceived the _imprimatur_ for Rome from the authorities of the censorship.\n\nThe delay about the preface, which, according to Riccardi\u2019s orders, was\nto be printed before the book, had two results out of which Galileo\u2019s\nenemies afterwards tried to make capital for their intrigues, and which\nmust therefore find mention here. The printing had been long in hand\nand was proceeding when the preface arrived. It was therefore necessary\nto print it on a separate sheet, which, according to Riccardi\u2019s orders,\nwas placed at the beginning of the book. For technical reasons, also,\nit was printed in different type from the rest of the work. From these\ntwo insignificant circumstances, Galileo was afterwards reproached with\nhaving by the outward form destroyed the inner connection between the\nintroduction and the book; and with having thus, to some extent, intended\nto indicate that it had nothing to do with the \u201cDialogues.\u201d[253] This was\nat the time when one party was setting every lever in motion to find\ncause for accusation against Galileo. The book itself, which appeared\nwith the double _imprimatur_ of the ecclesiastical censorship of Rome\nand Florence, afforded no legal ground for it. We will not, however,\nanticipate the historical course of these memorable events, but will\ncarefully follow them step by step.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE \u201cDIALOGUES\u201d AND THE JESUITS._\n\n    Publication of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Applause of Galileo\u2019s Friends\n    and the Learned World.\u2014The hostile Party.\u2014The Jesuits\n    as Leaders of Learning.\u2014Deprived of their Monopoly by\n    Galileo.\u2014They become his bitter Foes.\u2014Having the _Imprimatur_\n    for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly\n    safe.\u2014The Three Dolphins.\u2014Scheiner.\u2014Did \u201cSimplicius\u201d personate\n    the Pope?\u2014Conclusive Arguments against it.\u2014Effect of the\n    Accusation.\u2014Urban\u2019s Motives in instituting the Trial.\n\n\nBy the beginning of January, 1632, the printing of the \u201cDialogues\u201d was\nso far advanced, that on the 3rd Galileo had the satisfaction of telling\nhis friend, Cesare Marsili, at Bologna, that the work would be completed\nin ten or twelve days.[254] It did not, however, appear till February.\nOn the twenty-second of that month Galileo presented his book to the\nGrand Duke, to whom it was dedicated, and to the other members of the\nhouse of Medici.[255] On the twenty-third he sent at first thirty-two\ncopies to Cesare Marsili.[256] He had a large number of copies handsomely\nbound for his powerful friends and patrons at Rome, but they could not\nbe despatched immediately, since, owing to the continued prevalence of\nthe plague, they would have had to be purified in the quarantine houses,\nwhich might have injured them. It was not till May that two unbound\ncopies reached the papal residence in a roundabout way.[257] One of\nthese came into the hands of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who lent it\nto Father Castelli. In a letter to Galileo of 26th September, 1631,[258]\nhe had vowed that, after the appearance of the \u201cDialogues,\u201d he would\nread no other book but that and the Breviary; and in a letter of 29th\nMay,[259] he now expressed to the author his admiration of his work,\nwhich surpassed all his expectations. Shortly afterwards, Count Filippo\nMagalotti, who was on very friendly terms with Galileo, and from his\nrelationship to the Barberinis, was an influential personage, imported\neight copies from Florence, and, as charged by the author, presented\none copy each to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, to the Tuscan ambassador\nNiccolini, Father Riccardi, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor of the Holy\nOffice, and the Jesuit Father Leon Santi.[260]\n\nWhile these few copies were being eagerly devoured by impatient\nreaders at Rome, and passed rapidly from hand to hand, the book had\nbeen circulating in the rest of Italy in spite of the difficulties of\ncommunication. The applause which this famous work called forth from\nall men of independent minds was unexampled, and was only equalled\nby the bitterness and consternation it excited among the scientific\nconservatives. The learned world of Italy was divided into two hostile\ncamps: that of Ptolemy on the one side, that of Copernicus-Galileo on\nthe other. In the one were to be found progress, recognition of truth,\nfree independent thought and research; in the other blind worship of\nauthority and rigid adherence to the old school. And the latter party was\nfar the most numerous; it was also reinforced by those, of whom there\nwere a considerable number, who opposed the great reformer of science\nfrom interested motives. Besides this, the academic corporations were not\nfavourable to him, because he so dangerously revolutionised the modern\nmethods of teaching. The university of his native city seemed especially\nadverse to him. It had carried its animosity so far a few years before\nas to try to deprive him of the income which he enjoyed as its first\nmathematician by the Grand Ducal decree of 12th July, 1620, though,\nthanks to the energetic remonstrances of some influential patrons, the\nattempt was not successful.[261]\n\nIn addition to all this there is another consideration, which played a\nmuch larger part in the sad story of Galileo\u2019s trial than is generally\nsupposed. The clergy, and especially the Jesuits, had hitherto had\na monopoly of science. Everybody knows how assiduously it had been\ncultivated in ancient times in the cells and schools of the convents, and\nthat the ecclesiastical orders were the guardians and disseminators of\nlearning, while among both populace and nobles ignorance flourished like\na weed. When by the natural law of progress the nations of Europe emerged\nfrom the simplicity of childhood into the storm and stress period of\nyouth; when inventions,\u2014especially printing,\u2014and above all the discovery\nof America, began to spread knowledge and culture among the masses, it\nwas once more the servants of Rome who, justly estimating the spirit of\nthe age, placed themselves, so to speak, in the van of the intellectual\nmovement, that they might guide its course. The strongest evidence that\nthe Church was in exclusive possession of the highest mental powers\nis afforded by the Reformation; for the first stirrings of doubt, of\ncritical, philosophical speculation, arose in the bosoms of the Roman\nCatholic clergy. All the reformers, from Abelard and Arnold of Brescia,\nto Huss and Luther, sprang, without exception, from among them.\n\nJust at the juncture when the split into two creeds threatened to divide\nthe joints and marrow of the supreme power of the Church, the man\nappeared who most effectually contributed to restore it by founding a\nnew ecclesiastical order, with a very peculiar organisation. This was\nIgnatius Loyola. And if we seek for the explanation of the profound\ninfluence gained by this corporation in all parts of the world, and\nevery grade of society, we shall find it in four factors: the highest\nenthusiasm for the common cause; willing obedience to the central\nauthority\u2014the general for the time being; utter unscrupulousness as\nto means; and the supremacy which knowledge always confers. Far from\noccupying themselves, like the Protestant clergy, exclusively with\ntheology, there was no branch of knowledge that was not cultivated by\nthese champions of the Church; indeed they stood for a century at the\nsummit of learning.[262] And now, in the most recent epoch of that\nstigmatised century, Galileo the layman steps forth upon the arena of\nthe science of the heavens and the earth, and teaches the astonished\nworld truths before which the whole edifice of scholastic sophistry must\nfall to the ground. The Jesuit monopoly of the education of youth and of\nteaching altogether, became day by day more insecure, and the influence\nof the society was threatened in proportion. Was it to be wondered at\nthat the pious fathers strained every nerve in this final conflict for\nmastery, and in the attempt to prevent their world-wide mission of\neducating the people from being torn from their hands? This explains why\nthe reformers of science appeared just as dangerous to them as those of\nreligion; and they resisted the former, as they had done the latter, with\nall the resources at their command.\n\nGalileo, as one of the most advanced pioneers of science, was in the\nhighest degree inconvenient to the Jesuits; members of their order\nhad also repeatedly measured lances with the great man in scientific\ndiscussion\u2014Fathers Grassi and Scheiner, for instance\u2014with very\nunfortunate results, by no means calculated to make the Society of Jesus\nmore favourable to him. But now that his \u201cDialogues on the Two Systems of\nthe World\u201d had appeared, which, as every intelligent man must perceive,\nannihilated with its overwhelming mass of evidence the doctrines of the\nold school, and raised the modern system upon its ruins, the Jesuits set\nevery lever in motion, first to suppress this revolutionary book, and\nthen to compass the ruin of the author.\n\nRiccardi himself remarked to Count Magalotti at that time: \u201cThe Jesuits\nwill persecute Galileo with the utmost bitterness.\u201d[263]\n\nBesides, they found welcome allies in the overwhelming majority of the\nrest of the clergy. With them the theological considerations we have\nmentioned formed the motive. And the louder the applause with which\nthe independent scientific world greeted Galileo\u2019s latest remarkable\nwork, the fiercer burnt the flame of ecclesiastical hate. There can be\nno doubt that the full significance of the \u201cDialogues\u201d had not been\napprehended by any of the censors to whom they had been submitted. This\nis obvious from the fact that they seriously thought that the diplomatic\npreface, and a few phrases in the work itself, would suffice to make it\nappear innocuous. The commotion made by the book in the scientific and\ntheological world convinced them of their mistake.\n\nMeanwhile, Galileo in Florence gave himself up to unmixed delight at the\nbrilliant success of his \u201cDialogues.\u201d His learned friends and followers,\nsuch as Fra Bonaventura Cavalieri, Giovan Batista Baliani, Castelli,\nFra Fulgenzio Micanzio, Alfonzo Antonini, Campanella, and many others,\nexpressed to him in repeated letters, and often with genuine enthusiasm,\ntheir admiration of his splendid work,[264] not one of them had any\nforeboding that it was to bring its grey-headed author before the bar of\nthe Inquisition; and Galileo himself least of all. He expected violent\nopposition from his scientific opponents, and was prepared to engage in\nthe contest, but he considered himself quite secure from ecclesiastical\npersecution. Had not influential personages at Rome, Cesi, Mgr.\nCiampoli, Cesarini, and Castelli, been urging him for years to finish\nhis work, the tendency of which they well knew?[265] And when it was\nat last complete, it was these same friends, as well meaning as they\nwere influential, who had done their best to forward the publication.\nBesides, the book had appeared not only with the _imprimatur_ and under\nthe protection of the Inquisition at Florence, as prescribed, and with\nthe permission of the political authorities of the city, but Galileo\ncould show also the _imprimatur_ of the Pater Magister Sacri Palatii,\nwhich was not at all usual with works not printed at Rome.[266] He\nconsidered this a double security; Jesuitism, on the contrary, contrived\nafterwards to forge an indictment out of this unusual circumstance. Not\na word had appeared in print without having been read by the organs of\npapal scrutiny and having received the sanction of the Church. Might\nnot the author well look forward to the publication of his work with\nperfect tranquillity, and feel himself secure from any collision with the\necclesiastical authorities? Undoubtedly, if he had not made the solemn\npromise sixteen years before, \u201c_entirely to renounce the opinion that the\nsun is the centre of the universe, and is stationary, and that the earth\non the contrary moves, and neither to hold the same, nor in any way to\nteach or defend it in speaking or writing_.\u201d\n\nGalileo\u2019s proceedings at this time, as before and after, prove that\nhe was totally unaware of this assumed prohibition; anyhow, he pays\nnot the slightest attention to it. He sends copies of his work to the\nmost eminent persons at Rome; is delighted at its immense success;\narms himself for defence against the indignant Aristotelians, but\nnever thinks of a conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, which,\nsincere Catholic as he was, would have given him great pain apart\nfrom consequences. Even in June and July there were some ill-disposed\npersons, to the great annoyance of Riccardi, zealously trying to\ndiscover something in the book which could be formulated into an\naccusation against the author. The title page was adorned with a drawing\nof three dolphins, one with the tail of another in its mouth, with\nan insignificant motto above it.[267] This illustration was impugned\nbecause it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical approbation, and they\nexpatiated with more malice than wit upon the meaning of the mysterious\ndevice. It was a great relief to Riccardi\u2019s mind when it was pointed\nout by Count Magalotti that the same illustration appeared on almost\nall the works which issued from the press of Landini at Florence, where\nthe \u201cDialogues\u201d had been printed. This bait, then, had not taken, and\nGalileo\u2019s foes, worthy members of the Society of Jesus, had to find some\nother mode of ensnaring him. They now brought against him the twofold\nreproach, that the preface was printed in different type from the rest\nof the book, which was true; and that several weighty arguments which\nthe Pope had brought against the Copernican system in conversation with\nGalileo, though they might perhaps have been adduced in the MS., were\nnot in the printed book; this was a lie.[268] The truth however at\nonce came to light, for these \u201cweighty arguments\u201d were reduced to one,\nwhich was brought forward at the conclusion of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d But\nJesuitism, as we shall soon see, drew very singular conclusions from\nthe very natural circumstance that it was mentioned by Simplicius,\nthe defender of Ptolemy. The brethren of Father Grassi and Father\nScheiner,[269]\u2014the latter of whom had been for a few months at Rome, and\nwas greatly incensed at the \u201cDialogues,\u201d\u2014well knew how to lay hold of the\nPope by his most vulnerable points, his personal vanity and boundless\nambition, which made him feel every contradiction like an attack on his\nauthority. They were assiduous in confirming Urban in his opinion that\nthe Copernican doctrine endangered the dogmas of the Christian Catholic\nfaith in the highest degree, and now represented that the publication of\nthe \u201cDialogues\u201d was an incalculable injury to the Church. Besides this,\nthey persuaded the Pope that in his latest work Galileo had again, though\nthis time under concealment, entered into theological interpretations of\nHoly Scripture. They thus stigmatised him as a rebel against the papal\ndecrees, who had only obtained the licence from Riccardi by cunning\ndevices,\u2014a misrepresentation of the facts which, however, did not fail\nof its effect on Urban. This is conclusively proved by the despatches of\nNiccolini to Cioli of 5th and 11th September, 1632, of which we shall\nhave to speak more particularly.[270]\n\nThe crowning point of the intrigues of Galileo\u2019s foes was, however,\nthe cunning assertion that _by Simplicius no other was intended than\nUrban VIII. himself_; and they actually made him believe it. One would\nscarcely have thought this possible with this shrewd Pope, who was so\nwell-disposed towards Galileo; but it is beyond all question that it was\nso, and it put him in a boundless rage. It is decidedly indicated by\nhis attitude towards Galileo at the trial, especially at the beginning\nof it. At that time it put him in such ill humour to be spoken to about\nGalileo, that all who interested themselves for him agreed that it was\nbetter not to confer with Urban himself, but with Cardinal Barberini\nor the ministers.[271] The repeated attempts also made by Galileo and\nhis friends, even years afterwards, to convince Urban that it had never\nentered his head to insult him, and that it was a cunning slander, prove\nthat for a long time the Pope had taken Simplicius for his counterfeit.\n\nAs this manifest falsehood is revived by certain writers, even at this\ntime of day, as having been Galileo\u2019s real intention, it seems necessary\nto throw a little more light on it. The telling remarks which Alb\u00e8ri\nmakes on the subject might well suffice to show the absurdity of the\nimputation. He says that in the first place the attachment and devotion\nalways shown by Galileo towards Urban, to the sincerity of which numerous\nletters bear witness, exclude all idea of so perfidious an act; and in\nthe second, that it was Galileo\u2019s own interest to retain the goodwill\nof his powerful patron, and not frivolously to fritter it away.[272]\nBut we pass from this argument _ad absurdum_ to one _ad concretum_.\nSimplicius is said to be Urban VIII. But not appropriately, for he was\nno such headstrong Peripatetic as is represented by Simplicius; had he\nbeen so, it was impossible that in 1624 he should have enjoyed having \u201cIl\nSaggiatore\u201d read to him at table, that cutting satire on the Aristotelian\nwisdom in general, and the wisdom of Father Grassi in particular; and\nthat in the next year he should have been so much pleased with Galileo\u2019s\nreply to Ingoli.\n\nGalileo\u2019s enemies founded their assertion on the circumstance that at the\nend of the work Simplicius employs an argument which the Pope himself\nhad brought forward in repeated conversations in 1624 with Galileo,\nand on the weight of which he plumed himself not a little.[273] It\nconsisted of the reflection, undoubtedly more devout than scientific,\nthat God is all-powerful, so that all things are possible to Him, and\nthat therefore the tides could not be adduced as a _necessary_ proof\nof the double motion of the earth without limiting His omnipotence.\nThis pious objection is received by both Salviati and Sagredo with the\nutmost reverence. The former calls it heavenly and truly admirable, and\nthe latter thinks that it forms a fitting conclusion to the discussion,\nwhich opinion is acted upon.[274] The Pope\u2019s argument is thus by no means\nmade to appear ridiculous, but quite the contrary. As to the main point,\nSimplicius says expressly that \u201che had this argument from a very eminent\nand learned personage.\u201d If this means Urban VIII., it is plain that\nSimplicius cannot be Urban VIII. Q.E.D.[275]\n\nIn writing his \u201cDialogues,\u201d Galileo found himself in a difficult\nposition. As he brought forward all the arguments of the disciples of\nPtolemy against the new system, the vain pontiff would have been sorely\noffended if he had not introduced his. But who should mention it, if not\nSimplicius? Galileo might think that Urban would not perhaps like to see\nhis argument treated as the original suggestion of Simplicius, who did\nnot appear in a brilliant light, and devised the expedient of making him\nquote it, as that of \u201ca very eminent and learned personage,\u201d whereby he\nwould imagine that he had steered clear of every obstacle. But there was\nno security against calumny. How little idea Galileo could have had of\nmaking Urban ridiculous under the guise of Simplicius appears also from\nthe fact that in 1636, when seeking full pardon from the Pope, and when\nhe would be most anxious not to irritate him, he had just completed his\nfamous work, \u201cDialogues on the Modern Sciences,\u201d in which Simplicius\nagain plays the part of defender of the ancient principles; and that he\npublished it in 1638, just when, in view of the unfavourable answer of\n1636, he was begging at least for the favour of being nursed at Florence.\nThere can be no doubt that this suspicion materially contributed to\ninjure Galileo\u2019s cause. Pieralisi, indeed, makes an assertion as novel as\nit is untenable, that this bold slander was first heard of in 1635, and\ntherefore not until after the famous trial; and in his book, \u201cUrban VIII.\nand Gal. Galilei,\u201d[276] he devotes a chapter of forty-six pages to prove\nthis latest novelty. But all his arguments are upset by the following\npassage by Galileo in a letter to his friend Micanzio on 26th July, 1636:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI hear from Rome that his Eminence Cardinal Antonio Barberini\n    and the French ambassador have seen his Holiness and tried to\n    convince him that I never had the least idea of perpetrating\n    so sacrilegious an act as to make game of his Holiness, as my\n    malicious foes have persuaded him, and which was the primary\n    cause of all my troubles.\u201d[277]\n\nPieralisi is acquainted with these words, and seeks to weaken their\nindisputable force as evidence in a lengthy disquisition; but an\nimpartial critic only sees in this the apologist of Urban VIII., who\ndesires, at all hazards, to shield him from the suspicion of having\nbeen actuated in the matter of Galileo\u2019s trial by personal motives,\nwhich will always be recognised in history as a fact, though it is\nalso an exaggeration of some historians to maintain that it was the\nactual starting-point of the whole process, Urban having wished to\nrevenge himself for this assumed personal insult.[278] No, it had its\neffect, but was not the chief motive. The Jesuits had inspired the Pope\nwith the opinion that the \u201cDialogues\u201d were eminently dangerous to the\nChurch, more dangerous and abhorrent even than the writings of Luther\nand Calvin,[279] and he was highly incensed at the representation that\nGalileo had shamefully outwitted Father Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and\neven his Holiness himself, in obtaining the licence. Offended majesty,\nthe determination to guard the interests of the Church and the authority\nof the Bible, indignation at Galileo\u2019s assumed cunning, and annoyance\nat having been duped by it,\u2014these were the motives which impelled Urban\nVIII. to the deed called the institution of the trial of the Inquisition\nagainst Galileo.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616._\n\n    Symptoms of the Coming Storm.\u2014The Special Commission.\u2014Parade of\n    Forbearance.\u2014The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.\u2014Provisional\n    Prohibition of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Interview\n    with the Pope and unfavourable Reception.\u2014Report of it to\n    Cioli.\u2014Magalotti\u2019s Letters.\u2014Real Object of the Special\n    Commission to find a Pretext for the Trial.\u2014Its Discovery in\n    the Assumed Prohibition of 1616.\u2014Report of the Commission and\n    Charges against Galileo.\n\n\nAs we have seen, even during the months of June and July a ferment\nhad already begun in certain circles at Rome about the \u201cDialogues.\u201d\nComplaints and accusations were rife, the Pope was artfully worked\nupon\u2014these were the first portents of the heavy storm which was to\nbreak over Galileo\u2019s head. The Master of the Palace went about Rome in\ngreat fear for himself as well as for Galileo, and told his troubles to\nCount Magalotti.[280] At the beginning of August, Riccardi begged him\nto deliver up the eight copies of the \u201cDialogues\u201d which Magalotti had\nbrought to Rome, with the assurance that he would return them in ten days\nat the latest. It was not in Magalotti\u2019s power to grant this request, the\nbooks having, as we know, long ago passed into other hands.[281]\n\nA few days later the first thunderclap broke over Galileo. His publisher,\nLandini, at Florence received instructions, though for the time they were\nonly provisional, forbidding the further sale of the \u201cDialogues.\u201d The\nsucceeding scenes of the melancholy drama quickly followed. A special\ncommission was instituted at Rome by order of the Pope to investigate the\nwhole affair. Urban afterwards repeatedly stated with great emphasis to\nNiccolini, that it was out of regard for the Grand Duke, as well as for\nGalileo, that the very unusual measure was taken of not referring his\ncause directly to the Holy Office, but to a separate congregation.[282]\n\nIt is altogether a characteristic trait in all the proceedings of\nthe Roman curia against Galileo, that there was a parade of great\nconsideration for and forbearance towards him although strictly within\nthe limits of their real intentions. Even the favour ostensibly shown\nto him of referring his cause to a preliminary commission, composed of\ntheologians and mathematicians, was not so great in reality as it was\ntrumpeted to be at the Vatican. It was composed of persons by no means\nfavourable to him, and all the endeavours of Niccolini and other powerful\nfriends of Galileo to have influential persons who were friendly to him\nput on the commission, such as Fathers Castelli and Campanella, were\nfrustrated by the Pope. It occasioned a dangerous threat to be held\nover the undaunted Campanella, who energetically exerted himself in the\nmatter.[283]\n\nMeanwhile disquieting rumours had reached Florence, and Galileo\nrecognised with terror his dangerous position, though not to its full\nextent; this perhaps was as yet foreseen by no one. He appealed in full\nconfidence to his friendly young sovereign for protection, and found\na willing ear. On the 24th August a note on this business was sent to\nNiccolini, by order of the Grand Duke. It is clear that Ferdinand\u2019s\nefforts to assist Galileo were sincere from the circumstance that,\nalthough the letter was written in Cioli\u2019s name, Galileo was the author\nof it, as appears from the original draft in his handwriting in the\nPalatina Library at Florence.\n\nThe Grand Duke in this letter expresses his surprise that a book which\nhad been laid before the supreme authorities at Rome by the author\nin person, had been carefully read there again and again, as well as\nafterwards at Florence, and at the author\u2019s request had been altered as\nseemed good to the authorities, and had finally received the _imprimatur_\nboth there and here, should now after two years be considered suspicious\nand be prohibited. The astonishment of his Highness was the greater,\nbecause he knew that neither of the main opinions treated of were\npositively confirmed, but only the reasons for and against brought\ntogether; and this was done, as his Highness knew for certain, for the\nbenefit of the Holy Church itself, in order that on subjects which in\ntheir nature are difficult to understand, those with whom the decision\nrests may see, with less expenditure of time and trouble, on which side\nthe truth lies, and bring it into agreement with Holy Scripture. The\nGrand Duke was of opinion that this opposition must be directed rather\nagainst the person of the author than against his book, or this or that\nopinion, ancient or modern. In order, however, to convince himself of\nthe merits or misdemeanours of his servant, his Highness desires that\nthat which is granted in all disputes and before all tribunals should be\npermitted to him,\u2014to defend himself against his accusers. The Grand Duke\ntherefore urges that the accusations brought against the work, which have\ncaused it to be prohibited, may be sent here for the author, who stands\nfirmly on his innocence, to see them. He is so convinced that all this\noriginates in the calumnies of envious and malicious persecutors, that he\nhas offered his sovereign to leave the country and renounce his favour\nunless he can palpably prove how pious and sincere his sentiments on\nthese subjects have always been and still are. The letter concludes with\nthe commission, by the Grand Duke\u2019s orders, to take the necessary steps\ntowards the fulfilment of his most reasonable request.[284]\n\nOn the same day on which this despatch went off, a mandate was issued\nfrom Rome, which not only confirmed the provisional prohibition of the\n\u201cDialogues,\u201d but requested Landini to send all the copies in stock to\nRome. He replied that all the copies had been delivered to the purchasers.\n\nNiccolini on receipt of the Grand Duke\u2019s order hastened to carry it out,\nbut met with more bitter and obstinate opposition than either he or the\nTuscan court had expected. On 4th September, when the ambassador was\nabout to execute his mission at the Vatican, the Pope met him bluntly\nwith the words: \u201cYour Galileo has ventured to meddle with things that he\nought not, and with the most important and dangerous subjects which can\nbe stirred up in these days.\u201d Niccolini remarked that the philosopher\nhad not published his work without the approval of the Church, to which\nthe Pope angrily rejoined that Galileo and Ciampoli had deceived him,\nespecially Ciampoli, who had dared to tell him that Galileo would be\nentirely guided by the papal commands, and that it was all right; he\nhad not either seen or read the work, and this was all he had known\nabout it. His Holiness then made bitter complaints against the Master\nof the Palace, adding, however, that he had been deceived himself, for\nhe had been enticed by fair speeches to approve the book, and by more\nfair speeches to allow it to be printed at Florence, without at all\ncomplying with the form prescribed by the Inquisitor, and with the name\nof the Roman censor of the press, who had nothing whatever to do with\nworks which did not appear at Rome. Niccolini then ventured to say, that\nhe knew that a special congregation was appointed to try this affair,\nand as it might happen (as was the case) that there might be persons\non it unfavourable to Galileo, he humbly petitioned that Galileo might\nhave an opportunity of justifying himself. Urban answered curtly: \u201cIn\nthese affairs of the Holy Office, nothing is ever done but to pronounce\njudgment, and then summon to recant.\u201d \u201cDoes it not then appear to your\nHoliness,\u201d answered the ambassador, \u201cthat Galileo should be informed\nbeforehand of the objections to, scruples and criticisms respecting his\nbook, and of the points to which the Holy Office takes exception?\u201d \u201cThe\nHoly Office,\u201d replied the Pope, angrily, \u201cas I told you before, does\nnot proceed in that way, and does not take that course, nor does it\never give such information beforehand: it is not the custom. _Besides,\nGalileo knows well enough what the objections are, if he only chooses\nto know, because we have talked to him about it, and he has heard them\nall from ourself._\u201d Niccolini now urged that the work was dedicated to\nthe Grand Duke, and written by one of his most eminent servants; he\nhoped, therefore, that Galileo would be treated with indulgence. Urban\nreplied that he had even prohibited books dedicated to himself, and that\nin matters where it was a question of endangering religion, the Grand\nDuke also was bound, as a Christian prince, to co-operate in enforcing\npenalties. Niccolini had therefore better write plainly to his Highness\nthat he (the Pope) warned him not to meddle with things which he could\nnot come out of with honour. The undaunted ambassador now expressed\nhis conviction that his Holiness would not allow them to go so far as\nentirely to prohibit the book, which had received sanction, without at\nleast hearing Galileo. But Urban replied, _that this was the least that\ncould happen to him, and he had better take care that he was not summoned\nbefore the Holy Office_. The Pope then assured Niccolini that the\npreliminary commission was composed of theologians and men well versed in\nscience, all grave and pious men, who would weigh every particular, word\nfor word, for it was a question of the most godless business which could\never be discussed. He also charged the ambassador to tell his sovereign\nthat the doctrine was in the highest degree sinful; everything would be\nmaturely considered; his Highness had better not interfere, and must be\non his guard. In conclusion, the Pope not only imposed the strictest\nsecrecy on Niccolini as to what he had been told, but desired that the\nGrand Duke also should be charged to keep the secret, adding that he\n\u201chad acted with great consideration for Galileo, by having impressed\nupon him what he knew before, and by not referring his affairs, as he\nought to have done, to the Holy Office, but to a specially-appointed\ncongregation.\u201d Urban added the bitter remark that his behaviour towards\nGalileo had been far better than Galileo\u2019s towards him, for he had\ndeceived him.\n\nIn the narration of the whole of this interesting conversation between\nthe Pope and the Tuscan ambassador, we have given an almost literal\ntranslation of the Italian original of Niccolini\u2019s report of it to\nCioli, of 5th September, 1632.[285] Urban\u2019s last angry expression caused\nNiccolini to remark in his despatch that he found \u201cill will here too;\nand as for the Pope, he could not be more against poor Galileo than\nhe was.\u201d He then said that he had communicated Cioli\u2019s letter of 24th\nAugust to the Master of the Palace, and that Riccardi thought they would\nhardly condemn the \u201cDialogues\u201d altogether, but only alter some passages\nwhich really were objectionable. He had also offered, as far as he could\ndo so without incurring censure or transgressing rules, to inform the\nambassador at once of what was going to be done, adding however, that he\nmust be cautious, for he had already felt the lash in this matter. He\nthen complained that they had not acted in accordance with his letter\nto the Inquisitor, that the introduction was printed in different type\nfrom the rest of the work, and that the conclusion did not agree with the\nintroduction. Towards the end of the despatch, Niccolini says that \u201cit\nwill be better to act without any temper in this business, and rather to\nnegotiate with the ministers and Cardinal Barberini than with the Pope\nhimself, because he obstinately persists that it is a hopeless case, and\nif you dispute it, or threaten anything, or are defiant, his Holiness\nlets fall hard words and has no respect for anybody.\u201d\n\nThe conclusion of Cioli\u2019s reply of 19th September to this ominous\ndespatch of Niccolini\u2019s gives us an insight into the attitude which the\nTuscan Government, even at that time, desired to assume towards the papal\nchair in this unfortunate business. Cioli writes:\u2014\n\n    \u201cHis Highness has heard the letters of your excellency of the\n    4th and 5th, and by this affair of Signor Mariano and that of\n    Signor Galileo he was placed in so much difficulty that I do\n    not know how it will be. I know well that his Holiness will\n    never have to blame the ministers for giving bad advice.\u201d[286]\n\nTwo letters from Count Magalotti,[287] who was usually well informed,\narrived almost at the same time as this despatch. Both bear the date\nof 4th September; one is to Mario Guiducci, the other to Galileo, who\nin a letter of 23rd August, which is lost, had expressed his anxiety\nto Magalotti lest his work should be pronounced suspicious, and\nthe Copernican doctrine condemned as heretical by the authorities.\nMagalotti\u2019s news was, on the whole, reassuring. According to the opinions\nof persons who are generally present at the sittings of the Congregation\nof the Holy Office, he thought he could assure Galileo that it would\nnever go so far as for the Copernican system to be condemned by the\n_supreme authority_.[288] He thought, with Riccardi, that they would\nnot entirely prohibit the \u201cDialogues,\u201d but only correct them, so as to\nsustain the decree of 5th March, 1616. He also urgently advised, like\nNiccolini, that they should arm themselves with the utmost patience, and\nrather confer with Cardinal Barberini than with Urban, \u201cfor reasons\nwhich it is not necessary to discuss here.\u201d\n\nNeither Galileo himself, nor Magalotti, nor his other friends, ever\nthought of any personal danger to him; Niccolini and the Grand Duke might\nperhaps have been more sharp-sighted, but they were bound to silence. The\nthreads, however, of this great intrigue can only be disentangled by the\nlater historian, who has watched the progress of the whole melancholy\ndrama. Two facts are perfectly obvious to the attentive observer: the\nfirst, that at Rome, with the Pope at their head, they were determined\nto bring Galileo to trial before the Inquisition; and the second, that\nthey did not yet clearly see how it was to be done with some shadow of\njustice. To find this out was the real purpose of the appointment of\nthe special congregation, which Urban had boasted of as a signal act\nof forbearance towards Galileo. All the objections to the book were\nsubjects rather for accusation against the censors who had sanctioned it\nthan against the author, who had submitted it to them, altered it, and\nagain submitted the alterations. The responsibility for the publication\nreally rested not with the author, but with those who had sanctioned\nit. The Pope\u2019s accusation, however, that Galileo had coaxed them to\ngive the permission by fair speeches, was too indefinite to institute a\ntrial upon, and neither did the irregular quotation of the _imprimatur_\nof the Master of the Palace, nor the typographical difference between\nthe preface and the rest of the book offer sufficient ground for a\nlegal prosecution. In this difficult case, therefore, it required all\nthe Romish craft and legal sophistry at command, to find a pretext for\nbringing Galileo to trial before the Inquisition, which should, at any\nrate according to Romish principles, justify it in the eyes of the world.\n\nThe preliminary commission appointed by Urban VIII. was to perform this\nby no means easy task in brilliant style. It was certainly very much\nlightened by a discovery in the acts of the trial of Galileo in 1616,\nwhich was evidently a surprise to them\u2014the note of 26th February, 1616.\n\nWhat vast importance they at once thought fit to assign to this\nannotation without signature, we learn from a despatch of Niccolini\u2019s\nto Cioli, of 11th September.[289] Niccolini refers in it to a recent\ninterview with the Master of the Palace. He had again strongly advised\nthat nothing be done in a hurry, and that time must be gained, for the\nPope was firmly convinced that religion was really imperilled, for the\nwork did not treat of mathematics, but of Holy Scripture, religion, and\nfaith, and the orders respecting the printing of the work had not been\ncomplied with, for the opinion of the author was not merely indicated,\nbut expressed in many places in the most decided and unsuitable manner.\nAfter Riccardi had assured the ambassador that all efforts to get\nCampanella and Castelli put on the preliminary commission had failed,\nbut that he (Riccardi) would do his best to defend Galileo, both from\nfriendship for him, and to serve his Highness, and because he had given\nthe permission to print, he confided to Niccolini, under seal of profound\nsecrecy, as of the highest importance, \u201c_that it had been discovered in\nthe books of the Holy Office, that sixteen years ago, it having been\nheard that Galileo entertained that opinion, and disseminated it in\nFlorence, he was summoned to Rome, and forbidden by Cardinal Bellarmine,\nin the name of the Pope and the Holy Office, to hold that opinion, and\nthis alone is enough to ruin him entirely_.\u201d[290]\n\nThis communication of Riccardi\u2019s contains an obvious mis-statement,\nnamely, that any document had been found showing that Galileo had been\n_summoned_ to Rome in 1616. As we have seen,[291] all the historical\ndocuments show that he was not summoned, but that his visit was\nentirely voluntary. This verbal statement of Riccardi\u2019s, unsupported\nby any document, is of no value as evidence, compared with the letters\nof Galileo of that period, and his depositions afterwards before his\njudges, who were accurately informed of all the previous proceedings.\nThe second part of his communication to Niccolini is also far from\nprecise. He does indeed say that Galileo, in 1616, had in the name of\nthe Pope and the Holy Congregation been forbidden (_prohibito_), \u201cil\npoter tenere questo opinione,\u201d but according to the father\u2019s account this\nprohibition was communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine. Riccardi is\nevidently not precisely instructed, and does not know that, according to\nthe notification of 26th February, 1616, Galileo received an absolute\nprohibition before notary and witnesses.\n\nWe shall see the part this \u201cdocument\u201d was destined to play in the\nproceedings against Galileo.\n\nThe preliminary commission had just then, after about a month\u2019s session,\ncompleted its labours, and submitted to the Pope a long memorial on the\nGalileo affair. The document begins with a concise statement of the\ncourse of the negotiations about the publication of the \u201cDialogues,\u201d and\nthen the three following indictments were brought against the author:\u2014\n\n(1) Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the hypothetical\ntreatment by decidedly maintaining that the earth moves and the sun is\nstationary. (2) He has erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides\nto the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not\nexist; (3) and he has further been deceitfully silent about the command\nlaid upon him by the Holy Office, in the year 1616, which was as follows:\n\u201cTo relinquish altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre\nof the world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to\nhold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing,\notherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office,\nwhich injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey.\u201d\n\nThen follows the remark: \u201cIt must now be considered what proceedings\nare to be taken, both against the person of the author and against the\nprinted book.\u201d Yet the nature of these proceedings is not in any way\ndiscussed in the document, but it now refers more in detail in five\ncounts to the historical events, from the time when the \u201cDialogues\u201d\nwere submitted in Rome in 1630, to the publication in Florence in 1632.\nA sixth count considers that the following points in the \u201cDialogues\u201d\nthemselves must be laid to the author\u2019s account:\u2014\n\n    \u201c1. That without orders and without making any communication\n    about it, he put the _imprimatur_ of Rome on the title page.\n\n    \u201c2. That he had printed the preface in different type, and\n    rendered it useless by its separation from the rest of the\n    work; further, that he had put the saving clause at the end in\n    the mouth of a simpleton, and in a place where it is hard to\n    find; that it is but coolly received by the other interlocutor,\n    so that it is only cursorily touched upon, and not fully\n    discussed.\n\n    \u201c3. That he had very often in the work deviated from the\n    hypothesis, either by absolutely asserting that the earth\n    moves, and that the sun is stationary, or by representing\n    the arguments upon which these views rest as convincing and\n    necessarily true, or by making the contrary appear impossible.\n\n    \u201c4. That he had treated the subject as undecided, and as if he\n    were waiting for, though he does not expect, explanation.\n\n    \u201c5. That he contemns authors who are of a contrary opinion, and\n    those whom Holy Church chiefly employs.\n\n    \u201c6. That he perniciously asserts and sets forth that, in the\n    apprehension of geometrical matters, there is some equality\n    between the Divine and human mind.\n\n    \u201c7. That he had represented it to be an argument for the truth\n    that Ptolemaics go over to the Copernicans, but not _vice\n    versa_.\n\n    \u201c8. That he had erroneously ascribed the tides in the ocean to\n    the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do\n    not exist.\u201d\n\nThe special commission, however, by no means draws the conclusion from\nall these errors and failings, that the \u201cDialogues\u201d should be prohibited,\nbut says: \u201cAll these things could be corrected, if it was thought that\nthe book to which such favour should be shown were of any value.\u201d\n\nImmediately after this follows the seventh point, saying that \u201cthe author\nhad transgressed the mandate of the Holy Office of 1616, \u2018that he should\nrelinquish the said opinion,\u2019 etc.\u2014down to, \u2018and promised to obey.\u2019\u201d[292]\n\nHerewith the memorial of the preliminary commission concludes. It draws\nno conclusions from the facts adduced, but leaves that to his Holiness\nthe Pope. The last count confirms Galileo\u2019s chief offence: he is guilty\nof having disobeyed a special mandate of the ecclesiastical authorities,\nhas broken a solemn promise made before a notary and witnesses. Such a\ncrime, according to inquisitorial usage, demanded severe punishment. The\nperfidy of 1616 had signally triumphed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE SUMMONS TO ROME._\n\n    Niccolini\u2019s Attempt to avert the Trial.\u2014The Pope\u2019s\n    Parable.\u2014The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.\u2014His Grief\n    and Consternation.\u2014His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.\u2014Renewed\n    Order to come to Rome.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s fruitless Efforts\n    to save him.\u2014Medical Certificate that he was unfit to\n    Travel.\u2014Castelli\u2019s hopeful View of the Case.\u2014Threat to bring\n    him to Rome as a Prisoner.\u2014The Grand Duke advises him to\n    go.\u2014His Powerlessness to protect his Servant.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Mistake\n    in leaving Venice.\u2014Letter to Elia Diodati.\n\n\nOnly a few days later, on 15th September, the Pope informed the Tuscan\nambassador through one of his secretaries, Pietro Benessi, that he\n(Urban) hereby notified to him, out of esteem for his Highness the\nGrand Duke, that he could do no less than hand Galileo\u2019s affairs over\nto the Inquisition. At the same time the strictest secrecy as to this\ninformation was enjoined both on the Grand Duke and Niccolini, with a\nthreat that otherwise they would be proceeded against according to the\nstatutes of the Holy Office.[293]\n\nNiccolini was astounded by this news, and hastened, two days afterwards,\nto the Pope, to make a final attempt to avert the danger of a trial\nbefore the Inquisition for Galileo. But his urgent though respectful\nsolicitations met with no response. Urban indeed said that \u201cSignor\nGalileo was still his friend,\u2014but that opinion had been condemned sixteen\nyears before.\u201d He then expatiated, as he had so often done before, on the\ndanger of the doctrine, and ended by saying that Galileo\u2019s book was in\nthe highest degree pernicious. When Niccolini remarked that he thought\nthe \u201cDialogues\u201d might be altered to the prescribed form, instead of\nbeing prohibited altogether, the Pope answered affably by telling him a\nparable about Cardinal Alciato. A manuscript was submitted to him with\nthe request that, in order not to spoil the fair copy, he would mark the\nplaces requiring alteration with a little wax. The cardinal returned\nit without any marks at all. The author thanked him, and expressed his\nsatisfaction that he had not found anything to find fault with, as there\nwas not a single mark; but the cardinal replied that he had not used any\nwax, for if he had, he must have gone to a wax chandler\u2019s, and dipped the\nwhole work into melted wax in order to amend it thoroughly.[294] Thus had\nCardinal Alciato enlightened the unfortunate author in his day, and Urban\nenlightened Niccolini by quoting the story, to which he could only reply\nwith a forced smile, that nevertheless he \u201choped his Holiness would allow\nthem to treat Galileo\u2019s work as indulgently as possible.\u201d\n\nNiccolini\u2019s efforts had been in vain, and measures were laid with almost\nbreathless haste to deliver Galileo up to the Inquisition. This was\nfinally effected in the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of\n23rd September, 1632, when it was pronounced that he had transgressed the\nprohibition of 26th February, 1616, and concealed it when he obtained the\n_imprimatur_. In a document of the Vatican Manuscript we have the papal\nmandate which followed this sentence. It runs as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201c23rd September, 1632. His Holiness charges the Inquisitor at\n    Florence to inform Galileo, in the name of the Holy Office,\n    that he is to appear as soon as possible in the course of the\n    month of October, at Rome before the Commissary-General of the\n    Holy Office. He must also obtain a promise from Galileo to\n    obey this order, which the Inquisitor is to give him in the\n    presence of a notary and witnesses, but in such a way that\n    Galileo may know nothing about them, so that if he refuse and\n    do not promise to obey, they may, if necessary, bear witness to\n    it.\u201d[295]\n\nOn 1st October the Inquisitor carried out this order, which Galileo had\nto certify by the following attestation:\u2014\n\n    1st October, 1632, at Florence. \u201cI, Galileo Galilei, certify\n    that on the day indicated the order has been delivered to me by\n    the honourable Father Inquisitor of this city, by command of\n    the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office at Rome, to go to Rome\n    in the course of the present month, October, and to present\n    myself before the Father Commissary of the Holy Office, who\n    will inform me what I have to do. I will willingly obey the\n    order in the course of this month October. And in testimony\n    thereto I have written these presents.\u201d\n\n    \u201cI, Galileo Galilei wrote _manu propria_.\u201d[296]\n\nThis mandate to present himself before the Inquisition quite overwhelmed\nGalileo, as is evident from his correspondence of that period. He was\ntotally unprepared for it. Scarcely recovered from a severe complaint\nin the eyes, which had lasted several months and had prevented him from\nusing them, otherwise suffering in health, and at an advanced age, he was\nnow to go to Rome in the midst of the plague, which had broken out again\nwith increased virulence, and entailed strict quarantine regulations, in\norder to give account of himself before the dread tribunal. No wonder\nthat it dismayed him, and in spite of his promise \u201cwillingly to obey\nthe order in the course of this month, October,\u201d we find him making\nevery effort to get out of it. On 6th October he wrote in the greatest\nexcitement to Cioli, who was just then with the Grand Duke at Siena, that\nhe was in the greatest consternation at this summons to appear before the\nInquisition at Rome, and as he was well aware of the importance of the\nmatter, he would come to Siena to lay his schemes and plans before his\nHighness, for he had more than one in his head, and to consult him about\nthe steps to be taken.[297]\n\nThis journey, however, was not undertaken, as the court soon returned to\nFlorence.\n\nGalileo\u2019s deep depression is most evident from a long letter of 13th\nOctober addressed to a cardinal of the Barberini family,[298] which was\nto reach him through Niccolini. Galileo remarks first that he and his\nfriends had foreseen that his \u201cDialogues\u201d would find opponents, but he\nhad never imagined that the envious malice of some persons would go so\nfar as to persuade the authorities that they were not worthy to see the\nlight. He goes on to say that the summons before the Inquisition at Rome\nhad caused him the deepest grief, for he feared that such a proceeding,\nusual only in the case of serious delinquents, would turn the fruits of\nall his studies and labours during many years, which had lent no little\nrepute to his name with the learned all over the world, into aspersions\non his fair fame. \u201cThis vexes me so much,\u201d continues Galileo, \u201cthat\nit makes me curse the time devoted to these studies in which I strove\nand hoped to deviate somewhat from the beaten track generally pursued\nby learned men. I not only repent having given the world a portion of\nmy writings, but feel inclined to suppress those still in hand, and\nto give them to the flames, and thus satisfy the longing desire of my\nenemies to whom my ideas are so inconvenient.\u201d After this desperate cry\nfrom his oppressed soul, he expresses his conviction that, burdened\nwith seventy years and many bodily sufferings, increased by constant\nsleeplessness, he shall not reach the end of this tedious journey\u2014made\nmore arduous by unusual difficulties\u2014alive. Impelled by the instinct\nof self-preservation common to all men, he ventures to ask the good\noffices of the cardinal. He begs him to represent his pitiable condition\nto the wise fathers in Rome, not to release him from giving account of\nhimself, which he is most anxious to do, as he is sure that it will only\ntend to his advantage, but only that it may be made easier for him to\nobey. There are two ways of doing this. One is for him to write a minute\nand conscientious vindication of all that he has said, written, or done\nsince the day when the conflict began on Copernicus\u2019s book and his new\nsystem. He is certain that his sincerity and his pure, zealous, and\ndevout attachment to the holy Church and its supreme head, would be so\nobvious from this statement, that every one, if he were free from passion\nand party malice, must confess that he had behaved so piously and like\na good Catholic, that not even any of the fathers of the Church to whom\nthe epithet _holy_ is applied, could have shown more piety. He asserts\nand will indisputably prove, by all the works he has written on this\nsubject, that he has only entered into the controversy out of zeal for\nthe holy Church, with the intention of imparting to her servants that\nknowledge which one or other of them might wish to possess, and which\nhe had acquired by long study, as it treated of subjects difficult to\nunderstand and different from the learning generally cultivated. He will\nalso show how many opinions contained in the writings of the fathers of\nthe Church had been an encouragement to him, and how he was \u201cfinally\nconfirmed in his intention by hearing a short but holy and admirable\naddress, which came unexpectedly, like an echo of the Holy Spirit, from\nthe lips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity\nof life.\u201d But for the present he will not give this admirable saying, nor\nthe speaker\u2019s name, as it does not seem prudent or suitable to involve\nany one in the present affair which concerns him personally alone.[299]\nHaving in a touching manner begged that what he should write may be read,\nand declared that should his vindication not give satisfaction on all\npoints he will reply in detail to objections, he proceeds to the second\nmeans of averting the journey to Rome.\n\nHe only wishes that his adversaries would be as ready to commit to paper\nwhat they have perhaps verbally and _ad aures_ said against him, as he\nwas to defend himself in writing. If they will not accept his written\nvindication, and still insist upon a verbal one, there was an Inquisitor,\nNuncius, archbishop, and other high officials of the Church at Florence,\nwhose summons he was quite ready to obey. He says:\u2014\u201cIt appears to me\nthat things of much greater importance are decided by this tribunal.\nAnd it is not likely that under the keen and watchful eyes of those who\nexamined my book with full liberty to omit, to add, and to alter as\nseemed good to them, errors so weighty could escape that the authorities\nof this city should be incompetent to correct or punish them.\u201d This\npassage again clearly indicates that Galileo knew nothing whatever of the\nprohibition of 1616; that he had no idea of having broken his word to the\necclesiastical authorities. His only thought is of a revision of his work\nas the result of a conviction that it contained errors.[300]\n\nThe letter to the cardinal concludes with the following assurance:\u2014\u201cIf\nneither my great age, nor my many bodily infirmities, nor the deep\nconcern I feel, nor the wearisomeness of a journey under the present\nmost unfavourable circumstances, are considered sufficient reasons, by\nthis high and sacred tribunal, for granting a dispensation, or at least\na delay, I will undertake the journey, esteeming obedience more than\nlife.\u201d[301]\n\nNiccolini could not deliver this letter to the cardinal immediately, as\nhe was just then absent from Rome. He received however, at the same time,\nan urgent petition from another quarter. Michael Angelo the younger wrote\nto this dignitary, with whom he was on friendly terms, and entreated\nhim, out of consideration for the philosopher\u2019s age and infirmities, to\nuse his powerful influence to get his affairs settled at Florence.[302]\nBut there was a long delay before Galileo\u2019s letter was delivered to the\ncardinal. The ambassador wished first to consult Castelli, whom the\nGrand Duke had appointed as his counsel in Galileo\u2019s affairs, whether it\nwas to be delivered. Niccolini had doubts about these explanations, and\nexpressed them both in a letter to Galileo of 23rd October,[303] and in\na despatch to Cioli of the 24th.[304] In the former Niccolini says that\nhe thinks Galileo\u2019s letter is more calculated to incense them against\nhim than to pacify them, and the more he asserted that he could defend\nhis work the more it would be thought that it ought to be condemned. He\nthinks that a delay will be granted to the accused of his journey to\nRome, but that he will not be released from it on any consideration.\nNiccolini gave him the following friendly hint as to the attitude he\nshould maintain: \u201cIt appears desirable not to enter into any defence\nof things which the Congregation do not approve, but to submit and to\nrecant what the cardinals may desire; for to speak as a Christian, one\nmust not maintain anything, but what they, as the highest tribunal, that\ncannot err, please.\u201d[305] By such conduct the ambassador hopes for an\neasier solution of the question; not, however, without its coming to an\nactual trial, and Galileo may even be somewhat restricted in his personal\nliberty. He has great doubts about the passage referring to an \u201cadmirable\naddress, which came unexpectedly like an echo of the Holy Spirit from the\nlips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of\nlife,\u201d as he thinks that if the letter is handed to the cardinal, he will\nhand it to the Congregation, and the cardinals may request to be informed\nwho this personage is. At all events he would like first to consult\nCastelli, who was not just then at Rome.\n\nThe result of the consultation was, however, to deliver the letter to\nBarberini. Niccolini reported to Galileo on 6th November,[306] that he\nhad received it in a very friendly spirit, and was altogether very kindly\ndisposed towards him. The ambassador does not doubt that a delay will at\nany rate be granted, that Galileo may make the journey to Rome with less\ninconvenience.[307] We learn from a document in Gherardi\u2019s archives, that\nGalileo\u2019s petitions were discussed at a sitting of the Congregation of\nthe Holy Office held on 11th November, in presence of the Pope, but that\nhe would not grant them, and decreed that Galileo must obey, and ordered\nthat the Inquisitor at Florence should be written to that he might compel\nGalileo to come to Rome.[308]\n\nNiccolini, meanwhile, was unwearied in trying to get Galileo\u2019s proposals\naccepted. He went to Cardinal Ginetti, who was a member of the\nCongregation and in high favour with the Pope, and to Mgr. Boccabella,\nassessor of the Holy Office, and represented to both Galileo\u2019s great\nage, his failing health, and the peril to his life of a journey through\nquarantine and plague. But as both prelates, on whom as members of the\nHoly Office strict secrecy was imposed, \u201conly heard what he had to say,\nand answered nothing,\u201d Niccolini went to the Pope himself, to make one\nmore attempt. Having as he thought put the imperious pontiff into the\nbest of humours, by assuring him that the unfortunate _savant_ was\nready to render prompt obedience to every command, he laid all the\ncircumstances before him, and used all his eloquence to awaken pity for\nthe infirm old man. But in vain. Niccolini asked at last whether his\nHoliness had not seen Galileo\u2019s letter to Cardinal Barberini; and he\nsaid he had, but in spite of all that the journey to Rome could not be\ndispensed with. \u201cYour Holiness incurs the danger,\u201d replied Niccolini,\n\u201cconsidering Galileo\u2019s great age, of his being tried neither in Rome nor\nFlorence; for I assure your Holiness that he may die on the way under\nall these difficulties combined with so much anxiety.\u201d \u201cHe can come very\nslowly (_pian piano_) in a litter, with every comfort, but he really must\nbe tried here in person. May God forgive him for having been so deluded\nas to involve himself in these difficulties, from which we had relieved\nhim when we were cardinal.\u201d This was the Pope\u2019s stern reply to the\nambassador\u2019s urgent representations. And when he remarked that it was the\nsanction given to the book here which had occasioned all this, because\nfrom the signature, and the orders given to the Inquisitor at Florence,\nthey felt quite secure, and had proceeded without scruple, Urban broke\nout into violent complaints about the conduct of Father Riccardi and\nMgr. Ciampoli, and repeated that it was a question of a most pernicious\ndoctrine.[309]\n\nNiccolini, seeing that his efforts were in vain retired, but only to\nhasten to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and to entreat him to take up the\ncause of this persecuted man. But the cardinal made the pertinent excuse\nthat he could not act against the Pope\u2019s will, but he would procure all\npossible relaxation of the strict quarantine regulations for Galileo.\nNiccolini could not even obtain any definite promise of delay; and,\nmuch discomfited and with profound sorrow, he communicated the results\nof his sincere and unwearied endeavours in a letter to Galileo of 13th\nNovember, 1632, and a despatch to Cioli of the same date.[310]\n\nA few days after the receipt of this bad news, on 19th November, Galileo\nwas summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence for the second time, in\naccordance with the papal mandate of 11th November. He sent the following\nreport of it on 20th November, to Rome:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI have again summoned Galileo Galilei, who said that he was\n    perfectly willing to go to Rome, and only hesitated on account\n    of his advanced age, his evident ill health, the circumstance\n    that he was under medical treatment, and many other things. I\n    then charged him to comply with the order to go to Rome, and in\n    presence of a notary and two witnesses gave him a respite of\n    one month. He again appeared quite willing, but I do not know\n    whether he will go. I told him what I had received.\u201d[311]\n\nOn 9th December the papal orders were issued to the Inquisitor at\nFlorence, as soon as the month had elapsed, to _compel_ Galileo to set\nout for Rome.[312] Niccolini wrote to Cioli on the 11th[313] and to\nGalileo on the 12th[314] December, that he had again tried to procure a\nlonger respite, but had found it impossible. He moreover strongly advised\nGalileo to set out as soon as possible, and stay for at least twenty\ndays\u2019 quarantine somewhere within the territory of Siena, as this prompt\nobedience would be greatly to his advantage at Rome.\n\nBut the time appointed had nearly elapsed, and Galileo made no\npreparations for starting. Shortly before it terminated, in accordance\nwith his instructions, the Inquisitor at Florence sent his vicar to him.\nOn 18th December the Inquisitor sent the following report to Rome:\u2014\n\n    \u201cMy vicar found Galileo Galilei in bed. He told him he was\n    quite willing to come, but in these times he had no heart for\n    it; besides, just now, owing to having been attacked by sudden\n    illness, he was not in a condition to set out. He has sent me\n    the enclosed medical certificate. So that I have not failed to\n    do my duty.\u201d[315]\n\nThe medical certificate, dated 17th December, gives a clear idea of the\nphysical condition of this much-tried man, and we therefore give it in\nfull. It is signed by the doctors Vettorio de Rossi, Giovanni Ronconi,\nand Pietro Cervieri, and is as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWe, the undersigned physicians, certify that we have examined\n    Signor Galileo Galilei, and find that his pulse intermits\n    every three or four beats, from which we conclude that\n    his vital powers are affected, and at his great age much\n    weakened. To the above are to be ascribed frequent attacks of\n    giddiness, hypochondriacal melancholy, weakness of the stomach,\n    sleeplessness, and flying pains about the body, to which others\n    also can testify. We have also observed a serious hernia with\n    rupture of the peritoneum. All these symptoms are worthy of\n    notice, as under the least aggravation they might evidently\n    become dangerous to life.\u201d[316]\n\nBut much importance does not seem to have been attached to this\ncertificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, Niccolini\nexpressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical authorities at\nFlorence should receive extreme orders.[317] Castelli also, in a letter\nof 25th December, urged his old master to set out.[318] But in this,\nas in all his letters of this period, he shows that he had no idea of\nthe real moment to Galileo of the proceedings going on at Rome, and he\nwas altogether ill informed about the course things were taking.[319]\nProbably great reserve was maintained towards this faithful adherent\nof Galileo, who was also to be his advocate. Castelli always consoled\nhim with the assurance that, to the best of his belief, the final\ndecision of the holy tribunal would never be against him.[320] Even in\nhis letter of 25th December, Castelli says that he only considers it\nnecessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, because he entertained a\nsingular notion that Galileo\u2019s cunning persecutors desired nothing more\nthan that he should not come to Rome, in order that they might decry\nhim as an obstinate rebel; for he had not committed any crime against\nthe Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was not\nvery sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before by giving up the\noriginal of the celebrated letter of Galileo\u2019s to him of 21st December,\n1613.\n\nOn 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his despatch of\n26th December were realised. On that day a papal mandate was issued to\nthe Inquisitor of Florence, which said that neither his Holiness nor\nthe Holy Congregation could or would tolerate such evasions; it must\ntherefore be proved whether Galileo\u2019s state was really such that he\ncould not come to Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness and the\nHoly Congregation would therefore send a commissioner, with a physician,\nto Florence, who would visit Galileo and make a true and trustworthy\nreport on his condition, and if he were in a state to travel, bring him a\nprisoner in irons to Rome (_carceratum et ligatum cum ferris_). If, out\nof consideration for his health, or other danger to life, his coming must\nbe postponed, as soon as he had recovered and the danger was over, he was\nto be brought a prisoner in irons to Rome. The document concluded with\nthe remark that the papal commissioner and the physician would travel at\nGalileo\u2019s expense, because he had not obeyed the command to appear at\nRome when his condition would have permitted it.[321]\n\nTo avert these extreme measures from being actually carried out, the\nGrand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo on 11th January, 1633, that he\n(Ferdinand) took a sincere interest in the affair, and regretted that he\nwas unable to spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he\nshould obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might perform the\njourney more comfortably, he would place one of the grand ducal litters\nand a trustworthy guide at his disposal, and would also permit him to\nstay at the house of the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would,\nwithin a month, be released from Rome.[322]\n\nThe pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face of the\nRoman hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign does not dare to\nprotect the philosopher\u2014the greatest of whom Italy can boast\u2014from papal\npersecution, but was obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition.\nIt must not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then only\ntwenty-two, because he had been brought up in the strictest Romish\nfashion by the two Grand Duchesses and Cioli, acted otherwise than any\nother Italian ruler would have done in the like situation. Not one of\nthem would have had courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome,\nto put an energetic veto on a papal mandate like this. The Venetian\nRepublic, in which it had been established as an axiom by Paolo Sarpi\nthat \u201cthe power of rulers is derived immediately from God, and spiritual\nas well as temporal things are subject to it,\u201d was the only State of\nItaly which would have asserted its sovereignty and would never have\ndelivered up one of its officials to the Roman will. Galileo now\nsuffered a bitter penalty for his former thankless conduct to the Free\nState. The grand ducal orders had to be unconditionally obeyed; and as\nany further delay might entail the worst consequences, Galileo fixed 20th\nJanuary for his departure.[323]\n\nBefore setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he addressed a\nlong letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate in the parliament of\nParis, Elia Diodati (not to be confounded with Johannes Diodati, the\ntranslator of the Bible), who corresponded with the most learned men\nof the time, and took a lively interest in Galileo\u2019s studies and fate.\nSome parts of this letter show how well this strictly theistic, or\nmore properly, Roman Catholic _savant_, knew how to bring the modern\nastronomy into agreement with Christian philosophy and the Bible, and\nthis from real conviction, for this letter to his friend at Paris was\nquite private. From this we may conclude that even his celebrated\ndemonstrations to Father Castelli, of 21st December, 1613, and the still\nmore elaborate ones to the Grand Duchess Christine, 1615, were the result\nof honest conviction, and were not, as his enemies maintained, mere\ndialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and the Copernican theory\ninto agreement. We give these interesting passages of the letter as well\nas those which refer to Galileo\u2019s unhappy situation:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI am sorry that the two books of Morin[324] and Fromond[325]\n    did not reach me till six months after the publication\n    of my \u2018Dialogues,\u2019 because otherwise I should have had an\n    opportunity of saying much in praise of both, and of giving\n    some consideration to a few particular points, especially to\n    one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished\n    that Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and\n    that he should pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which\n    seem to me very uncertain) to establish its truth. It will\n    really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, he raises\n    astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human\n    sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great\n    curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of\n    much mind, I could have wished not to see him fall into, in my\n    opinion, a grave though wide-spread error; namely, in order\n    to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls scornful\n    jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still\n    more unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy\n    Scripture, and at length goes so far as to call those views\n    on these grounds nothing less than heretical. That such a\n    proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very\n    easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun,\n    the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order\n    and motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations\n    of God. If asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would\n    answer, the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is\n    therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the same\n    God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never uses words\n    which appear to be contrary to things as they really are, and\n    are only so used to accommodate them to the understandings of\n    rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would reply,\n    in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of\n    Scripture, which, in a hundred passages, says things for the\n    above reason, that if taken literally, are not only heresies,\n    but blasphemies, since they impute to God, anger, repentance,\n    forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, whether God,\n    in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding of the\n    multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which\n    is God\u2019s handmaid, and is not changeable at man\u2019s desire, has\n    not always observed, and does not still maintain, her usual\n    course in respect to motion, form, and relative positions of\n    the various parts of the universe\u2014I am certain that he would\n    answer, the moon has always been spherical, although for a\n    long period the people thought she was flat; he would say,\n    in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate\n    itself to the comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so,\n    why, in our search for knowledge of the various parts of the\n    universe, should we begin rather with the words than with the\n    works of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than\n    the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled that the\n    opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards,\n    demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should\n    prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have\n    brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary,\n    the works are indisputably proved to vary from the literal\n    meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures the second\n    place, no detriment to Scripture results from this. Since, in\n    order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, even to God\n    Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose that\n    in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such\n    strict laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations,\n    out of regard for the ignorance of the masses, which are\n    opposed to fact? If it be true that the earth moves and the sun\n    stands still, it is no detriment to Holy Scripture, since it\n    speaks of things as they appear to the people.\n\n    \u201cMany years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning,\n    I wrote a letter[326] of some length, in which, supported by\n    the authorities of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed\n    what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in\n    questions of natural science, and I proposed that in future\n    it should not be brought into them. As soon as I am in less\n    trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less trouble,\n    because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been\n    summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited\n    the circulation of my \u2018Dialogues.\u2019 I hear from well-informed\n    parties that the Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest\n    quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the\n    Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin. And all this\n    although, in order to obtain the _imprimatur_, I went in person\n    to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of the\n    Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding,\n    and omitting, and even after he had given it the _imprimatur_,\n    ordered that it should be examined again at Florence. The\n    reviser here, finding nothing else to alter, in order to show\n    that he had gone through it carefully, contented himself\n    with substituting some words for others, as, for instance,\n    in several places, \u2018Universum\u2019 for \u2018Nature,\u2019 \u2018quality\u2019 for\n    \u2018attribute,\u2019 \u2018sublime spirit\u2019 for \u2018divine spirit,\u2019 excusing\n    himself to me for it by saying that he foresaw that I should\n    have to do with fierce foes and bitter persecutors, as has\n    _indeed come to pass_.\u201d[327]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_GALILEO\u2019S ARRIVAL AT ROME._\n\n    Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.\u2014Goes to the Tuscan\n    Embassy.\u2014No Notice at first taken of his Coming.\u2014Visits\n    of Serristori.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Hopefulness.\u2014His Letter to\n    Bocchineri.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Audience of the Pope.\u2014Efforts of the\n    Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo\u2019s behalf.\u2014Notice that\n    he must appear before the Holy Office.\u2014His Dejection at the\n    News.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Advice not to defend himself.\n\n\nOn 20th January this palsied old man set out, borne in a litter, on his\narduous journey to Rome.[328] Near Ponte a Centino, on the frontiers of\nthe States of the Church, in the unhealthy flats of the vale of Paglia,\nhe had to submit to a long quarantine, which, in spite of Niccolini\u2019s\nrepeated efforts, had only been shortened two days.[329] He could not\nresume his journey for twenty days, but arrived at length, on 13th\nFebruary, at Rome, in good preservation, and alighted at the hotel of\nthe Tuscan Embassy, where he was most kindly received by Niccolini.\nOn the next day Niccolini informed Cioli that \u201cSignor Galilei arrived\nyesterday evening in good health at this house.\u201d He mentioned further\nthat Galileo had already called on Mgr. Boccabella, not as an official\npersonage, as he had resigned his office of assessor to the Holy Office\na fortnight ago, but as a friend who showed great interest in his fate,\nand to take his advice as to the conduct to be observed. Galileo had\nalready introduced himself to the new assessor. Niccolini concluded his\ndespatch by saying that to-morrow, in the course of the forenoon, he\nwould introduce Galileo to Cardinal Barberini, and ask him for his kind\nmediation with his Holiness, and beg him, in consideration of Galileo\u2019s\nage, his reputation, and his ready obedience, to allow him to remain at\nthe hotel of the embassy, and not to be taken to the Holy Office.[330]\n\nThis request was tacitly granted for the time being, and afterwards\nofficially confirmed. To Galileo\u2019s great surprise, no notice was\ntaken of his presence at Rome for some time. Cardinal Barberini gave\nhim a friendly hint, not at all _ex officio_, that he had better\nkeep very retired in the ambassador\u2019s house, not receive any one,\nnor be seen out of doors, as any other conduct might very likely be\nto his disadvantage.[331] Of course the _savant_, anxious as he was,\nscrupulously obeyed the admonition, and awaited the event in quiet\nretirement, though with great impatience. Not the smallest instruction\nwas issued by the Holy Office; to all appearance it did not in the least\nconcern itself about the arrival of the accused which it had urged so\nstrenuously. But it was appearance only. For only two days after he\ncame, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor to the Holy Office (the same to whom\na year before Count Magalotti had, by Galileo\u2019s wish, presented one of\nthe eight copies of the \u201cDialogues\u201d brought to Rome), called several\ntimes on Galileo, but always said expressly that his visits were entirely\nof a private character and originated with himself. But as he always\ndiscussed Galileo\u2019s cause very particularly, there is good reason to\nthink that he was acting under orders from the Holy Office, who wanted to\ndiscover the present sentiments and defensive arguments of the dreaded\ndialectician, that they might act accordingly at the trial,\u2014a measure\nentirely in accordance with the traditional practice of the Holy Office.\nNiccolini put this construction on the Monsignore\u2019s visits,[332] but\nnot so Galileo. For although he perceived that in all probability\nthey were \u201capproved or suggested by the Holy Congregation,\u201d he was far\nfrom thinking any evil, and was delighted that this officer of the\nInquisition, his \u201cold friend and patron,\u201d should \u201ccleverly give him an\nopportunity of saying something by way of expressing and confirming his\nsincere devotedness to the holy Church and her ministers,\u201d and that he\napparently listened to it all with great approval.[333] He thinks this\ncourse pursued by the Inquisition \u201cmay be taken to indicate the beginning\nof mild and kindly treatment, very different from the threatened\ncords, chains, and dungeons;\u201d[334] indeed, while he assumes that these\nconferences are held at the instigation of the authorities, \u201cand for the\npurpose of gaining some general information,\u201d he thankfully acknowledges\n\u201cthat in this case they could not proceed in any way more favourable to\nhim or less likely to make a sensation.\u201d[335] However, in the sequel\nhe was to discover soon enough, that they cared nothing whatever about\nmaking a sensation at Rome, and that even in this respect they did not\nspare him in the least.\n\nAt this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. On 19th\nFebruary he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance the threatened storm\nhad passed, so that he did not allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck\nwere inevitable, and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the\nmore so as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy billows he\u2014\n\n    \u201cWas taking his course with modest sail set.\u201d[336]\n\nThis instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo \u201cto be always\nready to obey and to submit to whatever was ordered, for this was the\nonly way to allay the irritation of one who was so incensed, and who\ntreated this affair as a personal one.\u201d[337] It is clear that by this\npersonal persecutor no other than Urban VIII. can be intended.\n\nThe same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo\u2019s of\n25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special\nattention. It is as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWe\u201d (Niccolini and Galileo) \u201chear at last that the many and\n    serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have\n    been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty\n    in getting rid when the grounds of my defence have been heard,\n    which are meanwhile being gradually brought, in the best way\n    that circumstances allow, to the knowledge of some of the\n    higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen freely\n    to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So\n    that in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for.\u201d[338]\n\nA despatch of Niccolini\u2019s to Cioli of two days later explains the nature\nof this chief accusation:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAlthough I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo\u2019s\n    affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can\n    learn the main difficulty consists in this\u2014that these gentlemen\n    maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to discuss the\n    question nor to converse about it. He says, on the contrary,\n    that those were not the terms of the injunction, which were\n    that _that doctrine was not to be held nor defended_. He\n    considers that he has the means of justifying himself, because\n    it does not at all appear from his book that he does hold\n    or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as a settled\n    question, as he merely adduces the reasons _hinc hinde_. The\n    other points appear to be of less importance and easier to get\n    over.\u201d[339]\n\nIt is in the highest degree significant that Galileo\u2014as is evident from\nNiccolini\u2019s report above\u2014from the first decidedly denies ever having\nreceived an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory _in any way_;\nall that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is,\n_all that he knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and\nwith the decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616_. Accordingly he\ndoes not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of the authorities,\nand thinks that he can prove it even from the book itself.\n\nOn 27th February the Tuscan ambassador had a long audience of the Pope,\nofficially announced Galileo\u2019s arrival at Rome, and expressed the hope\nthat as he had shown his readiness to submit to the papal judgment\nand the enlightened opinion of the Congregation, the Pope would now\nbe convinced of his devout reverence for spiritual things, especially\nin reference to the matter in hand. The Pope found it convenient not\nto take any notice of this indirect question, and replied that he had\nshown Galileo a special and unusual favour in allowing him to stay at\nNiccolini\u2019s house instead of in the buildings of the Holy Office; and he\nhad only done so because he was a distinguished official of the Grand\nDuke\u2019s, and it was out of respect for his Highness that he had granted\nthis exceptional favour to his subject. In order to enhance its value,\nUrban also told the ambassador that even a noble of the house of Gonzaga,\na relative of Ferdinand\u2019s, had not only been placed in a litter and\nbrought under escort to Rome by command of the Holy Office, but had been\ntaken at once to the Castle and kept there for a long time, until the\ntrial was ended. Niccolini hastened to acknowledge the greatness of the\nfavour, expressed his warmest thanks for it, and ventured to plead that\nin consideration of Galileo\u2019s age and infirm health the Pope would order\nthat the trial should come on soon, so that he might return home as soon\nas possible. Urban replied that the proceedings of the Holy Office were\ngenerally rather tedious, and he really did not know whether so speedy\na termination could be looked for, as they were still engaged with the\npreliminaries of the trial. Urban had by this time become warm, and went\noff into complaints of Ciampoli and the rest of his evil counsellors;\nhe also remarked that although Galileo had expressly stated in his\n\u201cDialogues\u201d that he would only discuss the question of the double motion\nof the earth hypothetically, he had, in adducing the arguments for it,\nspoken of it as settled, and as if he agreed with it. In conclusion the\nPope said: _Moreover, Galileo had acted contrary to the injunction given\nhim in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine in the name of the Holy Congregation._\nNiccolini mentioned in defence of Galileo all that he had told him about\nthis accusation, but the Pope adhered obstinately to his opinion. The\nambassador came away from this audience with the scant consolation that,\nat all events, Urban\u2019s personal embitterment against Galileo was a little\nappeased.[340] We may remark here that what the Pope said about the\nproceeding of 26th February, 1616, is just as inaccurate as Riccardi\u2019s\ncommunication to Niccolini was at that time.[341]\n\nBoth Niccolini and the Grand Duke were unwearied in their good offices\nfor Galileo. The former urgently commended his case to Cardinal Antonio\nBarberini, senr., who said he was exceedingly well disposed to Galileo,\nand regarded him as a very eminent man; but added that it was a dangerous\nquestion, which might easily introduce some fantastic religious doctrines\ninto the world, and especially at Florence, where men\u2019s wits were so\nsubtle and over curious.[342] The Grand Duke, at Galileo\u2019s request, sent\nletters of introduction to the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio (the\nwell-known statesman and historian), who, as Niccolini had learnt, were\nmembers of the Congregation.[343] Ferdinand also thanked the Pope, in an\nofficial letter through Cioli to Niccolini, for the favour of allowing\nGalileo to stay at the embassy, ending with a request that the business\nmight be concluded as soon as possible.[344]\n\nWhen Niccolini delivered this message to Urban on 13th March, he told\nhim that it would be absolutely necessary to summon Galileo to the Holy\nOffice as soon as the trial came on, because it was the usage and it\ncould not be departed from. Niccolini again urged Galileo\u2019s health, his\nage, and willingness to submit to any penalties; but Urban replied,\n\u201cIt would not do to act otherwise. May God forgive Galileo for having\nintruded into these matters concerning new doctrines and Holy Scripture,\nwhen it is best to keep to universally recognised opinions. May God help\nCiampoli, also, about these new notions, as he seemed to have a leaning\ntowards them, and to be inclined to the modern philosophy.\u201d The Pope\nthen expressed his regret at having to \u201csubject Galileo, who had been\nhis friend, with whom he had often held confidential intercourse, and\neaten at the same table, to these annoyances; but it was in the interests\nof religion and faith.\u201d Niccolini remarked, that when Galileo was heard\nhe would be able, without difficulty, to give satisfactory explanations\nof everything; to which Urban replied: \u201cHe would be heard when the time\ncame; but there was one argument which had never been answered, namely,\nthat God was omnipotent, and therefore everything was possible to Him;\nbut if so, why should we impose any necessity upon Him?\u201d This was, as we\nknow, the argument brought forward by Urban in his intimate conversation\nwith Galileo in 1624, and which at the end of the \u201cDialogues\u201d he had\nput into the mouth of Simplicius as originating \u201cwith a very exalted\nand learned personage.\u201d Niccolini prudently replied that he did not\nunderstand these matters, but he had heard it said of Galileo that he\ndid not hold the doctrine of the earth\u2019s double motion as true, but said\nthat it could not be denied that as God could have created the world in\na thousand ways, He could have created it in this way. Urban replied\nwith some irritation: \u201cIt is not for man to impose necessity upon God.\u201d\nNiccolini, who saw that the Pope was getting angry, tried to pacify\nhim by saying that Galileo was here on purpose to obey and to recant\neverything which could be injurious to religion. He then adroitly turned\nthe subject, and returned to the request that his Holiness would have\ncompassion on Galileo, and allow him to remain at the embassy. Urban\nmerely replied that he would have special apartments assigned to Galileo,\nthe best and most comfortable in the Holy Office. With this Niccolini had\nto be content.\n\nIn concluding the despatch of 13th March to Cioli, in which he reported\nthis interview, he says:\u2014[345]\n\n    \u201cWhen I returned home I told Galileo in part the conversation\n    with his Holiness, but not for the present, that it was\n    intended to summon him to the Holy Office, because I am\n    convinced that this news would cause him the deepest concern,\n    and he would be in the greatest anxiety till the time came. I\n    have thought all the more that it was best to act thus, as no\n    further particulars are as yet known about his citation; for\n    the Pope told me in reference to the speedy settlement of the\n    business, that he did not know what hope there was of it, but\n    that all that was possible would be done.\u201d\n\nMeanwhile, Ferdinand II., in spite of the increasingly unpromising\naspect of affairs, continued indefatigably to sustain his ambassador\u2019s\nefforts. The latter and Galileo, in two letters of 19th March,[346]\nasked the Grand Duke to send letters of recommendation to the eight\nother cardinals who composed the Holy Congregation, like those he had\nsent to their eminences Bentivoglio and Scaglia, lest they should feel\nthemselves slighted, and the Grand Duke readily granted the request.[347]\nThe prelates, however, received these letters with mixed feelings, and\nexcused themselves from answering them, as it was forbidden them in their\ncapacity as members of the Holy Office; some even hesitated to receive\nthe letters at all, and it was not till Niccolini pointed out that\nCardinal Barberini and others had received them, that they consented to\ndo so.[348] These letters had evidently produced the happiest effect\nwith the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio. They united, as Niccolini\nreported on the 19th to Cioli, in protecting Galileo. Scaglia even read\nthe celebrated \u201cDialogues,\u201d and, which was more to the purpose, that he\nmight, with the help of Castelli,[349] who was best qualified to do it,\nexplain the offending passages in a conciliatory spirit.\n\nAll this time Galileo, as is evident from his letters, was entertaining\nthe most confident hopes of the favourable issue of his cause, and\nthe final triumph of truth over falsehood.[350] Neither he nor his\nindefatigable friends, Niccolini and Castelli, could, it is true, learn\nanything definite about the actual state of the trial. The members of\nthe Congregation, who alone could have given any information, kept the\nsecrets of the Inquisition very close, as indeed they were bound to do\nunder the heaviest penalties. The month of March passed by before the\nHoly Tribunal opened any direct official intercourse with Galileo. April\nwas now come, and with it the storm which had been so long gathering\nburst over his head.\n\nOn the 7th, Niccolini went to Cardinal Barberini by his desire, and was\ninformed on behalf of the Pope and the Congregation, that, in order to\ndecide Galileo\u2019s cause, they could not avoid citing him to appear before\nthe Holy Office, and as it was not known whether it could be all settled\nin the course of two hours, perhaps it would be necessary to detain him\nthere. Barberini continued that \u201cout of respect for the house in which\nGalileo had been staying, and for Niccolini as grand ducal ambassador,\nand in consideration of the good understanding which had always existed\nbetween his Highness and the papal chair, especially in matters relating\nto the Inquisition, they had not failed to inform him (Niccolini) of\nthis beforehand, not to be wanting in respect for a prince so zealous\nfor religion.\u201d After Niccolini had warmly thanked the cardinal for the\nattention shown by the Pope and the Congregation to the Grand Duke, and\nto himself as his ambassador, he pleaded Galileo\u2019s age and health,\u2014he\nhad again been suffering severely from a fresh attack of the gout,\u2014and\nfinally the deep grief he would feel, and earnestly begged that his\neminence would consider whether it would not be possible to permit him\nto return every evening to sleep at the embassy. As to secrecy, the\nstrictest silence might be enjoined on him under threat of the severest\npenalties. But the prelate was not of opinion that such a permission was\nto be expected; he proffered, however, every comfort for Galileo that\ncould be desired, and said that he would neither, as was customary with\naccused persons, be treated as a prisoner, nor be placed in a secret\nprison; he would have good rooms, and perhaps even the doors would not be\nlocked.\n\nNiccolini reported this notification to Cioli on 9th April,[351] and\nadded the following interesting information:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThis morning I also conversed with his Holiness on the\n    subject, after having expressed my thanks for the communication\n    made to me; the Pope again gave vent to his displeasure that\n    Galileo should have discussed this subject, which appears to\n    him to be very serious, and of great moment to religion. Signor\n    Galileo thinks, nevertheless, that he can defend his statements\n    on good grounds; but I have warned him to refrain from doing\n    so, in order not to prolong the proceedings, and to submit\n    to what shall be prescribed to him to believe respecting the\n    motion of the earth. He has fallen into the deepest dejection,\n    and since yesterday has sunk so low that I am in great concern\n    for his life.\u201d\n\nFrom this, then, we learn that up to 8th April Galileo was still\nintending to defend his opinions before the Holy Tribunal; and that it\nwas only on the urgent expostulation of the ambassador, whom he knew\nto be his sincere friend, that he gave up all idea of opposition, and\nresolved upon entire and passive submission. How hard it was for him to\nyield is evident from the concluding sentence of Niccolini\u2019s despatch.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION._\n\n    The First Hearing.\u2014Galileo\u2019s submissive Attitude.\u2014The Events\n    of February, 1616.\u2014Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special\n    Prohibition.\u2014Produces Bellarmine\u2019s Certificate.\u2014Either the\n    Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo\u2019s Ignorance was\n    feigned.\u2014His Conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.\u2014The\n    Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.\u2014Opinions of Oregius,\n    Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.\u2014Galileo has Apartments in the Palace\n    of the Holy Office assigned to him.\u2014Falls ill.\u2014Letter to Geri\n    Bocchineri.\u2014Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an\n    Enigma.\u2014Now explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr.\n    Barberini.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Confession.\u2014His Weakness and Subserviency.\n\n\nOn 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first\nhearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General\nof the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the\nfiscal attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all\nhis answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea\u2014that of\nshortening the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive\nacquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to\nform a correct judgment of his depositions before the dread tribunal.[352]\n\nAccording to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to\nthe accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether\nhe knows or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that\nhe supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He\nwas then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, \u201cDialogo di\nGalileo Galilei, Linceo,\u201d which treats of the two systems of the world,\nas entirely his own; to which he replied after a close examination of\nthe copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written\nby himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes\nto know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason.\nHe deposed that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he\nhad heard that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions,\nand he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter,\nin order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This\ndeposition seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case;\nfor we know that he went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the\none hand, to frustrate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini,\nCaccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the threatened\nprohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his scientific demonstrations.\nThe motive of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact\nthat he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the\nadmonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of\n5th March.\n\nThe Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own\naccord, or in consequence of a summons. \u201c_In the year 1616 I came of my\nown accord to Rome, without being summoned_,\u201d was the decided answer.\nThe conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time\nwith several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these\nconferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he\nmight instruct them about Copernicus\u2019s book, which was difficult for\nlaymen to understand, as they specially desired to acquaint themselves\nwith the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis.\nThe Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cRespecting the controversy which had arisen on\n    the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the\n    earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the\n    Index, that such an opinion, considered as an established\n    fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible\n    as a conjecture (_ex suppositione_), as it was held by\n    Copernicus.\u201d[353]\n\n    _Inquisitor_: \u201cWas this decision then communicated to you, and\n    by whom?\u201d\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cThis decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index\n    was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.\u201d\n\n    _Inquisitor_: \u201cYou must state what his Eminence Cardinal\n    Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether\n    he said anything else on the subject, and what?\u201d\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cSignor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that\n    the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a\n    conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence\n    was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as\n    a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same\n    Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini,\n    provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in\n    which these words occur: \u2018It appears to me that your reverence\n    and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with\n    speaking _ex suppositione_, and not with certainty.\u2019 This\n    letter of the cardinal\u2019s is dated 12th April, 1615.[354] It\n    means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely,\n    must not be either held or defended.\u201d\n\nGalileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616,\nand communicated to him.\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cIn the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal\n    Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if\n    adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must\n    neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held\n    hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance\n    with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal\n    Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the\n    Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is\n    opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith\n    submit a copy.\u201d[355]\n\n    _Inquisitor_: \u201cWhen the above communication was made to you,\n    were any other persons present, and who?\u201d\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cWhen Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to\n    me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some\n    Dominican fathers were present, but I did not know them, and\n    have never seen them since.\u201d\n\n    _Inquisitor_: \u201cWas any other command communicated to you on\n    this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any\n    one else, and what?\u201d\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cI remember that the transaction took place as\n    follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning,\n    and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the\n    ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[356]\n    But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican\n    opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must not be\n    held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those\n    Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came\n    afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present\n    when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be\n    held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should\n    not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not\n    remember it, for it is several years ago.\u201d\n\n    _Inquisitor_: \u201cIf what was then said and enjoined upon you as a\n    command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?\u201d\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cI do not remember that anything else was said or\n    enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what\n    was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what\n    I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way\n    disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held\n    nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun\n    is stationary.\u201d\n\nThe Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him\nbefore witnesses contained: \u201cthat he must neither hold, defend, nor teach\nthat opinion in any way whatsoever.\u201d[357] Will he please to say whether\nhe remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201c_I do not remember that the command was intimated\n    to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally_; and I remember\n    that the command was, _not to hold nor defend_. It may be\n    that, \u2018and _not to teach_\u2019 was also there. I do not remember\n    it, neither the definition \u2018in any way whatsoever\u2019 (_quovis\n    modo_), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about\n    it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as\n    a few months later I received the certificate now produced,\n    of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in\n    which the injunction given me, _not to hold nor defend_ that\n    opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions\n    of the said injunction which have just been made known to me,\n    namely, _not to teach_, and _in any way_, I have not retained\n    in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the\n    said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a\n    reminder.\u201d\n\nGalileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the\ninjunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the\nIndex of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal\nBellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a\n_command_ was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware;\nbut true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: \u201cIt\nmay be, but I do not remember it.\u201d But the Inquisitor treats the issue\nof the \u201ccommand\u201d as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may\nhave appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the\ndecree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it\nwas issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption\nof the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo \u201cthat this command issued to\nhim before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend,\nnor teach that opinion.\u201d Galileo, to whom the two additions, \u201cin any\nway whatever\u201d and \u201cnor teach,\u201d sound new, entrenches himself behind\nhis stereotyped answer, \u201cI do not remember it.\u201d Then he appeals to the\ncertificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which\ndoes not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query\n_who_ intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: \u201cCardinal\nBellarmine.\u201d He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the\ncardinal\u2019s communication as the _command_. Galileo\u2019s depositions do not\ncontain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of\n26th February reports), after the cardinal\u2019s communication, any further\ninstruction was given him by the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in\nthe name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial\nbefore the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important\nproceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo\u2019s memory. There are but\ntwo alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo\ncannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.\n\nGalileo\u2019s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter\nsupposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume\nwith Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen,\nand whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo\nwould only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if\nit would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the\nadvantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no\nmeans evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen\u2014supposing him to\nmake false depositions\u2014from the Inquisitor\u2019s questions that he had the\nprotocol of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction\nbe in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his\ncause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has pointed out that it would\nhave been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed\nignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner,\nnever contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo\u2019s depositions. His\nsimplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of\nfalsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course\nof the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his difficult part.\n\nWhile the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption\nof Galileo\u2019s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more\nweighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he\nknows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all\nGalileo\u2019s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the\nseventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the strongest evidence\nfor the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the\nletters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no\ntrace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses\nhis satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an\nentire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again\nmentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains open. And\nthe attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new\nsystem is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the\nIndex of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with\nthe categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office.\nThis is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published\nin the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise on the tides to the\nArchduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican\ntheory in his \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get\nthe clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought,\nmore tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special\nprohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same\ndate, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican\ntheory; and finally, by the writing of the famous \u201cDialogues\u201d themselves,\nin which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the\npublished decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would\nhave infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system.\n\nWe now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements,\nin spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the\nInquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold,\nteach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does\nnot take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted\non the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for\nexample, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th\nFebruary, 1616, and confront them with the accused. And as no attempt is\nmade to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply\ntaken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo\u2019s judges, to say\nthe least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using,\nwithout any close examination, a paper as a valid document on the trial,\nwhich was destitute of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely,\nthe signatures of the accused, of the notary and witnesses, and in spite\nof three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments\nare needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from\nmere carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared\nthat he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by\nCardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after\nthe aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission\nto write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he\nafterwards had printed?\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cAfter receiving the command aforesaid, I did not\n    ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine,\n    because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting\n    contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold,\n    defend, or to teach the said opinion.\u201d\n\nThe Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what\nway, Galileo had received permission to print the \u201cDialogues.\u201d Galileo\nbriefly relates the whole course of the negotiations which preceded\nthe printing. As his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it\nis not reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking\npermission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about\nthe command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy\nCongregation?\n\n    _Galileo_: \u201cI did not say anything about that command to the\n    Master of the Palace when I asked for the _imprimatur_ for the\n    book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything, because\n    I had no scruples about it; for I have neither maintained\n    nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and the sun\n    is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated\n    the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the\n    arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.\u201d\n\nWith this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the\nfirst hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath\non subjects connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in\nthe private residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings\nof this tribunal. Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and\nNiccolini\u2019s reports) kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he\nwrote to Geri Bocchineri:\u2014\n\n    \u201cContrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have\n    been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of\n    the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the\n    spacious apartments. My health is good, for which, next to God,\n    I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and his wife,\n    who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and far more than I\n    require.\u201d[358]\n\n[Illustration]\n\nNiccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the\nmeals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about\nhim, and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy\nOffice.[359] No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence\nbetween Galileo and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend\nand patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions,\nwithout exciting any observation.[360]\n\nWhile, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing\nbut favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him,\nnothing was left undone to find the best method of effecting his moral\nruin. At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on,\nhis faithful friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed\nin theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not\nrecalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned, had left the\ncity.[361]\n\nThree days after the first examination the three counsellors of the\nInquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias\nPasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius\ndeclared that \u201cin the book superscribed \u2018Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,\u2019\nthe doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is\nstationary is _maintained_ and _defended_.\u201d Inchofer\u2019s statements (he\ndrew up two) declared that \u201cGalileo had not only taught and defended\nthat view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it,\nand even held it to this day.\u201d Both these attestations were supported by\na memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted\nfrom the \u201cDialogues.\u201d[362] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his\nbook had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the\nuniverse, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that\nin it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth\u2019s\nmotion round the sun.\n\nZacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses\nhis view that Galileo, by the publication of his \u201cDialogues,\u201d had\ninfringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to\nhold the Copernican Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or\nspeaking, in respect to _teaching_ and _defending_, and it was very\nsuspicious that he _held_ it.\n\nIn his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the\n\u201cDialogues,\u201d[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo\nhad stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only\nas a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical\nlanguage, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.\n\nFinally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special\nprohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it\nboth as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the\nsuspicion of holding it.[364]\n\nBy these declarations Galileo\u2019s cause was as good as decided. His\ntransgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the\nspecial prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of\nhis guilt there could be no question\u2014neither could there be any of the\npenalty.\n\nThe prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been\nso essential to the old man\u2019s health,[365] combined with great mental\nagitation, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to\nGeri Bocchineri:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen\n    hours with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my\n    experience, will last as much longer. A little while ago I had\n    a visit from the commissary and the fiscal who conduct the\n    inquiry. They have promised and intimated it as their settled\n    intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am able to get up\n    again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I place\n    more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to\n    me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather\n    upon surmises than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my\n    innocence and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now\n    hope it more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will\n    conclude.\u201d[366]\n\nThe second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has\nhitherto astounded all those who have studied this famous trial; for\nwhile at the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied\nhaving defended the Copernican system in his \u201cDialogues,\u201d and even\nasserted that he had done just the contrary, at the second hearing,\nalmost without waiting for the Inquisitor\u2019s questions, he makes a humble\ndeclaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a penitent confession\nthat he had defended it in his book. The cause of this change in Galileo\nis explained by a most interesting letter from the Commissary-General\nof the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at\nthat time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco\nBarberini. This letter of 28th April, 1633, first published in full by\nPieralisi, the learned librarian of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have\nso often quoted, is as follows:[367]\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday\n    informed the most eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of\n    Galileo\u2019s cause, the position of which I briefly reported.\n    Their Eminences approved of what has been done thus far,\n    and took into consideration, on the other hand, various\n    difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case,\n    and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has\n    in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the\n    book written by him; since in consequence of this denial there\n    would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure\n    and less regard to the other considerations belonging to\n    this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that\n    the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat\n    extra-judicially with Galileo, in order to render him sensible\n    of his error, and bring him, if he recognises it, to a\n    confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first sight\n    too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing\n    this object by merely adopting the method of argument with\n    him; but upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made\n    the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might\n    be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday\n    afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed\n    between us, by God\u2019s grace I attained my object, for I brought\n    him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised\n    that he had erred, and had gone too far in his book. And to all\n    this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who\n    experienced great consolation in the recognition of his error,\n    and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested,\n    however, a little time in order to consider the form in which\n    he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as\n    its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner\n    indicated.\n\n    I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence\n    with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for\n    I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied\n    that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point\n    that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will\n    maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal leniently\n    with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will\n    recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences\n    of satisfaction herein desired. To-day I think of examining\n    him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as\n    I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to\n    question him with regard to his intention, and to impose\n    the prohibitions upon him; and that done, he might have the\n    house[368] assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your\n    Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.\n\n    Rome, 28th April, 1633.\n\n    Your Eminence\u2019s humble and most obedient servant,\n\n                                          FRA VINC\u1d52 DA FIRENZUOLA.\u201d\n\nThe second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola\nproposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo\u2019s\nindisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the\ntruth, after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then\nbegan the following melancholy confession:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn the course of some days\u2019 continuous and attentive\n    reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of\n    the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen\n    years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the\n    Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach \u2018in any\n    manner,\u2019 the opinion that had just been condemned,\u2014of the\n    motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,\u2014it occurred\n    to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three years I\n    had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to\n    my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen\n    from my pen anything from which a reader or the authorities\n    might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, but\n    also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had\n    contravened the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the\n    kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about\n    my servant, I succeeded in procuring a copy of my book, and\n    having procured it I applied myself with the utmost diligence\n    to its perusal, and to a most minute consideration thereof. And\n    as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented\n    itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another\n    author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to\n    me set forth in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real\n    purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments\n    adduced on the false side, and which it was my intention to\n    confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel\n    conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. Two\n    arguments there are in particular\u2014the one taken from the solar\n    spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide\u2014which in\n    truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of\n    force and power than ought to have been imparted to them by\n    one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to\n    refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold\n    them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as\n    excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to\n    my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that\n    when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the\n    object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in\n    the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form, and\n    should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent,\u2014not\n    contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,\u2014I resorted to that\n    of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard\n    to his own subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than\n    the generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false\n    propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all this,\n    although with Cicero \u2018_avidior sim gloriae quam satis est_,\u2019\n    if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt\n    I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make\n    an apparent show of that force of which they are really and\n    essentially devoid. My error, then, has been\u2014and I confess\n    it\u2014one of vainglorious ambition, and of pure ignorance and\n    inadvertence.\n\n    This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this\n    particular, and which suggested itself to me during the\n    re-perusal of my book.\u201d[369]\n\nAfter making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed\nimmediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But\nhe must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial\nof his inmost convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had\ndesired in his extra-judicial interview, further than the Inquisition\nitself required. He did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the\n\u201cerror\u201d into which he had fallen in writing his \u201cDialogues\u201d sufficient.\nThe Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution publicly\nto correct it. He therefore returned at once to the court where the\nsacred tribunal was still sitting, and made the following undignified\nproposition:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAnd in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and\n    do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of\n    the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,\u2014if there\n    shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a\n    clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready to do so: and there\n    is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in the\n    work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again\n    after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of\n    nature, connected with the matter discoursed of at their\n    meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or\n    two other \u2018days,\u2019 I promise to resume the arguments already\n    adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has\n    been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual\n    method as by the blessing of God may be supplied to me. I\n    pray, therefore, this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good\n    resolution, and to enable me to put it in effect.\u201d[370]\n\nIt is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of science; and\nyet the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific\nconvictions for which he had striven and laboured for half a century,\nwho even proposes in a continuation of his monumental work on the two\nchief systems of the world to annihilate all the arguments therein\nadduced for the recognition of the only true system, can never be\nabsolved by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and\ninsincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the century the opening of\nwhich had been ominously marked by the funeral pile of Giordano Bruno,\nand but eight years before, the corpse of Marc\u2019Antonio de Dominis,\u2014the\nfamous Archbishop of Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of\nthe Engelsburg during his trial before the Inquisition,\u2014had, after the\nsentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting place and\npublicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical writings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_THE TRIAL CONTINUED._\n\n    Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.\u2014His\n    Hopefulness.\u2014Third Hearing.\u2014Hands in his Defence.\u2014Agreement\n    of it with previous Events.\u2014Confident Hopes of his\n    Friends.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Fears.\u2014Decision to examine Galileo under\n    threat of Torture.\u2014Niccolini\u2019s Audience of the Pope.\u2014Informed\n    that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be sentenced,\n    and would be imprisoned.\u2014Final Examination.\u2014Sent back to\n    \u201c_locum suum_.\u201d\u2014No Evidence that he suffered Torture or was\n    placed in a Prison Cell.\n\n\nOn the day on which the second hearing had taken place, at Firenzuola\u2019s\nsuggestion to the Pope, Galileo was permitted, in consideration of his\nage and infirmities, to return to the hotel of the Tuscan ambassador,\non oath not to leave it, not to hold any intercourse with any one but\nthe inmates of the house, to present himself before the Holy Office\nwhenever summoned, and to maintain the strictest silence about the\ncourse of the trial.[371] On the very next day Niccolini wrote to Cioli\nwith great satisfaction: \u201cSignor Galileo was yesterday sent back to\nmy house when I was not at all expecting him, and although the trial\nis not yet ended.\u201d[372] The Tuscan Secretary of State replied on 4th\nMay, with the curt observation: \u201cHis Highness was much pleased at the\nliberation of Signor Galileo,\u201d and immediately adds the ill-humoured and\nunworthy remark: \u201cIt appears to me that I must remind your Excellency\nthat when I wrote to you to entertain Signor Galileo at the embassy, the\ntime specified was one month, and the expenses of the remaining time\nmust fall upon himself.\u201d[373] Niccolini replied with ill-concealed\nindignation: \u201cIt would not become me to speak of this subject to Galileo\nwhile he is my guest; I would rather bear the expense myself, which only\ncomes to fourteen or fifteen scudi a month, everything included; so that\nif Galileo should remain here the whole summer, that is six months, the\noutlay for him and his servant would amount to about from ninety to a\nhundred scudi.\u201d[374]\n\nGalileo, who had no idea that his generous protector, Niccolini, had even\nhad to go into unpleasant questions about his support, was entertaining\nthe most confident hopes of a successful and speedy termination of\nhis trial. Although his letters of this period are unfortunately not\nextant,[375] we see from the answers of his correspondents what sanguine\naccounts he sent them. Geri Bocchineri wrote on 12th May:\n\n    \u201cI have for a long time had no such consolatory news as\n    that which your letter of the 7th brought me. It gives me\n    well-founded hopes that the calumnies and snares of your\n    enemies will be in vain; and in the end, the annoyances\n    involved in the defence, maintenance, and perhaps even\n    increase, of your reputation, can be willingly borne, as\n    you undoubtedly have borne them, since you have gained far\n    more than you have lost by the calamity that has fallen upon\n    you! My pleasure is still more enhanced by the news that you\n    expect to be able to report the end of the affair in the next\n    letter.\u201d[376]\n\nBut many a post day was to pass over, many a letter from Galileo to be\nreceived, before his trial was to come to the conclusion he so little\nanticipated.\n\nOn 10th May he was summoned for the third time before the Holy Tribunal,\nwhere Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition,\ninformed him that eight days were allowed him in which to write a defence\nif he wished to submit one. But Galileo handed it in _at once_,[377]\nfrom which we may conclude that he had been informed of this proceeding\nbeforehand. It was as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cWhen asked if I had signified to the Reverend Father, the\n    Master of the Sacred Palace, the injunction privately laid\n    upon me, about sixteen years ago, by order of the Holy Office,\n    not to hold, defend, or \u2018in any way\u2019 teach the doctrine of the\n    motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, I answered\n    that I had not done so. And not being questioned as to the\n    reason why I had not intimated it, I had no opportunity to add\n    anything further. It now appears to me necessary to state the\n    reason, in order to demonstrate the purity of my intention,\n    ever foreign to the employment of simulation or deceit in\n    any operation I engage in. I say, then, that as at that time\n    reports were spread abroad by evil-disposed persons, to the\n    effect that I had been summoned by the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine\n    to abjure certain of my opinions and doctrines, and that I had\n    consented to abjure them, and also to submit to punishment for\n    them, I was thus constrained to apply to his Eminence, and\n    to solicit him to furnish me with an attestation, explaining\n    the cause for which I had been summoned before him; which\n    attestation I obtained, in his own handwriting, and it is\n    the same that I now produce with the present document.[378]\n    From this it clearly appears that it was merely announced to\n    me that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus of the motion\n    of the earth and the stability of the sun must not be held\n    or defended, and ... [Here the MS. is defaced] beyond this\n    general announcement affecting every one, any other injunction\n    in particular was intimated to me, no trace thereof appears\n    there. Having, then, as a reminder, this authentic attestation\n    in the handwriting of the very person who intimated the command\n    to me, I made no further application of thought or memory with\n    regard to the words employed in announcing to me the said order\n    not to hold or defend the doctrine in question; so that the\n    two articles of the order\u2014in addition to the injunction not to\n    \u2018hold\u2019 or \u2018defend\u2019 it\u2014to wit, the words \u2018nor to teach it\u2019 \u2018in\n    any way whatsoever\u2019\u2014which I hear are contained in the order\n    intimated to me, and registered\u2014struck me as quite novel and as\n    if I had not heard them before; and I do not think I ought to\n    be disbelieved when I urge that in the course of fourteen or\n    sixteen years I had lost all recollection of them, especially\n    as I had no need to give any particular thought to them,\n    having in my possession so authentic a reminder in writing.\n    Now, if the said two articles be left out, and those two only\n    be retained which are noted in the accompanying attestation,\n    there is no doubt that the injunction contained in the latter\n    is the same command as that contained in the decree of the\n    Sacred Congregation of the Index. Whence it appears to me that\n    I have a reasonable excuse for not having notified to the\n    Master of the Sacred Palace the command privately imposed upon\n    me, it being the same as that of the Congregation of the Index.\n\n    Seeing also, that my book was not subject to a stricter\n    censorship than that made binding by the decree of the Index,\n    it will, it appears to me, be sufficiently plain that I adopted\n    the surest and most becoming method of having it guaranteed\n    and purged of all shadow of taint, inasmuch as I handed it\n    to the supreme Inquisitor at the very time when many books\n    dealing with the same matters were being prohibited solely in\n    virtue of the said decree. After what I have now stated, I\n    would confidently hope that the idea of my having knowingly\n    and deliberately violated the command imposed upon me, will\n    henceforth be entirely banished from the minds of my most\n    eminent and wise judges; so that those faults which are seen\n    scattered throughout my book have not been artfully introduced\n    with any concealed or other than sincere intention, but have\n    only inadvertently fallen from my pen, owing to a vainglorious\n    ambition and complacency in desiring to appear more subtle than\n    the generality of popular writers, as indeed in another ...\n    [MS. defaced] deposition I have confessed: which fault I shall\n    be ready to correct by writing whenever I may be commanded or\n    permitted by your Eminences.\n\n    Lastly, it remains for me to pray you to take into\n    consideration my pitiable state of bodily indisposition, to\n    which, at the age of seventy years, I have been reduced by ten\n    months of constant mental anxiety and the fatigue of a long\n    and toilsome journey at the most inclement season\u2014together\n    with the loss of the greater part of the years of which,\n    from my previous condition of health, I had the prospect.\n    I am persuaded and encouraged to do so by the clemency and\n    goodness of the most eminent lords, my judges; with the hope\n    that they may be pleased, in answer to my prayer, to remit\n    what may appear to their entire justice ... to such sufferings\n    as adequate punishment\u2014out of consideration for my declining\n    age, which too, I humbly commend to them. And I would equally\n    commend to their consideration my honour and reputation,\n    against the calumnies of ill-wishers, whose persistence in\n    detracting from my good name may be inferred from the necessity\n    which constrained me to procure from the Lord Cardinal\n    Bellarmine the attestation which accompanies this.\u201d[379]\n\nThis touching appeal to the mercy of the judges of the Holy Office can\nscarcely be read without feelings of the profoundest pity for the unhappy\nold man, who, in the evening of his days, felt compelled by dread of the\nstake to deny his scientific convictions.\n\nIn looking at the defence in a judicial light, in spite of mistrust in\nthe truthfulness of the accused, for which there is some justification,\nit must be allowed that his statements about the proceedings of sixteen\nyears before, agree entirely with all his letters and actions from 1616\nto 1632. In view of this state of the case, Galileo\u2019s remark in his\ndefence that \u201che had received that certificate from the very person who\nhad intimated the command to him,\u201d possesses increased significance. His\nwhole defence is intended to convince the judges that the two particulars\n\u201cnot to teach\u201d and \u201cin any way\u201d were unknown to him up to the day of his\nfirst hearing, or, as he says, to avoid direct contradiction, \u201che had\nlost all recollection of them.\u201d He obviously thinks that the gravity\nof the indictment lies in these words. But he seems to be absolutely\nignorant of their having been issued to him after the previous admonition\nof the Cardinal, by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, with\nthe threat that \u201cotherwise they would proceed against him in the Holy\nOffice,\u201d indeed, by the above remark he decidedly contradicts it.\nApologists of the Inquisition at any price, of the stamp of Mgr. Marini,\ndo not fail to adopt the only means left to them, and call Galileo\u2019s\ndefence \u201cchildish evasions unworthy of so great a man, which are sure\nsigns of guilt.\u201d[380] We are of opinion, on the contrary, that the\nconfident hopes of a favourable issue of his trial, by which, as appears\nfrom the replies of his correspondents and Niccolini\u2019s despatches,\nGalileo was animated up to the last moment, by no means comport with\nconsciousness of guilt.\n\nAfter his defence had been received, and the same obligations imposed on\nhim on oath as after the second hearing, he was allowed to return to the\nembassy. The nearer the time approached when the old man\u2019s illusions were\nto be dispelled, the more sanguine was the intelligence he sent to his\nfriends. He reminds one of a consumptive patient, full of hope when in\nthe last stage of his disorder. Galileo receives in reply to his letters\nthe congratulations of his friends on the, as they suppose, doubtless\nfavourable issue of his trial. Cardinal Capponi writes on 21st May, that\nhe had never expected anything else.[381] Bocchineri, Guiducci, Agguinti,\nCini, and others heartily express their satisfaction;[382] the Archbishop\nof Siena, Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo\u2019s devoted friend, invites him, in\nexpectation of his speedy dismissal from Rome, to come and see him at\nSiena, that he may await the extinction of the plague at Florence.[383]\nGalileo accepts the friendly invitation, and informs Bocchineri that\nhe intends to go to Siena immediately after the end of the trial.[384]\nArchbishop Piccolomini even offers his impatiently expected guest a\nlitter for the journey.[385] A favour granted to Galileo just at the\nlast, on the urgent solicitation of Niccolini, and quite unheard of in\nthe annals of the Inquisition, might have increased these confident\nhopes. He was permitted to take the air for the sake of his health in\nthe gardens of the Castle of Gandolfo, to which, however, he was always\nconveyed in a half-closed carriage, as he was not to be seen in the\nstreets.[386]\n\nNiccolini, however, did not share the hopes of his famous guest, and for\nvery good reasons. He had had an audience, on 21st May, of the Pope and\nCardinal Barberini, who had told him in answer to his inquiries when the\ntrial might be expected to end, that it would probably be concluded in\nthe congregation to take place in about a fortnight. After reporting this\nin his despatch to Cioli of 22nd May, Niccolini continues: \u201cI very much\nfear that the book will be prohibited, unless it is averted by Galileo\u2019s\nbeing charged, as I proposed, to write an apology. Some \u2018salutary\npenance\u2019 will also be imposed upon him, as they maintain that he has\ntransgressed the command communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine in\n1616. I have not yet told him all this, because I want to prepare him for\nit by degrees, in order not to distress him. It will also be advisable to\nobserve silence about this in Florence, that he may not hear it from his\nfriends there; and the more so, as it may turn out otherwise.\u201d[387] It\nwas indeed \u201cto turn out otherwise,\u201d but in a way that even Niccolini did\nnot in the least suspect.\n\nA momentary lull now took place in Galileo\u2019s trial\u2014the preparation for\nthe great catastrophe that was to take all the world by surprise. Sultry\nsilence reigned for four weeks. No one, not even Niccolini, could learn\nanything about the progress of the affair; the thunderbolt had already\nfallen which was to crush the accused before it was known to anyone\nbeyond the Holy Congregation. His fate had been sealed in a private\nmeeting of it presided over by the Pope. Unfortunately we have no written\nnotes of the proceedings of this highly interesting sitting. From two\ndocuments, which agree entirely in essentials, we simply know what the\ndecrees were which minutely prescribed the final proceedings to be taken\nagainst Galileo. One of these documents is derived from the Vatican\ncollection of the acts of Galileo\u2019s trial; the other is reproduced in\nGherardi\u2019s collection of documents, and belongs to the MS. originals of\nthe decrees drawn up in the sittings of the Holy Congregation in the\narchives of the Inquisition.\n\nIt is decreed in both documents[388] which agree almost verbatim: To try\nGalileo _as to his intention, and under threat of torture_; if he kept\nfirm, he was to be called upon to recant before a plenary assembly of\nthe Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned to imprisonment according\nto the judgment of the Holy Congregation, and ordered in future not\nto discuss, either in writing or speaking, the opinion that the earth\nmoves and the sun is stationary, nor yet the contrary opinion, under\npain of further punishment for contumacy; further, the work, \u201cDialogo di\nGalileo Galilei, Linceo,\u201d was to be prohibited. And in order to make this\nknown everywhere, copies of the sentence were to be sent to all papal\nenvoys, and all inquisitors into heretical crimes, and specially to the\nInquisitor of Florence, who was to proclaim it in a full conclave of the\nCongregation, and read it publicly to a majority of the professors of\nmathematics summoned for the purpose.\n\nIt is noteworthy that it was expressly decreed that Galileo was to be\nenjoined, \u201cnor yet to discuss the contrary opinion,\u201d the Ptolemaic.\nThey obviously accredited the clever dialectician with the skill, under\npretext of defending the old system, of demonstrating exactly the\ncontrary. It therefore seemed most prudent to impose absolute silence on\nhim on this delicate subject.\n\nTwo days after the course of the proceedings had been secretly determined\non, the Pope gave audience to Niccolini, who once more came to beg for\na speedy termination of the trial. Urban VIII. said that it had already\nbeen terminated, and that within the next few days Galileo would be\nsummoned before the Holy Office to hear his sentence. The ambassador,\nwho was terrified at this unexpected intelligence, hastened to implore\nhis Holiness, out of respect for his Highness the Grand Duke, to mollify\nthe severity which the Holy Congregation might perhaps have thought it\nnecessary to exercise; and added obligingly that the great complaisance\nshown to the Grand Duke in the matter of Galileo was fully appreciated,\nand that the Grand Duke was only awaiting the end of the business to\nexpress his gratitude in person. The Pope replied, with equal suavity,\nthat his Highness need not take this trouble, as he had readily granted\nevery amelioration to Galileo out of affection for him; but as to his\ncause, they could do no less than prohibit that opinion, because it\nwas erroneous and contrary to Holy Scripture, dictated _ex ore Dei_;\nas to his person, he would, according to usage, be imprisoned for a\ntime, _because he had transgressed the mandate issued to him in 1616_.\n\u201cHowever,\u201d added Urban, \u201cafter the publication of the sentence we will\nsee you again, and we will consult together so that he may suffer as\nlittle distress as possible, since it cannot be let pass without some\ndemonstration against his person.\u201d In reply to Niccolini\u2019s renewed urgent\nentreaties that his Holiness would extend his accustomed mercy to the\npitiable old man of seventy, the Pope said that \u201che would at any rate be\nsent for a time to some monastery, as for instance, St. Croce; for he\nreally did not know precisely what the Holy Congregation might decree\n(?!), but it was unanimous and _nemine discrepante_ in intending to\nimpose a penance on Galileo.\u201d\n\nThe very same day the ambassador sent a detailed despatch about this\naudience to Cioli,[389] and remarked at the end that he had simply\ninformed Galileo of the approaching end of the trial, and of the\nprohibition of his book, but had said nothing about the personal\npunishment, in order not to trouble him too much at once; the Pope had\nalso enjoined this, that Galileo might not distress himself yet, and\n\u201cbecause perhaps in the course of the proceedings things might take a\nbetter turn.\u201d\n\nGalileo\u2019s trial now proceeded strictly according to the programme settled\nby the Congregation of the Holy Office under the papal presidency. On the\nevening of Monday, 20th June, Galileo received a summons from the Holy\nOffice to appear the next day.[390] In this final hearing the accused\nwas to be questioned, under threat of torture, about his intention, that\nis, as to his real conviction concerning the two systems. On the morning\nof the 21st Galileo appeared before his judges. After he had taken the\nusual oath, and had answered in the negative the query whether he had any\nstatement to make, the examiner began as follows:\u2014\n\nInterrogated whether he holds or has held, and how long ago, that the sun\nis the centre of the world and that the earth is not the centre of the\nworld, and moves, and also with a diurnal motion;\n\nHe answered: \u201cA long time ago, _i.e._, before the decision of the Holy\nCongregation of the Index, and before the injunction was intimated to me,\nI was indifferent, and regarded both opinions, namely, that of Ptolemy\nand that of Copernicus, as open to discussion, inasmuch as either one or\nthe other might be true in nature; but after the said decision, assured\nof the wisdom of the authorities, I ceased to have any doubt; and I held,\nas I still hold, as most true and indisputable, the opinion of Ptolemy,\nthat is to say, the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun.\u201d\n\nBeing told that from the manner and connection in which the said opinion\nis discussed in the book printed by him subsequently to the time\nmentioned\u2014nay, from the very fact of his having written and printed\nthe said book, he is presumed to have held this opinion after the time\nspecified; and being called upon to state the truth as to whether he\nholds or has held the same;\n\nHe answered: \u201cAs regards the writing of the published dialogue, my motive\nin so doing was not because I held the Copernican doctrine to be true,\nbut simply thinking to confer a common benefit, I have set forth the\nproofs from nature and astronomy which may be adduced on either side;\nmy object being to make it clear that neither the one set of arguments\nnor the other has the force of conclusive demonstration in favour of\nthis opinion or of that; and that therefore, in order to proceed with\ncertainty we must have recourse to the decisions of higher teaching, as\nmay be clearly seen from a large number of passages in the dialogue in\nquestion. I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold\nthe condemned opinion, and have not held it since the decision of the\nauthorities.\u201d\n\nBeing told that from the book itself and from the arguments adduced on\nthe affirmative side,\u2014namely, that the earth moves and that the sun is\nimmovable,\u2014it is presumed, as aforesaid, that he holds the opinion of\nCopernicus, or at least that he held it at that time; and that therefore,\nunless he make up his mind to confess the truth, recourse will be had\nagainst him to the appropriate remedies of the law;\n\nHe answered: \u201cI do not hold, and have not held this opinion of Copernicus\nsince the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it; for the\nrest, I am here in your hands,\u2014do with me what you please.\u201d Being once\nmore bidden to speak the truth, otherwise recourse will be had to\ntorture, the terrified old man answered with the resignation of despair:\n\u201cI am here to obey, and I have not held this opinion since the decision\nwas pronounced, as I have stated.\u201d\n\nIn the protocol of the trial the concluding sentence follows immediately\nafter this last answer of Galileo\u2019s: \u201cAnd as nothing further could be\ndone in execution of the decree (of 16th June), his signature was\nobtained to his deposition, and he was sent back to his place.\u201d[391]\n\nThere is not in this document, nor in any other extant, the slightest\ntrace that torture was actually applied to Galileo, as has long and\neven recently been fabled. Since the publication of it by Epinois\nhas acquainted us with the decree of 16th June, none such can be\nexpected ever to be found. In that decree the course of the final legal\nproceedings was precisely indicated. But it was only the _threat_ of\ntorture that was prescribed, after which recantation and sentence of\nimprisonment were to follow. The execution of this threat, then, would\nhave been a gross, and under the circumstances, incredible violation of\nthe decrees of the Holy Office itself. Moreover, the assumed torture of\nGalileo is opposed, as we shall see by and by, to various historical\nfacts. When the whole course of the trial is unrolled before our eyes, we\nshall go more deeply into the region of fable and malicious fabrication.\n\nBut as we pursue the path of history, we come upon an error which Mgr.\nMarini\u2019s peculiar mode of interpretation has given rise to. He takes the\nconcluding words of the protocol of the trial of 21st June, \u201cremissus\nfuit ad locum suum,\u201d to mean that Galileo was sent back to the Tuscan\nembassy.[392] Now, it is indisputable, from a despatch of Niccolini\u2019s to\nCioli of 26th June, 1633, that after the hearing of the 21st June, the\naccused was detained in the buildings of the Holy Office, and did not\nleave them till the 24th.[393]\n\nWe have no information whatever as to the treatment he met with this time\nin the buildings of the Holy Office. Was he put into the apartments he\nhad occupied before, or was he confined in a prisoner\u2019s cell? From the\nconsiderate treatment in outward things which Galileo met with during his\ntrial at Rome, it may perhaps be concluded _that he never was thrown into\nthe dungeons of the Inquisition_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._\n\n    The Sentence in full.\u2014Analysis of it.\u2014The Copernican\n    System had not been pronounced heretical by \u201cInfallible\u201d\n    Authority.\u2014The Special Prohibition assumed as Fact.\u2014The\n    Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.\u2014The Holy Office\n    exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.\u2014The\n    Sentence not unanimous.\u2014This escaped notice for two hundred\n    and thirty-one Years.\u2014The Recantation.\u2014Futile attempts to\n    show that Galileo had really altered his Opinion.\u2014After the\n    Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de\u2019\n    Monti.\u2014Petition for leave to go to Florence.\u2014Allowed to go to\n    Siena.\n\n\nOn Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, in the forenoon, Galileo was conducted\nto the large hall used for melancholy proceedings of this kind, in the\nDominican Convent of St. Maria sopra la Minerva, where, in the presence\nof his judges and a large assemblage of cardinals and prelates of the\nHoly Congregation, the following sentence was read to him:\u2014\n\n    WE, Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia;\n        Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasia, detto d\u2019Ascoli;\n        Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio;\n        Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona;\n        Fra Antonio Barberino detto di S. Onofrio;\n        Laudivio Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di\n          S. Sisto;\n        Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi;\n        Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna, Verospi,\n          chiamato Prete;\n        Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e\n        Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi;\n\n    by the grace of God, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,\n    Inquisitors General, by the Holy Apostolic see specially\n    deputed, against heretical depravity throughout the whole\n    Christian Republic.\n\n    Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,\n    Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615\n    denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false\n    doctrine taught by many, that the sun is the centre of the\n    world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and also with\n    a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught\n    the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain\n    mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having\n    printed certain letters, entitled \u201cOn the Solar Spots,\u201d wherein\n    you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to\n    the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to\n    time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures\n    according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon\n    produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter,\n    purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple,\n    and in this divers propositions are set forth,[394] following\n    the hypothesis of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true\n    sense and authority of Holy Scripture:\n\n    This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding\n    against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went\n    on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of\n    his Holiness and of the most eminent Lords Cardinals of this\n    supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the\n    stability of the sun and the motion of the earth were by the\n    theological \u201cQualifiers\u201d qualified as follows:\n\n    The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world\n    and does not move from its place is absurd and false\n    philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly\n    contrary to the Holy Scripture.\n\n    The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world\n    and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal\n    motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and\n    theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.\n\n    But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with\n    you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before his\n    Holiness on the 25th February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord\n    Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the\n    said false doctrine, and, in the event of your refusal, that an\n    injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the\n    Holy Office, to give up the said doctrine, and not to teach it\n    to others, nor to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing\n    your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be\n    imprisoned. And in execution of this decree, on the following\n    day, at the Palace, and in the presence of his Eminence, the\n    said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished\n    by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was intimated to you by\n    the Father Commissary of the Holy Office for the time before a\n    notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the\n    said false opinion, and not in future to defend or teach it in\n    any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon\n    your promising to obey you were dismissed.\n\n    And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly\n    rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave\n    prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy\n    Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books which treat of\n    this doctrine, and declaring the doctrine itself to be false\n    and wholly contrary to sacred and divine Scripture.\n\n    And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year\n    at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the\n    author, this title being: \u201cDialogue of Galileo Galilei on the\n    Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and the\n    Copernican\u201d; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards\n    informed that through the publication of the said book, the\n    false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability\n    of the sun was daily gaining ground; the said book was taken\n    into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a\n    patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been\n    imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said\n    opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be\n    so, although in the said book you strive by various devices\n    to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in\n    express terms as probable: which however is a most grievous\n    error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been\n    declared and defined to be contrary to Divine Scripture:\n\n    Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office,\n    where, being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book\n    to be written and published by you. You confessed that you\n    began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago,\n    after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you\n    requested licence to print it, without however intimating to\n    those who granted you this licence that you had been commanded\n    not to hold, defend, or teach in any way whatever the doctrine\n    in question.\n\n    You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in\n    various places drawn up in such a form that the reader might\n    fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side\n    are rather calculated by their cogency to compel conviction\n    than to be easy of refutation; excusing yourself for having\n    fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your\n    intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue, and\n    by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to\n    his own subtleties, and in showing himself more clever than\n    the generality of men, in devising, even on behalf of false\n    propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.\n\n    And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare\n    your defence, you produced a certificate in the handwriting\n    of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by\n    you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against\n    the calumnies of your enemies, who gave out that you had\n    abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which\n    certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had\n    not been punished, but merely that the declaration made by\n    his Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the\n    Index, had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that\n    the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of\n    the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore\n    cannot be defended or held. And as in this certificate there\n    is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely,\n    the order not \u201cto teach\u201d and \u201cin any way,\u201d you represented\n    that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or\n    sixteen years you had lost all memory of them; and that this\n    was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested\n    permission to print your book. And all this you urged not\n    by way of excuse for your error, but that it might be set\n    down to a vainglorious ambition rather than to malice. But\n    this certificate produced by you in your defence has only\n    aggravated your delinquency, since although it is there stated\n    that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have\n    nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its\n    probability; nor does the licence artfully and cunningly\n    extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify\n    the command imposed upon you.\n\n    And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full\n    truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary\n    to subject you to a rigorous examination, at which (without\n    prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you, and\n    set forth as above, with regard to your said intention) you\n    answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and\n    maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together\n    with your confessions and excuses above mentioned, and all that\n    ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the\n    underwritten final sentence against you:\u2014\n\n    Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus\n    Christ and of His most glorious Mother, and ever Virgin Mary,\n    by this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the\n    counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology\n    and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these\n    writings, in the cause and causes presently before us between\n    the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor\n    Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and you Galileo\n    Galilei, the defendant, here present, tried and confessed as\n    above, of the other part,\u2014we say, pronounce, sentence, declare,\n    that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in\n    process, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself\n    in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of\n    heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine\u2014which\n    is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures\u2014that\n    the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from\n    east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the centre\n    of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as\n    probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary\n    to Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred\n    all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the\n    sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular,\n    against such delinquents. From which we are content that you\n    be absolved, provided that first, with a sincere heart, and\n    unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid\n    errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary\n    to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be\n    prescribed by us.\n\n    And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and\n    transgression may not remain altogether unpunished, and that\n    you may be more cautious for the future, and an example to\n    others, that they may abstain from similar delinquencies\u2014we\n    ordain that the book of the \u201c_Dialogues of Galileo Galilei_\u201d be\n    prohibited by public edict.\n\n    We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during\n    our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance, we enjoin that\n    for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven\n    penitential Psalms.\n\n    Reserving to ourselves full liberty to moderate, commute, or\n    take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and\n    penance.\n\n    And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, condemn\n    and reserve, in this and any other better way and form which we\n    can and may lawfully employ.\n\n    So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce.\n\n      F. Cardinalis de Asculo.\n      G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.\n      Fr. Cardinalis de Cremona.\n      Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.\n      B. Cardinalis Gypsius.\n      Fr. Cardinalis Verospius.\n      M. Cardinalis Ginettus.[395]\n\nBefore proceeding to narrate the consequences of this sentence to the\nculprit (namely, his recantation and punishment), this seems to be the\nplace to subject this memorable document to a critical review, to show\nhow far the sentence pronounced on Galileo had a legal basis, even\non Romish principles. To this end it will be necessary to follow the\nconstruction of the sentences step by step, for only in this way can a\ncorrect opinion be formed of the accordance of this cunningly devised\nstructure with the actual state of things.\n\nThe sentence begins with a condensed historical review of the\ntransactions of 1615, obviously based on the denunciations of Lorini,\nand the evidence of Caccini of 20th March, 1615. Immediately afterwards\nfollows the well-known opinion of the theological Qualifiers on the\nprinciples of Copernicus. This is plainly to justify the measures taken\nin consequence by the ecclesiastical authorities against his doctrine and\nits most distinguished advocate. For immediately after follows, first a\nrecapitulation of the report registered in the Vatican MS. of the events\nof 25th and 26th February, 1616, and then the decree of the Congregation\nof the Index of 5th March, 1616, \u201cby which those books were prohibited\nwhich treat of the aforesaid doctrine, and the same was declared to\nbe false and entirely contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture.\u201d The\nsentence then comes to the occasion of the trial of Galileo, namely, his\n\u201cDialogues,\u201d\u2014and states: firstly, that by this book he had transgressed\nthe special prohibition of 1616;[396] secondly, that his statement\ntherein, which is almost incredible, that he had left the Copernican view\nundecided and as only _probable_, is a \u201cgross error,\u201d since a doctrine\ncannot in any way be probable (_probalis_) which has already been found\nand declared to be \u201ccontrary to Holy Scripture.\u201d\n\nThe first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, which treated\nthe note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic document, is certainly\ncorrect; the second, even according to the maxims of Rome, is not to\nthe purpose. According to these maxims a proposition can only be made\ninto a dogma by \u201cinfallible\u201d authority, namely, by the Pope speaking _ex\ncathedra_, or by an \u0152cumenical Council; and on the other hand, it is\nonly by the same method that an obligation can be laid upon the faithful\nto consider an opinion heretical. But a decree of the Congregation of\nthe Index does not entail the obligation; for, although by virtue of\nthe authority conferred on it, it can enforce obedience and inflict\npunishment, its decrees are not \u201cinfallible.\u201d They can, however, be\nmade so, according to ecclesiastical views, either by the subsequent\nexpress confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as supreme head\nof the Christian Catholic Church; or by the decree of the Congregation\nbeing originally provided with the clause: \u201c_Sanctissimus confirmavit\net publicari mandavit._\u201d But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is neither\nconfirmed by a subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special\nformula; and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the\nopinion of Copernicus to be \u201cfalse and contrary to Holy and Divine\nScripture,\u201d it might still be considered as undecided, and even probable,\nbecause the decree might be fallible, and did not entail the obligation\nto adopt its sentence as an article of faith.[397] This must also have\nbeen the view of the ecclesiastical authorities of the censorship, who\nhad given Galileo\u2019s book the _imprimatur_, and thereby, as H. Martin\njustly remarks,[398] relieved the author of responsibility, not in\nanything relating to the assumed special prohibition, but concerning the\naccordance of the work with the published decree. Point 2, therefore,\nseems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The sentence now gives a brief\n_r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the confessions made by Galileo during the examination,\nwhich are employed to confirm his guilt. The twofold reproach is\nurged against him, as of special weight, that he began to write his\n\u201cDialogues\u201d after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he said\nnothing about it in obtaining the _imprimatur_ of the censors; thus the\nspecial prohibition was treated as an established fact\u2014on the one hand,\nhis disobedience to an injunction of the ecclesiastical authorities\nwas proved, and on the other, the _imprimatur_ was obtained on false\npretences, and was null and void.\n\nAfter a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so unedifying to\nposterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, the sentence proceeds\nto the discussion of an authentic document which formed the chief defence\nof the accused: the certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine.\nThe authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult\ntask to perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability of the \u201cnote\u201d\nof 26th February, 1616\u2014this main support of the whole indictment\u2014and by\nno means to make this attestation appear at variance with the actual\ncircumstances, or it would have become an important argument in favour\nof the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for the accusation\nhad to be found in the words of the certificate itself. And thus we\nfind this document, which, as Wohlwill pertinently remarks,[399] by the\nwords \u201cbut only\u201d directly denies the assumed stringent prohibition of\n1616, singularly enough, thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers,\nforming a weighty argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: \u201cBut\nthis certificate,\u201d it says, \u201cproduced by you in your defence, has only\naggravated your delinquency; since although it is there stated that the\nsaid opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared\nto discuss and defend it, and to argue its probability.\u201d\n\nBut as here they again had to refer to the protecting _imprimatur_ of\nthe ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: \u201cnor does the licence,\nartfully and cunningly extorted by you, avail you anything, since you did\nnot notify the command imposed upon you.\u201d\n\nOne cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the attestation of\nCardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, \u201cthe command imposed\u201d did not\nexist, and of course could not be communicated by Galileo to the censors.\n\nIn the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, a passage is\ndexterously interwoven, which ascribes the decree of 5th March, 1616, to\nthe Pope; while, as we know, it belongs officially to the Congregation\nalone. The words are these: \u201cBut merely that the declaration made by\nhis Holiness (_fatta da nostro Signore_), and published by the Holy\nCongregation of the Index, had been announced to you.\u201d\n\nUndoubtedly Pope Paul V. wished the decree made and privately instigated\nit, as Urban VIII. did the sentence against Galileo; and in this sense\nthe former may be attributed to the one and the latter to the other,\nand the condemnation of the Copernican theory to both. But in this they\nacted as private persons, and as such they were not (nor would they now\nbe), according to theological rules, \u201cinfallible.\u201d The conditions which\nwould have made the decree of the Congregation, or the sentence against\nGalileo, of dogmatic importance, were, as we have seen, wholly wanting.\nBoth Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of\nthe papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a\nscientific controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their\nsanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken,\nat their instigation, by the Congregation \u201cto suppress the doctrine of\nthe revolution of the earth.\u201d Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman\nCatholic posterity can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were\nin error \u201cas men\u201d about the Copernican system, but not \u201cas Popes.\u201d For\nus there remains the singular deduction, that the sentence on Galileo\nrests again and again, even on the principles of the ecclesiastical court\nitself, on an illegal foundation.\n\nAfter a brief mention of the rigid examination of 21st June, the\nsentence comes to formulate the judgment more particularly. According to\nthis Galileo is, (1) \u201cin the judgment of this Holy Office, vehemently\nsuspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine\nwhich is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures ... and\nthat an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been\ndeclared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture;\u201d (2) and that\nconsequently he has incurred all the censures and penalties imposed in\nthe sacred canons against such delinquents. \u201cFrom which we are content\nthat you be absolved, provided that first you abjure, curse, and detest\nthe aforesaid errors and heresies in the form to be supplied by us.\u201d\n\nPoint 1, according to Romish regulations about making an opinion an\narticle of faith, in its relation to heresy appears to be illegal and\nincorrect. Galileo had not laid himself open to suspicion of heresy\nbecause he had inclined to a doctrine discovered to be contrary to\nScripture by the fallible Congregation of the Index. Point 2 must also,\ntherefore, be illegal, which says that Galileo had \u201cconsequently\u201d\nincurred all the censures and penalties adjudged to such criminals by the\ncanon law.\n\nGalileo could never have been legally condemned on suspicion of heresy\nfrom his \u201cDialogues.\u201d In the first place, because neither he nor any\nother Catholic was bound by the decree of 5th March, 1616, to regard\nthe confirmation of the old system or the rejection of the new as an\narticle of faith; in the second place, because the _imprimatur_ of the\necclesiastical authorities relieved him from all responsibility. But he\ncould be condemned for disobedience to the assumed special prohibition of\n26th February, 1616. In the sentence this forms the only legal basis of\nthe indictment and condemnation. How far this prohibition is historically\ncredible, we think we have sufficiently demonstrated in the course of our\nwork.\n\nAnd when we consider the penalties which follow from this sentence, based\npartly upon incorrect, and partly upon false accusations, we find that\nthe Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to recant with a threat of other\nand severer penalties, _far exceeded its powers_. The Holy Tribunal\nwas empowered to punish the \u201cdisobedience\u201d of the philosopher with\nimprisonment and ecclesiastical penances, and to forbid him to discuss\nthe opinion in writing or speaking, but it had no authority to extort\nfrom Galileo, or any one else, such a confession on an opinion which had\nnot been defined by \u201cinfallible\u201d authority.\n\nThis is openly admitted even by high theological authority: \u201c_In fact\nan excess of authority and an injustice did take place_;\u201d \u201cbut,\u201d the\nreverend gentleman hastens to add, \u201ccertainly not from malice, but from a\nmistake,\u201d[400]\u2014a lenient opinion which we are unable to share.\n\nWhether any scruples were expressed, or any dissentient voices heard\nin this ecclesiastical court about the manifold illegalities in the\nproceedings against the famous accused, we do not know, no notes having\ncome down to us of the private discussions and transactions of the Holy\nTribunal. But there is one fact which leads us to conclude that all the\njudges did not consent to this procedure, and that the sentence was not\nunanimous: _at the head of the sentence ten Cardinals are enumerated as\njudges, but the document is signed by seven only, and besides this there\nis the express remark: \u201cSo we, the undersigned cardinals, pronounce\u201d_!\nSingularly enough, two hundred and thirty-one years passed by, during\nwhich much that is valuable was written about Galileo, and a great deal\nmore that was fabulous, before this significant circumstance was noticed\nby any author. The merit of having first called attention to it belongs\nto Professor Moritz Cantor, in 1864.[401] The three cardinals who did\nnot sign were, Caspar Borgia, Laudivio Zacchia, and Francesco Barberini,\nthe Pope\u2019s nephew, whom we have repeatedly found to be a warm patron and\nprotector of Galileo.\n\nProfessor Berti offers as an explanation of the absence of the three\nsignatures, that the Congregation in the name of which the sentence was\npassed consisted of ten members, but that at the last sitting seven only\nwere present, so that seven only could sign, and adds, as it appears to\nus unwarrantably, \u201cthat it by no means follows that the three absentees\nwere of a contrary opinion.\u201d[402]\n\nPieralisi does not find the matter so simple, and devotes seven large\npages to account for the absence of the three prelates from the\nCongregation. \u201cCardinal Borgia,\u201d he says, \u201cwas on very bad terms with\nUrban VIII., because he had addressed the Pope in a loud voice in a\nconsistory, and the Pope had imperiously told him to be quiet and to\ngo away.\u201d[403] But it has been proved that even after this scene the\ncardinal appeared at the consistories up to 12th February, 1635, although\nthere were complaints that he took walks in Rome instead of attending\nthe sittings of the Propaganda and the Holy Office. But it is not likely\nthat this cardinal, whose name stands at the head of the sentence,\nwould have absented himself from the final sitting without some good\nreason. Pieralisi thinks that he was more friendly to Galileo than the\nother cardinals, an opinion for which there is no evidence and which\nproves nothing. Even Pieralisi confesses that he can find no reason for\nthe absence of Cardinal Zacchia, but assigns the following motive for\nthat of Cardinal Francesco Barberini: \u201cHe probably wished to uphold the\nright enjoyed by the cardinal nephews, and afterwards by the secretaries\nof state, of sometimes abstaining from voting in order to reserve to\nthemselves greater freedom in the treatment of public, private, and\npolitical affairs.\u201d The insufficiency of this explanation is too obvious\nto need comment. Pieralisi himself comes to the conclusion that these\ndignitaries did not wish to append their signatures to the famous\nsentence, which is much the same thing as the conjecture that they did\nnot agree to it.\n\nIn accordance with this sentence, certainly not passed unanimously by\nthe members of the Holy Tribunal, which forms one of the foulest blots\nin the melancholy annals of the Inquisition, Galileo was compelled\nimmediately after hearing it to make the following degrading recantation,\nhumbly kneeling, before the whole assembly:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,\n    Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before\n    this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and\n    Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against heretical\n    depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic, having\n    before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy Gospels\n    swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by God\u2019s\n    help will for the future believe, all that is held, preached,\n    and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But\n    whereas\u2014after an injunction had been judicially intimated to\n    me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether\n    abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the\n    world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre of\n    the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or\n    teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said\n    doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said\n    doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture\u2014I wrote and printed\n    a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned,\n    and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favour, without\n    presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have\n    been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected\n    of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that\n    the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the\n    earth is not the centre and moves:\u2014\n\n    Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences,\n    and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion,\n    reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and\n    unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid\n    errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect\n    whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that\n    in future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in\n    writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar\n    suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or\n    person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy\n    Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the place where\n    I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfil and observe\n    in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall\n    be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of\n    my contravening, (which God forbid!) any of these my promises,\n    protestations, and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains\n    and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons\n    and other constitutions, general and particular, against such\n    delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which\n    I touch with my hands.\n\n    I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and\n    bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof\n    I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of\n    my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the\n    Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.\n\n    I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.\u201d[404]\n\nCertain Catholic writers express the hope, at the expense of truth, for\nthe sake of Galileo\u2019s salvation and honour, that he really had, from\nconviction, renounced the opinion which he had been labouring for and\nadvocating up to old age. Indeed, the super-Catholic author of an essay,\ncalled \u201cThe Holy See against Galileo Galilei and the Astronomical System\nof Copernicus,\u201d[405] does not hesitate to say: \u201cProbably the physical\nabsurdities of his (Galileo\u2019s) doctrine had achieved a victory for the\nvoice of reason and religion.\u201d[406] Undoubtedly there were many physical\ndifficulties in the way of a general acceptance of the new doctrines\n(especially the prevailing incorrect ideas about the specific gravity\nof the air),[407] and they were only finally overcome by the discovery\nof the law of gravitation by the genius of Newton; but they were not\nso great as to prevent men, like Kepler, Descartes, Gassendi, Diodati,\nPhilip Landsberg, Joachim Rh\u00e4ticus, and others, and above all, the great\nItalian reformer of physics and astronomy, from, even at that time,\nrecognising the truth of the new theory. It does not appear, either, that\nthe author of that article had much faith in his own conjecture, for he\nproceeds to a demonstration, from opposite premises, which was for a time\nmuch in vogue with the Jesuitical defenders of the Inquisition against\nGalileo, and which must therefore be briefly mentioned.\n\nThis was nothing less than an attempt to show that even if Galileo held\nthe Copernican system to be the only true one, he could, thanks to the\nwording of the formula of recantation, utter it without doing violence\nto his conscience; or, what is now known to be truth.[408] Galileo swore\nthat he never had believed and never would believe (1) \u201cthat the sun was\nthe centre of the earth and immovable.\u201d That he could easily do, says our\nauthor, for, in relation to the fixed stars, the sun by no means forms\nthe centre; and heavy bodies on the earth fall towards its centre and not\ntowards the sun, which, also, in this sense, was not the centre! There\nwas no difficulty for Galileo in recanting that the sun was immovable,\nfor he had himself concluded from the motion of the spots that it\nrevolved on its own axis.[409] As to the earth, he abjured it as an error\n(2) that \u201cthe earth is not the centre;\u201d quite right, for it is the centre\nfor heavy bodies: and it was not said\u2014\u201cthe centre of the universe;\u201d (3)\n\u201cthat the earth moves;\u201d vast efforts of sophistry were necessary to make\nthis desperately precise proposition square with the arguments of this\ncurious casuist. He therefore says, that as, according to the wording,\nit is not the diurnal motion of the earth that is in question, this\nproposition has quite a different meaning, in which, on the one hand, it\nmust be said that the earth is immovable, and on the other, that it is\nonly motion through the air from one place to another that is excluded.\nThe earth may certainly, both in relation to its physical conformation\nand in contrast to what goes on upon it, be called immovable![410] At\nthe time when these lines were written, in 1875, the author of this\narticle in the \u201cHistorisch-politischen Bl\u00e4ttern\u201d was unknown to us.\nAfterwards, through the liberality of the Bavarian Government, among\nother works relating to Galileo in the Royal Library, the following\nwere lent to us:\u2014(1) \u201cDi Copernico e di Galileo, scritto postumo del P.\nMaurizio-Benedetto Olivieri, Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario\ndella S. Rom. ed Univ. Inquisizione ora per la prima volta messo in luce\nsull\u2019 autografo per cura d\u2019un religioso dello stesso istituto. Bologna,\n1872\u201d; (2) \u201cIl S. Officio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un opusculo\npostumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento apunti di Gilberto Govi.\nTorino, 1872.\u201d To our no small surprise we found, on reading the former,\nthat it had by no means \u201cseen the light\u201d for the first time in 1872, but\nhad appeared thirty-one years before in a literal German translation, as\nthe article above mentioned in the \u201cHistorisch-politischen Bl\u00e4ttern,\u201d\nwith a few insignificant alterations, and a different title, the old\none being given in a note. Neither the editor of the first Italian work\nof Olivieri, the Dominican monk, Fra. Tommaso Bonora, nor the author of\nthe above rejoinder,[411] Gilberto Govi, had, as appears from what they\nsay, the least idea of this singular fact. In Germany, Professor Clemens\nof Bonn, was universally believed to be the author of this article,\nwhich excited great attention; so firmly was it held, that Professor\nMoritz Cantor, in a notice of the present work, gave no credence to\nour discovery, but stated in his critique, \u201cThe anonymous writer was\nnot Olivieri, but Professor Clemens of Bonn.\u201d[412] Upon this we sent\nProfessor Cantor the essay from the \u201cHistorisch-politischen Bl\u00e4ttern\u201d and\nBonora\u2019s work for examination, when he was constrained to be convinced by\nthe sight of his own eyes.\n\nThe wretched attempt thus to clear the Inquisition, by Olivieri\u2019s\nmethod, of the reproach of having extorted an oath from Galileo entirely\nagainst his convictions, is unworthy of refutation. By impartial\nposterity the oath is and must be regarded as perjury, and is all the\nmore repulsive because the promise was coupled with it that, \u201cif he met\nwith a heretic, or person suspected of heresy,\u201d he would denounce him\nto the authorities of the Church; that is, the master would denounce\nhis disciples\u2014for by a \u201cheretic, or any one suspected of heresy,\u201d the\nadherents of the Copernican system must be chiefly understood\u2014to the\npersecution of the Inquisition! The taking of this degrading oath may,\nunder the circumstances, be excused, but it never can be justified.\n\nAfter this painful act of world-wide interest had been completed, Galileo\nwas conducted back to the buildings of the Holy Office. Now that he and\nthe Copernican system had been condemned with becoming solemnity by the\nHoly Office, Urban VIII. magnanimously gave the word for mercy; that is,\nGalileo was not, as the sentence prescribed, detained in the prisons of\nthe Inquisition, but a restricted amount of liberty was granted him.\nThe Roman curia never entirely let go its hold upon him as long as he\nlived. On the day after the sentence was passed, the Pope exchanged\nimprisonment for temporary banishment, to the villa of the Grand Duke of\nTuscany at Trinita de\u2019 Monti, near Rome,[413] whither Niccolini conducted\nhis unfortunate friend on the evening of 24th June, as we find from the\ndespatch before quoted from him to Cioli of 26th of the month.[414]\n\nWe learn from the same source that while Galileo took the prohibition of\nhis book, of which he was aware beforehand, with tolerable composure,\nthe unexpected proceedings of the Holy Office against him personally,\naffected him most deeply. Niccolini did his best to rouse him from his\ndeep depression, but at first with little success.[415] Galileo longed\nto leave Rome, where he had suffered so much, and therefore addressed the\nfollowing petition to Urban VIII.:\u2014\n\n    \u201cMost Holy Father! Galileo Galilei most humbly begs your\n    Holiness to exchange the place assigned to him for his prison\n    near Rome, for some other in Florence, which may appear\n    suitable to your Holiness, in consideration of his poor health,\n    and also because the petitioner is expecting a sister with\n    eight children from Germany, to whom no one can afford help and\n    protection so well as himself. He will receive any disposition\n    of your Holiness as a great favour.\u201d[416]\n\nBut in the Vatican the opinion prevailed that to allow Galileo to return\nto Florence already would be a superfluity of indulgence. The Pope said\nto Niccolini: \u201cWe must proceed gently, and only rehabilitate Galileo\nby degrees.\u201d[417] Still Urban was disposed to grant the ambassador\u2019s\nrequest, and to alter the penalty so far as to allow the exile to go to\nSiena, to the house of the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, whom we know\nas a warm friend of Galileo\u2019s. Niccolini\u2019s urgent entreaties succeeded\nin obtaining a papal decree of 30th June, ordering Galileo to go by the\nshortest route to Siena, to go to the Archbishop\u2019s at once, to remain\nthere, and strictly to obey his orders; and he was not to leave that city\nwithout permission from the Congregation.[418] Galileo was informed of\nthis decree on 2nd July by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition,\nFather Vincenzo Maccolani di Firenzuola, in person.[419] On 10th July,\nNiccolini reported to Cioli: \u201cSignor Galileo set out early on Wednesday,\n6th July, in good health, for Siena, and writes to me from Viterbo, that\nhe had performed four miles on foot, the weather being very cool.\u201d[420]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_CURRENT MYTHS._\n\n    Popular Story of Galileo\u2019s Fate.\u2014His Eyes put out.\u2014\u201cE pur si\n    Muove.\u201d\u2014The Hair Shirt.\u2014Imprisonment.\u2014Galileo only detained\n    twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.\u2014Torture.\u2014Refuted in 18th\n    Century.\u2014Torture based on the words, \u201c_examen rigorosum_.\u201d\u2014This\n    shown to be untenable.\u2014Assertion that the Acts have been\n    falsified refuted.\u2014False Imputation on Niccolini.\u2014Conclusive\n    Evidence against Torture.\u2014Galileo not truly a \u201cMartyr of\n    Science.\u201d\n\n\nBefore following Galileo\u2019s fate to the end, so far as his relations with\nthe curia are concerned, it seems desirable to glance at the fables and\nexaggerations, mostly originating in malice and fierce partisanship,\nwhich, in defiance of the results of the latest historical research, are\nnot only circulated among the public at large, but introduced, to some\nextent, even in works which profess to contain history.\n\nAccording to these legends, Galileo languishes during the trial in\nthe prisons of the Inquisition; when brought before his judges, he\nproudly defends the doctrine of the double motion; he is then seized by\nthe executioners of the Holy Office, and subjected to the horrors of\ntorture; but even then\u2014as heroic fable demands\u2014he for a long time remains\nsteadfast; under pain beyond endurance he promises obedience, that\nis, the recantation of the Copernican system. As soon as his torn and\ndislocated limbs permit, he is dragged before the large assembly of the\nCongregation, and there, kneeling in the penitential shirt, with fierce\nrage in his heart, he utters the desired recantation. As he rises he is\nno longer able to master his indignation, and fiercely stamping with his\nfoot, he utters the famous words: \u201cE pur si muove!\u201d He is, therefore,\nthrown into the dank dungeons of the dreaded tribunal, where his eyes are\nput out!\n\nThe blinding of Galileo is a creation of the lively popular mind, which,\nwith its love of horrors, embellishes tragical historical events by\nfictitious additions of this kind, just suited to the palates of people\naccustomed to coarse diet. Galileo\u2019s subsequent loss of sight may\nhave given rise to the fable, which first appeared in the \u201cHistory of\nAstronomy\u201d by Estevius.[421] It is not known who was the inventor of the\nassumed exclamation, \u201cE pur si muove,\u201d which sounds well, and has become\na \u201cwinged word;\u201d but besides not being historic, it very incorrectly\nindicates the old man\u2019s state of mind; for he was morally completely\ncrushed. Professor Heis, who has devoted a treatise to the origin of this\nfamous saying, thinks that he has discovered its first appearance in the\n\u201cDictionnaire Historique,\u201d Caen, 1789;[422] Professor Grisar tells us,\nhowever, in his studies on the trial of Galileo, that in the \u201cLehrbuch\nder philosophischen Geschichte,\u201d published at W\u00fcrzburg, 1774, fifteen\nyears earlier, by Fr. N. Steinacher, the following edifying passage\noccurs:\u2014\n\n\u201cGalileo was neither sufficiently in earnest nor steadfast with his\nrecantation; for the moment he rose up, when his conscience told him that\nhe had sworn falsely, he cast his eyes on the ground, stamped with his\nfoot, and exclaimed, \u2018E pur si muove.\u2019\u201d[423]\n\nBesides the fact that these words are not attributed to Galileo by any of\nhis contemporaries, not even the best informed, the fallacy of the whole\nstory is obvious; for the witnesses of this outbreak, his judges, in\nfact, would assuredly not have allowed so audacious a revocation of his\nrecantation to escape unpunished; it is, indeed, impossible to conjecture\nwhat the consequences would have been; the recusant would certainly not\nhave been released two days afterwards from the buildings of the Holy\nOffice.\n\nAlthough this dramatic scene is not mentioned as worthy of credit by\nany modern historian,[424] it is different with the hair shirt in which\nGalileo is said to have performed the humiliating act. Libri, Cousin,\nParchappe, and very recently Louis Combes,[425] all gravely relate that\nthe philosopher had to recant \u201cen chemise.\u201d\n\nThe official document, although it goes very much into detail as to the\nway in which the oath was performed, says nothing of the shirt, and these\nauthors should have said nothing either. The doubtful source in which\nthis fable originated is an anonymous and very confused note on a MS. in,\nthe Magliabechiana Library at Florence, where among other nonsense we\nfind: \u201cthe poor man (Galileo), appeared clad in a ragged shirt, so that\nit was really pitiable.\u201d[426] We agree with Epinois,[427] that history\nrequires more authentic testimony than that of an anonymous note.\n\nBut upon what testimony, then, do a large number of authors speak with\nmuch pathos of the imprisonment which Galileo had to undergo? No sort\nof documents are referred to as evidence of the story; this is quite\nintelligible, for none exist. Or is the rhetorical phrase, \u201cGalileus nunc\nin vinculis detinetur,\u201d[428] contained in a letter of May, 1633, from\nRome, from Holstein to Peiresc, to be taken as evidence that Galileo was\nreally languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition? One glance at the\ntruest historical source for the famous trial,\u2014the official despatches\nof Niccolini to Cioli, from 15th August, 1632, to 3rd December, 1633,\nfrom which we have so freely quoted,\u2014would have convinced any one that\nGalileo spent altogether only twenty-two days (12-30th April, and\nafterwards 21-24th June, 1633) in the buildings of the Holy Office; and\neven then, not in a prison cell with grated windows, but in the handsome\nand commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. But such\nwriters do not seem to have been in the habit of studying authorities;\nthus, for example, in the \u201cHistoire des H\u00e9r\u00e9sies,\u201d by P. Domenico\nBernini, and in the \u201cGrande Dictionnaire Bibliographique\u201d of Moreri, we\nfind it stated that Galileo was imprisoned five or six years at Rome!\nMonteula, in his \u201cHistoire des Mathematiques,\u201d and Sir David Brewster, in\nhis \u201cMartyrs of Science,\u201d reduce the period, perhaps from pity for the\npoor \u201cmartyr,\u201d to one year; Delambre, however, felt no such compassion,\nand says in his \u201cHistoire de l\u2019Astronomie Ancienne,\u201d that Galileo was\ncondemned to an imprisonment which lasted \u201cseveral years\u201d! Such an error\nis the more surprising from the last celebrated author, as we know that\ntrustworthy extracts from the original acts of the Vatican MS. were in\nhis hands.[429] Even in a very recent work, Drager\u2019s \u201cGeschichte der\nConflicte zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft,\u201d Leipzig, 1875 (\u201cHistory\nof the Conflicts between Religion and Science\u201d), it is seriously stated\nthat Galileo was detained three years in the prisons of the Inquisition!\n\nThus we see that the fable of Galileo\u2019s imprisonment has been adopted by\nseveral authors without any historical foundation, and this is to a far\ngreater extent the case with the famous story of the torture to which he\nis said to have been subjected. As it has held its ground, although only\nsporadically, even up to the most recent times,[430] it seems incumbent\non us to go more deeply into this disputed question.\n\nCuriously enough, it is towards the end of the eighteenth century that\nwe find the first traces of this falsehood, and from the fact that three\n_savans_, Frisi,[431] Brenna,[432] and Targioni,[433] who wrote lives of\nGalileo at that time, raised a protest against it. Although they were\nnot then able, as we are now, to base their arguments upon the Acts of\nthe trial, they had even then authentic materials in their hands\u2014the\ndespatches between Niccolini and Cioli,[434] then recently published by\nFabroni\u2014which rendered it utterly improbable that the old man had been\nplaced upon the rack. These materials were thoroughly turned to account\neighty years later by T. B. Biot, in his essay, \u201cLa verit\u00e9 sur le proc\u00e8s\nde Galilei.\u201d[435] He clearly showed from the reports of the ambassador\nthat Galileo had neither suffered torture during his first stay in the\nbuildings of the Holy Office, from 12-30th April, when he daily wrote to\nNiccolini,[436] and was in better health when he returned to the embassy\nthan when he left it;[437] nor during the three days of his second\ndetention, from 21-24th June, at the end of which he was conducted by\nNiccolini, on the evening of the 24th, to the Villa Medici.[438] On 6th\nJuly he set out thence, \u201cin very good health,\u201d for Siena, and in spite of\nhis advanced age performed four miles on foot for his own pleasure,[439]\nwhich an infirm old man of seventy, if he had suffered torture a\nfortnight before, would surely not have been able to do.\n\nBut all these plain indications go for nothing with some historians,\nwhose judgment is warped by partisanship, and who are not willing to give\nup the notion that Galileo did suffer the pangs of torture. And so we\nfind this myth, at first mentioned by a few authors as a mere unauthentic\nreport, assuming a more and more distinct form, until it is brought\nforward, with acute and learned arguments, as, to say the least, very\nprobable, by Libri, Brewster, Parchappe, Eckert, and others.\n\nThese writers base their assertion on the following passage in the\nsentence:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAnd whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full\n    truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to\n    subject you to a rigorous examination (_examen rigorosum_), at\n    which (without prejudice however, to the matters confessed by\n    you, and set forth as above with regard to your said intention)\n    you answered like a good Catholic.\u201d\n\nThese writers assert, on the one hand, that the expression \u201c_examen\nrigorosum_,\u201d in the vocabulary of the Inquisition could mean nothing\nbut torture; and on the other, they take the expression that Galileo\nhad \u201canswered as a good Catholic\u201d under _examen rigorosum_, to mean\nthat they had extorted from him a confession as to his intention, and\nconclude that torture had been resorted to. But on closer scrutiny of the\nwording of the passage, the meaning appears to be exactly the contrary;\nfor the sentence in parenthesis says plainly that Galileo had \u201canswered\nas a good Catholic\u201d \u201c_without prejudice_\u201d to his previous depositions\nor the conclusions which his judges had previously arrived at as to his\nintention, and which Galileo persistently denied. His Catholic answer\nconsisted in his repeated assurance that he did not hold the opinion of\nCopernicus, and had not held it after the command to renounce it had been\nintimated to him. The Inquisition could but call this a Catholic answer,\nas Galileo thereby entirely renounced the condemned doctrine.[440]\n\nWe turn now to the other assertion of these writers, that \u201c_examen\nrigorosum_\u201d means torture. This is in a general sense correct, if by\ntorture the actual application of it is not intended. But they take the\npassage in the sentence for decisive evidence that torture was actually\ncarried out, in which they are mistaken, as the following passage from\nthe \u201cSacro Arsenale\u201d undoubtedly proves: \u201cIf the culprit who was merely\ntaken to the torture chamber, and there undressed, or also bound, without\nhowever being lifted up, confessed, it was said that he had confessed\nunder torture and under _examen rigorosum_.\u201d[441] The last expression\nthen by no means always implies the actual application of torture. Dr.\nWohlwill knows this passage, and the sentence therefore only proves to\nhim that Galileo was taken into the torture chamber; what took place\nthere, whether the old man was actually tortured, or whether they\ncontented themselves with urging him to speak the truth, and threatening\nhim with the instruments they were showing him (a degree of torture\ncalled _territio realis_), appears shrouded in mystery to Dr. Wohlwill.\nIn spite of his acquaintance with the literature of the Inquisition, he\nhas fallen into a mistake. He thinks that the _territio realis_ was\nthe first degree of torture.[442] But this was not the case. Limborch\u2019s\nwork, \u201cHistoria Inquisitionis,\u201d with which Wohwill does not seem to be\nacquainted, contains definite information on the point. He says that\nthere were five grades of torture, which followed in regular order, and\nquotes the following passage verbatim from Julius Clarus: \u201cKnow then that\nthere are five degrees of torture: First, the threat of the rack; second,\nbeing taken into the torture chamber; third, being undressed and bound;\nfourth, being laid upon the rack; fifth, turning the rack.\u201d[443] The\n_territio realis_ was therefore by no means the first degree of torture;\nthe first was the threat of torture, still outside the torture chamber in\nthe ordinary court, called _territio verbalis_,[444] which proceeding we\nfind in the examination of Galileo on 21st June. The expression \u201c_examen\nrigorosum_\u201d in the sentence, appears therefore, taking it to indicate\ntorture in a general sense, fully justified by historical facts.\n\nIt would be more difficult to prove that \u201c_examen rigorosum_\u201d in the\nsentence meant actual torture, or _territio realis_. According to the\nrules of the Holy Office, a number of strict regulations were prescribed\nfor the procedure, which began with taking the accused into the torture\nchamber, and the neglect of any one of them made the whole examination\nnull and void. The most important were as follows: First, a short final\nexamination had to take place outside the torture chamber, at which\nthe accused was told that he had better confess, or recourse will be\nhad to torture. (This took place precisely according to the rules of\nthe Holy Office at Galileo\u2019s trial at the examination on 21st June.)\nIf the accused persisted, and if in a special Congregation for this\ncase the necessity of recourse to torture had previously been agreed\nupon[445] (this must have taken place in the Congregation of 16th June),\nthe judge had to order the removal of the accused, to the torture\nchamber by a special formal decree, as follows:\u2014\u201cTunc D.D. sedentes ...\nvisa pertinacia et obstinatione ipsius constitati, visoque et mature\nconsiderato toto tenore processus ... decreverunt, ipsum constituum esse\ntorquendum tormento funis pro veritate habendo.... Et ideo mandaverunt\nipsum constitutum duci ad locum tormentorum.\u201d[446]\n\nSecond, a notary of the Inquisition had to be present in the torture\nchamber, and the judges had to see \u201cthat he noted down not only all the\nanswers of the accused, but all his expressions and movements, every word\nthat he uttered on the rack, even every sigh, cry, and groan.\u201d[447]\n\nThird, within twenty-four hours after his release from the torture\nchamber, the accused had to ratify all his utterances under the torments\nof the rack, or under threat of them, in the usual court. Otherwise the\nwhole proceeding was null and void.[448]\n\nOf all these documents, which must have existed if actual torture had\nbeen employed, or even if Galileo had been taken into the torture\nchamber, there is not a trace in the Acts of the trial in the Vatican.\nDr. Wohlwill[449] and Dr. Scartazzini[450] assert, with more boldness\nthan evidence, that most of these documents did exist, but that\nafterwards, and in the present century, as the whole of the documents\nhave been tampered with for a special purpose, these compromising papers\nhave been withdrawn! The Vatican MS. contains one document which, one\nwould think, is indisputable evidence that only the _territio verbalis_\nwas employed against Galileo. We allude to the Protocol of the last\nexamination of 21st June. Up to the final answer of the accused the\nquestions of the Inquisitor agree _verbatim_ with the formula of\nexamination which the \u201cSacro Arsenale\u201d gives for questioning as to the\nIntention;[451] but when, if it was intended to proceed to torture or\neven to take Galileo into the torture chamber, the decree about it\nshould follow, we find instead the concluding sentence: \u201c_Et cum nihil\naliud posset haberi in executionem decreti habita eius subscriptione\nremissus fuit ad locum suum._\u201d This is, up to the words \u201c_in executionem\ndecreti_,\u201d the usual concluding sentence of the last examination when it\nended without torture.[452] These exceptional words refer to the decree\nof 16th June, 1633, which minutely described the judicial proceedings to\nbe taken against Galileo, and by which certainly the _threat_ of torture,\nbut by no means actual recourse to it, was ordained by the Pope and the\nSacred Congregation.[453]\n\nThe concluding sentence of the last examination of Galileo being on\nthe one hand in exact agreement with the decree of 16th June, and on\nthe other being a precise and definite statement, is a strong proof\nof the correctness of the opinion long defended by calm and impartial\nhistorians, like Alb\u00e8ri, Reumont, Biot, Cantor, Bouix, Troussart, Reusch,\nand even the passionate opponent of Rome, Prof. Chasles, that Galileo\u2019s\nfeeble frame was never subjected to the horrors of torture. Wohlwill also\nacknowledges the force of this concluding sentence\u2014if it be genuine. He\nthinks these words are a falsification in the present century, while\noriginally Galileo\u2019s last answer was followed by the necessary decree for\nproceeding to torture, and then by the protocol about the proceedings in\nthe torture chamber. Dr. Scartazzini goes even further than Wohlwill, and\nmaintains that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol\nof the examination of 21st June, as now found in the Vatican MS., is a\nlater falsified insertion. We shall see why he thinks so by and by.\n\nWe may remark in passing, from our own experience, that it is always\nventuresome to affirm that there are falsifications in a MS. without even\nhaving seen it, to say nothing of having examined it. Thus, for instance,\na glance at the original shows on material grounds that there can be no\nsuspicion of falsification or later insertion in the protocol of 21st\nJune. Both pages on which it is written, fols. 452, 453, are second pages\nto fols. 413 and 414, on which the protocol of Galileo\u2019s trial of 12th\nApril begins. A later insertion is therefore an impossibility. Besides,\nthe protocol of 21st June ends in the middle of fol. 435 ro, and, after\na space of scarcely two fingers\u2019 breadth follows an annotation of 30th\nJune, 1633, in exactly the same handwriting as the annotations of 16th\nJune, 1633, 23rd September, 9th and 30th December, 1632. This really\nseems to render the bold conjecture of falsification wholly untenable.\n\nThe unquestioned genuineness of Galileo\u2019s signature, which concludes\nthis as well as all the other protocols, is also a guarantee of its\nauthenticity. Dr. Scartazzini has taken advantage of our information\nthat this signature, unlike all Galileo\u2019s others, is in a very trembling\nhand, to assert that it is not genuine. We are of opinion that a forger\nwould have taken every pains to make the signature as much like the\nothers as possible, and certainly would not have written in remarkably\ntrembling characters. No; this signature, which is unmistakably like the\nrest, reflects his fearful agitation, and is by no means a forgery of the\nnineteenth century.\n\nLet us see now why Dr. Scartazzini insists that not only the concluding\nsentence, but the whole protocol of 21st June, is a falsification. The\nreason is not far to seek. As we have seen, according to the rules of the\nInquisition, if Galileo had really suffered torture, or if they had only\nproceeded to _territio realis_ against him, within twenty-four hours of\nleaving the torture chamber he would have had to confirm the depositions\nmade there, in the ordinary court. But the passing of the sentence and\nthe recantation took place on the 22nd, on the day therefore on which the\ntortured Galileo would have had to ratify these depositions, and not till\nafter this could the sentence be legally drawn up. Dr. Scartazzini sees\nplainly enough that Galileo\u2019s ratification, the drawing up and passing\nof the sentence, and the recantation, could not possibly all have taken\nplace in one morning. But he finds his way out of this _cul-de-sac_ in\na remarkably simple manner; he boldly asserts that the date is false,\nthat the last examination was not on 21st June, but earlier, perhaps\non the 17th! The whole protocol, therefore, must be false. Of course\nDr. Scartazzini has not a shadow of evidence to give for his assertion.\nHe contents himself with the singular reason that the papal decree of\n16th June did not admit of a delay of five or six days, but would be at\nonce carried out.[454] This arbitrary assertion is contradicted by the\nofficial report of Niccolini to Cioli of 26th June, 1633, in which he\nsays that Galileo was summoned on Monday evening to the Holy Office, and\nwent on Tuesday morning to learn what was wanted of him; he was detained\nthere, and taken on Wednesday to the Minerva.[455] The dates given by\nNiccolini agree precisely with those of the protocol of Galileo\u2019s last\nhearing, which is assumed to be false! In face of this evidence, so\nconclusive for any serious historian, Dr. Scartazzini remarks: \u201cthe\nTuscan ambassador\u2019s memory must have failed him, whether involuntarily\nor voluntarily.\u201d[456] We leave all comment on this kind of historical\nevidence to the reader.\n\nBut we must raise a decided protest, in the name of impartial\nhistory, against the way in which Dr. Scartazzini, in order to lend\nsome probability to the above remark, afterwards tries to make out\nthat Niccolini had repeatedly sent romances to Florence, in order to\nrepresent to the Grand Duke, who was so anxious about Galileo, how much\nhe (Niccolini) had exerted himself for him, and had actually achieved.\nThus Dr. Scartazzini comes to the conclusion, which must excite the ire\nof every right-minded person, that \u201cthe Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini,\nis a liar.\u201d[457] Niccolini then, Galileo\u2019s noblest, most devoted, and\nindefatigable friend, who was at his side in every difficulty, and\ncertainly did more for him at Rome than was ordered at Florence, and\nperhaps even more than was approved,\u2014this historical figure, worthy of\nour utmost reverence,\u2014was a liar! Happily it is with Dr. Scartazzini\nalone that the odium of the accusation rests; in the annals of _history_,\nthe name of Niccolini stands untarnished, and every Italian, every\neducated man, will think with gratitude of the man who nobly and\ndisinterestedly stood by the side of Galileo Galilei at the time of his\ngreatest peril. Honour be for ever to his memory!\n\nWe give, in conclusion, one more instance of a curious kind of evidence\nthat Galileo really was subjected to torture. Professor Eckert thinks he\nknows with \u201calmost geometrical certainty that Galileo suffered torture\nduring the twenty-four hours which he spent before the Inquisition.\u201d\nIn proof of this assertion the author says: \u201cIn conclusion, the two\nhernias which the unfortunate old man had after his return is a proof\nthat he must have endured that kind of torture called _il tormento della\ncorda_.\u201d[458] This shrewd conclusion falls to the ground in face of\nthe medical certificate of 17th December, 1632, wherein among the rest\nwe find: \u201cWe have also observed a serious hernia, with rupture of the\nperitoneum.\u201d[459] And further, this certificate affords indisputable\nevidence that both his age[460] and his state of health, in consequence\nof the rupture, were sufficient to protect him against torture according\nto the rules of the Holy Office.[461] Galileo would have had to be\nprofessionally examined by a physician and surgeon, and, according to\ntheir written report, he would either have been subjected to torture,\nor a dispensation would have been granted against it, and all this\nwould have been minutely recorded in the Acts of the trial.[462] It is\nneedless to say that among these papers there is not a trace either of\nany protest of Galileo\u2019s, nor of the certificates of the physicians of\nthe Holy Office; and that according to the protocol of the hearing of\n21st June, it never went so far, and the Pope himself, as the decree of\n16th June undoubtedly proves, never intended that it should.\n\nNo, Galileo never suffered bodily torture, nor was he even terrified by\nbeing taken into the torture chamber and shown the instruments; he was\nonly mentally stretched upon the rack, by the verbal threat of it in the\nordinary judgment hall, while the whole painful procedure, and finally\nthe humiliating public recantation, was but a prolonged torture for the\nold man in his deep distress. Libri, Brewster, and other rhetorical\nauthors have desired to stamp Galileo as a \u201cmartyr of science\u201d in the\nfull sense of the words. But this will not do for two reasons, as Henri\nMartin[463] justly points out. In the first place, Galileo did not suffer\ntorture; and in the second, a true martyr, that is, a witness unto blood,\nnever under any circumstances, not even on burning coals, abjures his\nopinions, or he does not deserve the name.\n\nFor the sake of Galileo\u2019s moral greatness, his submission may be\nregretted, but at all events greater benefit has accrued from it to\nscience, than if, in consequence of a noble steadfastness which we should\nhave greeted with enthusiasm, he had perished prematurely at the stake\nor had languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition. It was after the\nfamous trial that he presented the world with his immortal \u201cDialoghi\ndelle Nuove Scienze.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n_GALILEO\u2019S LAST YEARS._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI._\n\n    Arrival at Siena.\u2014Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany\n    to ask for his release.\u2014Postponed on the advice of\n    Niccolini.\u2014Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican\n    System.\u2014Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors\n    of Italy.\u2014Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.\u2014Mandate\n    against the Publication of any New Work of Galileo\u2019s\n    or New Edition.\u2014Curious Arguments in favour of the Old\n    System.\u2014Niccolini asks for Galileo\u2019s release.\u2014Refusal,\n    but permission given to go to Arcetri.\u2014Anonymous\n    accusations.\u2014Death of his Daughter.\u2014Request for permission\n    to go to Florence.\u2014Harsh refusal and threat.\u2014Letter to\n    Diodati.\u2014Again at work.\u2014Intervention of the Count de Noailles\n    on his behalf.\u2014Prediction that he will be compared to\n    Socrates.\u2014Letter to Peiresc.\u2014Publication of Galileo\u2019s Works in\n    Holland.\u2014Continued efforts of Noailles.\u2014Urban\u2019s fair speeches.\n\n\nGalileo arrived safely at Siena on 9th July, and was most heartily\nwelcomed by Ascanio Piccolomini.[464] But neither his devoted kindness,\nnor stimulating converse with his friend, who was well versed in\nscience, and the learned Alessandro Marsili, who lived at Siena, could\nmake him forget that he was still a prisoner of the Inquisition, and\nthat his residence there was compulsory. He longed for liberty, the\nhighest earthly good, and next to this for Florence, which had become\na second home to him. In order to attain this fervent desire, on 23rd\nJuly he addressed a letter to Cioli,[465] with an urgent request that\nhis Highness the Grand Duke, to please whom Urban VIII. had done so\nmuch, would be graciously pleased to ask the Pope, on whose will alone\nit depended, for his release. Only five days afterwards, Galileo\nreceived tidings from Cioli that Ferdinand II. had in the kindest\nmanner consented to make the attempt, and that Niccolini was already\ncommissioned to petition at the Vatican, in the name of the Grand Duke,\nfor a full pardon for his chief philosopher.[466] But the ambassador\nhad good reasons for thinking that it was too soon, and that it would\ncertainly be in vain to ask for Galileo\u2019s entire release, and replied to\nthis effect to Cioli, adding the advice not to do anything in it till\nautumn.[467] It was therefore decided at Florence, in consideration of\nNiccolini\u2019s doubts and his intimate knowledge of affairs at Rome, not\nto intervene with the Pope in favour of Galileo for two months, which\ndecision was communicated by Bocchineri to the prisoner at Siena in a\nletter of 13th August.[468]\n\nWhile Galileo was bearing his banishment in Siena, which Ascanio\nPiccolomini did all in his power to ameliorate, with resignation, and\nwas even diligently at work on his \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,\u201d war\nwas being waged with great vigour against the Copernican doctrine at\nRome, and the utmost efforts were being made to stifle it in Catholic\ncountries in general, and in Italy in particular. Urban VIII. first\nvisited with severe punishment all those dignitaries of the Church who,\nin virtue of their official position, had conduced to the publication\nof the \u201cDialogues.\u201d Father Riccardi was deprived of his office, and the\nInquisitor at Florence was reprimanded for having given permission to\nprint the work.[469] In accordance with a decree passed in the sitting\nof the Congregation of 16th June, 1633, the sentence on, and recantation\nof, Galileo were sent to all the nunciatures of Europe, as well as to\nall archbishops, bishops, and inquisitors of Italy. The form in which\nthis commission was issued to the ecclesiastical dignitaries is of great\nhistorical interest. One of the letters which accompanied the decree and\nordered its publication has been preserved to us by Father Polacco in his\n\u201cAnti-Copernicus Catholicus,\u201d published at Venice in 1644.[470] It was\naddressed to the Inquisitor at Venice, and was as follows; the rest were\nprobably similar:\u2014\n\n    Most Reverend Father,\u2014\n\n    Although the treatise of Nicholas Copernicus, \u2018De\n    Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium,\u2019 had been suspended by the\n    Congregation of the Index, because it was therein maintained\n    that the earth moves, but not the sun, but that it stands\n    still in the centre of the world (which opinion is contrary to\n    Holy Scripture); and although many years ago, Galileo Galilei,\n    Florentine, was forbidden by the Congregation of this Holy\n    Office to hold, defend, or teach the said opinion in any way\n    whatsoever, either verbally or in writing; the said Galileo\n    ventured nevertheless to write a book signed Galileo Galilei\n    Linceus; and as he did not mention the said prohibition, he\n    extorted licence to print, and did then actually have it\n    printed. He stated, in the beginning, middle, and end of it,\n    that he intended to treat the said opinion of Copernicus\n    hypothetically, but he did it in such a manner (though he ought\n    not to have discussed it in any way) as to render himself\n    very suspicious of adhering to this opinion. Being tried on\n    this account, and in accordance with the sentence of their\n    Eminences, my Lords, confined in the prison of the Holy Office,\n    he was condemned to renounce this opinion, to remain in prison\n    during their Eminences\u2019 pleasure, and to perform other salutary\n    penances; as your Reverences will see by the subjoined copy of\n    the sentence and abjuration, which is sent to you that you may\n    make it known to your vicars, and that you and all professors\n    of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it; that\n    they may know why they proceeded against the said Galileo, and\n    recognise the gravity of his error in order that they may avoid\n    it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to\n    suffer in case they fell into the same.\n\n                    Your Reverences, as brother,\n\n                                         Cardinal of St. Onufrius.\n\n    Rome, 2nd July, 1633.\n\nAgain it is worthy of note, that even in this letter it was deemed\nnecessary to lay special stress on the circumstance that Galileo had\nacted contrary to a special prohibition issued several years before. But\nthen, to be sure, this formed the only _legal_ ground for the proceedings\nagainst him.\n\nFrom a letter from Guiducci to Galileo from Florence of 27th August,[471]\nwe learn the manner in which the publication had taken place there, on\nthe 12th. Both the documents were read aloud in a large assembly of\ncounsellors of the Holy Office, canons and other priests, professors\nof mathematics and friends of Galileo, such as Pandolfini, Aggiunti,\nRinuccini, Peri, and others, who had been invited to the ceremony. This\nproceeding was followed in all the more important cities of Italy, as\nwell as in the larger ones of Catholic Europe. It is characteristic\nof the great split which existed in the scientific world about the\nCopernican system, that Professor Kellison, Rector of the University of\nDouai, wrote in reply to a letter of the Nuncio at Brussels, who had sent\nthe sentence and recantation of Galileo to that academy: \u201cThe professors\nof our university are so opposed to that fanatical opinion (_phanatic\u00e6\nopinioni_), that they have always held that it must be banished from the\nschools.... In our English college at Douai this paradox has never been\napproved, and never will be.\u201d[472]\n\nThe Roman curia, however, did not confine itself to trying to frighten\nall good Catholics from accepting the Copernican doctrine by as wide a\ncirculation as possible of the sentence against Galileo; but in order to\nsuppress it altogether as far as might be, especially in Italy, all the\nItalian Inquisitors received orders neither to permit the publication of\na new edition of any of Galileo\u2019s works, nor of any new work.[473] On the\nother hand, the Aristotelians, who had been very active since the trial,\nwere encouraged to confute the illustrious dead, Copernicus and Kepler,\nand the now silenced Galileo, with tongue and pen. Thus in the succeeding\ndecades the book market was flooded with refutations of the Copernican\nsystem.[474]\n\nIn fighting truth with falsehood very curious demonstrations were sure\nnow and then to come to light on the part of the adherents of the wisdom\nof the ancients. We will here only mention a book dedicated to Cardinal\nBarberini, which appeared in 1633: \u201cDifesa di Scipione Chiaramonti\nda Cesena al suo Antiticone, e libro delle tre nuove stelle, dall\u2019\nopposizioni dell\u2019Autore de\u2019 due massimi sistemi Tolemaico e Copernicano,\u201d\nin which such sagacious arguments as the following are adduced against\nthe doctrine of the double motion of the earth:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAnimals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no\n    limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move.\n\n    \u201cIt is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, etc., turn\n    round. If the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in\n    the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live there, it\n    would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth.\n\n    \u201cThe planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one\n    species; namely, that of stars\u2014they therefore all move or all\n    stand still.\n\n    \u201cIt seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the\n    earth, which is a sink of impurity, among the heavenly bodies,\n    which are pure and divine things.\u201d[475]\n\nBut although Galileo was condemned to silence, there were courageous and\nenlightened men who, in spite of the famous sentence of the Inquisition,\nnot only rejected such absurdities but made energetic advance along the\nnew paths. At the Vatican, however, they seemed disposed, as we shall\nsoon see, to make Galileo answerable for the defence of the Copernican\nsystem in Italy. For instance, at the beginning of November the Tuscan\nambassador thought the time was come to take steps for obtaining pardon\nfor Galileo with some prospect of success; and at an audience of the\nPope on 12th November he asked, on behalf of the Grand Duke, for the\nprisoner\u2019s release. Urban replied somewhat ungraciously, that he would\nsee what could be done, and would consult with the Congregation of the\nHoly Office; but he remarked that it had come to his ears that some\npeople were writing in defence of the Copernican system. Niccolini\nhastened to assure him that Galileo was not in the least implicated\nin it, and that it was done entirely without his knowledge. Urban\nanswered drily, that he had not been exactly informed that Galileo had\nanything to do with it, but he had better beware of the Holy Office. In\nspite of reiterated urgent entreaty, Niccolini could get nothing more\ndefinite about Galileo\u2019s release than the above evasive promise, and he\ncommunicated the doubtful success of his mission to Cioli in a despatch\nof 13th November,[476] in rather a depressed state of mind.\n\nUrban was not disposed to grant a full pardon to Galileo, and therefore\nmade a pretext of the Congregation to the ambassador, as if the decision\ndepended upon it, whereas it rested entirely with himself. Niccolini,\nhowever, still persisted in his efforts. He went to Cardinal Barberini\nand other members of the Holy Office, warmly recommending him to their\nprotection.[477] Meanwhile an indisposition of the Pope, which lasted\nfourteen days, delayed the decision, as the Congregation did not venture\nto come to any without his concurrence. At length he made his appearance\nin the sitting of the Congregation of 1st December, and through the\nmediation of Cardinal Barberini, the petition for Galileo\u2019s release was\nat once laid before him.[478] It was refused; but he was to be permitted\nto retire to a villa at Arcetri, a _miglio_ from Florence, where he was\nto remain until he heard further; he was not to receive any visits, but\nto live in the greatest retirement.[479] Niccolini informed him of this\namelioration of his circumstances in a letter of 3rd December,[480] with\nthe expression of great regret that he could not at present obtain his\nentire liberation. He added that the Pope had charged him to say that\nGalileo might go to Arcetri at once, that he might receive his friends\nand relations there, but not in large numbers at one time, as this might\ngive rise to the idea that he was giving scientific lectures. A few days\nafter the receipt of this letter Galileo set out for Arcetri.[481]\n\nNo sooner had he reached his villa, called \u201cil Giojello,\u201d which was\npleasantly situated, than he made it his first care to thank Cardinal\nBarberini warmly for his urgent intercession, which had, however, only\neffected this fresh alleviation of his sad fate.[482] Some rhetorical\nhistorians make Galileo\u2019s two daughters leave the Convent of St. Matteo,\nwhich was certainly within gunshot of \u201cGiojello,\u201d in order to tend their\nold and suffering father with childlike and tender care; a touching\npicture, but without any historical foundation. On the contrary, it was\nreally one of Galileo\u2019s greatest consolations to pay frequent visits to\nhis daughters, to whom he was tenderly attached, at St. Matteo, when\npermitted to do so by the Holy Office. It was also a great satisfaction\nto him that on a very early day after his arrival at Arcetri the Grand\nDuke came from Florence, and paid the convict of the Inquisition a long\nvisit.[483]\n\nBut while Galileo was once more partaking of some pleasures, the\nimplacable malice of his enemies never slumbered. There were even\nsome who would have been glad to know that he was for ever safe in the\ndungeons of the Inquisition. As, however, he gave them no pretext on\nwhich they could, with any shadow of justice, have seized him, they had\nrecourse to the most disgraceful means\u2014to lying, anonymous denunciation,\nin which his enlightened and therefore disliked friend, the Archbishop\nAscanio Piccolomini, was ingeniously involved. On 1st February, 1634,\nthe following communication, without signature, was received at the Holy\nOffice at Rome from Siena:\u2014\n\n    Most Reverend Sirs,\u2014\n\n    _Galileo has diffused in this city opinions not very Catholic_,\n    urged on by this Archbishop, his host, who has suggested to\n    many persons that Galileo had been unjustly treated with so\n    much severity by the Holy Office, and that he neither could nor\n    would give up his philosophical opinions which he had defended\n    with irrefragable and true mathematical arguments; also that he\n    is the first man in the world, and will live for ever in his\n    works, to which, although prohibited, all modern distinguished\n    men give in their adherence. Now since seeds like these, sown\n    by a prelate of the Church, might bring forth evil fruit, a\n    report is made of them.[484]\n\nAlthough this cowardly denunciation did not bear any immediate\nconsequences either to Piccolomini or Galileo, events which took place\nsoon after show most clearly the unfavourable impression it produced at\nthe Vatican. Galileo, who was very unwell, asked permission of the Pope,\nthrough the mediation of his faithful friend Niccolini, to move into\nFlorence for the sake of the regular medical treatment which he required,\nand which he could not well have at the villa outside the city.[485] As\nif to dye his tragic fate still darker, just while he was awaiting the\nresult of Niccolini\u2019s efforts, his favourite daughter Polissena, or by\nher conventual name Marie Celeste, was taken so ill that her life was\nsoon despaired of.\n\nIt was on one of the last days of March that Galileo was returning to\nhis villa with a physician from a visit to his dying daughter at the\nConvent of St. Matteo, in deep depression of spirits. On the way the\nphysician had prepared him for the worst by telling him that the patient\nwould scarcely survive till the morning, which proved to be the case.\nOn entering his house in anguish of soul, he found the messenger of the\nInquisition there, who in the name of the Holy Office gave him a strict\ninjunction to abstain from all such petitions in future, unless he\ndesired to compel the Inquisition to imprison him again. This unmerciful\nproceeding had been ordered by a papal mandate of 23rd March.[486] The\nInquisitor at Florence reported on it on 1st April to Cardinal Barberini,\nas follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI have communicated to Galileo what was commanded by your\n    Eminence. He adduced as an excuse that he had only done it on\n    account of a frightful rupture. But the villa he lives in is\n    so near the city that he can easily have the physicians and\n    surgeons there, as well as the medicines he requires.\u201d[487]\n\nA passage in a letter from Galileo to Geri Bocchineri at Florence, of\n27th April, shows that the excuse was no empty pretext, and that he\nurgently needed to have medical aid always at hand. He says:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI am going to write to you about my health, which is very\n    bad. I suffer much more from the rupture than has been the\n    case before; my pulse intermits, and I have often violent\n    palpitation of the heart; then the most profound melancholy has\n    come over me. I have no appetite, and loathe myself; in short,\n    I feel myself perpetually called by my beloved daughter. Under\n    these circumstances I do not think it advisable that Vincenzo\n    should set out on a journey now, as events might occur at any\n    time which might make his presence desirable, for besides what\n    I have mentioned, continued sleeplessness alarms me not a\n    little.\u201d[488]\n\nA letter to Diodati at Paris, from Galileo, of 25th July, is also\nof great interest; an insight may be gained from it, not only into\nhis melancholy state of mind, but it also contains some remarkable\nindications of the motives for the fierce persecution on the part of\nRome. We give the portions of the letter which are important for our\nsubject:\u2014\n\n    \u201cI hope that when you hear of my past and present misfortunes,\n    and my anxiety about those perhaps still to come, it will\n    serve as an excuse to you and my other friends and patrons\n    there (at Paris), for my long delay in answering your letter,\n    and to them for my entire silence, as they can learn from\n    you the unhappy turn which my affairs have taken. According\n    to the sentence pronounced on me by the Holy Office, I was\n    condemned to imprisonment during the pleasure of his Holiness,\n    who was pleased, however, to assign the palace and gardens\n    of the Grand Duke near the Trinit\u00e0 dei Monti, as my place of\n    imprisonment. As this was in June of last year, and I had been\n    given to understand that if I asked for a full pardon after the\n    lapse of that and the following month, I should receive it, I\n    asked meanwhile, to avoid having to spend the whole summer and\n    perhaps part of the autumn there, to be allowed, on account of\n    the season, to go to Siena, where the Archbishop\u2019s house was\n    assigned to me as a residence. I staid there five months, when\n    this durance was exchanged for banishment to this little villa,\n    a _miglio_ from Florence, with a strict injunction not to go\n    to the city, and neither to receive the visits of many friends\n    at once, nor to invite any. Here, then, I was living, keeping\n    perfectly quiet, and paying frequent visits to a neighbouring\n    convent, where two daughters of mine were living as nuns; I\n    was very fond of them, especially of the eldest, who possessed\n    high mental gifts, combined with rare goodness of heart, and\n    she was very much attached to me. During my absence, which\n    she considered very perilous for me, she fell into a profound\n    melancholy, which undermined her health, and she was at last\n    attacked by a violent dysentery, of which she died after six\n    days\u2019 illness, just thirty-three years of age, leaving me in\n    the deepest grief, which was increased by another calamity.\n    On returning home from the convent, in company with the\n    doctor who visited my sick daughter shortly before her death,\n    and who had just told me that her situation was desperate,\n    and that she would scarcely survive till the next day, as\n    indeed it proved, I found the Inquisitor\u2019s Vicar here, who\n    informed me of a mandate from the Holy Office at Rome, which\n    had just been communicated to the Inquisitor in a letter from\n    Cardinal Barberini, that I must in future abstain from asking\n    permission to return to Florence, _or they would take me back\n    there (to Rome), and put me in the actual prison of the Holy\n    Office_. This was the answer to the petition, which the Tuscan\n    ambassador had presented to that tribunal after I had been nine\n    months in exile! From this answer it seems to me that, in all\n    probability, my present prison will only be exchanged for that\n    narrow and long-enduring one which awaits us all.\n\n    From this and other circumstances, which it would take too long\n    to repeat here, it will be seen that the fury of my powerful\n    persecutors continually increases. They have at length chosen\n    to reveal themselves to me; for about two months ago, when\n    a dear friend of mine at Rome was speaking of my affairs to\n    Father Christopher Griemberger, mathematician at the college\n    there, this Jesuit uttered the following precise words:\u2014\u2018_If\n    Galileo had only known how to retain the favour of the fathers\n    of this college, he would have stood in renown before the\n    world, he would have been spared all his misfortunes, and could\n    have written what he pleased about everything, even about the\n    motion of the earth._\u2019 From this you will see, honoured Sir,\n    that it is not this opinion or that which has brought, and\n    still brings about my calamities, _but my being in disgrace\n    with the Jesuits_.\n\n    I have also other proofs of the watchfulness of my persecutors.\n    One is that a letter from some foreigner, I do not know from\n    whom, addressed to me at Rome, where he supposed me still to\n    be, was intercepted, and delivered to Cardinal Barberini. It\n    was fortunate for me, as was afterwards written to me from\n    Rome, that it did not purport to be an answer to one from\n    me, but a communication containing the warmest praises of my\n    \u201cDialogues.\u201d It was seen by many persons, and, as I hear,\n    copies of it were circulated at Rome. I have also been told\n    that I might see it. To add to all this, there are other mental\n    disquietudes and many bodily sufferings oppressing me at the\n    age of over seventy years, so that the least exertion is a\n    torment and a burden to me. In consideration of all this, my\n    friends must be indulgent to me for omissions which look like\n    neglect, but really arise from inability.\u201d[489]\n\nThis deep dejection, however, could not last long with a man of so\nactive a mind as Galileo. The impulse which had been implanted in him\nto investigate the problems of nature was too strong to be repressed by\neither mental or bodily sufferings. So far from it, it was this which,\never re-asserting itself with its normal energy, helped him to bear\nthem with resignation, and he often forgot his painful situation in his\nscientific speculations. Thus, but a few months after his daughter\u2019s\ndeath, we find him rousing himself and eagerly at work again on his\nmasterpiece, the \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.\u201d[490] He also resumed\nhis extensive scientific correspondence, of which unfortunately, and\nespecially of the following year, 1635, the letters of his correspondents\nonly have mostly come down to us.[491]\n\nWhile the prisoner of Arcetri was thus eagerly fulfilling his great\nmission to his age, his friends were exerting themselves in vain to\nobtain at least an extension of his liberty. The Count de Noailles,\nFrench ambassador at Rome, had once attended Galileo\u2019s lectures at Padua,\nand had become so enthusiastic an adherent, that he afterwards told\nCastelli that he must see Galileo once more before leaving Italy, even if\nhe walked fifty miles on purpose.[492] He therefore united his efforts\nwith Niccolini\u2019s to obtain some amelioration for Galileo. But in vain. At\nan audience which Niccolini had on 8th December, 1634, Urban said indeed\nthat he esteemed Galileo very highly, and was well disposed towards him;\nbut all remained as before.[493]\n\nIn the year 1634 the band of dauntless men, who again and again\nventured to attempt to obtain Galileo\u2019s liberty from the papal chair,\nwas increased by the celebrated officer of state and man of learning,\nFabri von Peiresc. Like Noailles, he had attended Galileo\u2019s lectures\nat Padua,[494] had since been one of his most ardent admirers, and had\nlong maintained friendly intercourse with Cardinal Francesco Barberini.\nPeiresc now interceded eagerly with this prelate for Galileo, and even\nventured openly to say, in a long and pressing letter of 5th December,\n1634, to Barberini:\u2014[495] ... \u201cReally such proceedings will be\nconsidered very harsh, and far more so by posterity than at present, when\nno one, as it appears, cares for anything but his own interests. Indeed,\nit will be a blot upon the brilliance and renown of the pontificate\nof Urban VIII., unless your Eminence resolves to devote your special\nattention to this affair....\u201d On 2nd January, 1635, Barberini wrote\na long letter in reply,[496] in which he was prolix enough on many\nsubjects, but about Galileo he only made the dry remark, towards the end\nof the letter, that he would not fail to speak to his Holiness about it,\nbut Peiresc must excuse him if, as a member of the Holy Office, he did\nnot go into the subject more particularly. In spite of this, however,\nonly four weeks later, Peiresc again urged Barberini, in a letter of\n31st January,[497] to exert his powerful influence on behalf of Galileo.\nPeiresc justified his zeal by saying, \u201cthat it arose as much from\nregard for the honour and good name of the present pontificate, as from\naffection for the venerable and famous old man, Galileo; for it might\nwell happen, by a continuance of the harsh proceedings against him, that\nsome day posterity would compare them with the persecutions to which\nSocrates was subjected.\u201d[498]\n\nGalileo, who had received copies of these letters, thanked Peiresc most\nwarmly in a letter of 21st February, 1635, for his noble though fruitless\nefforts, and added the following remarkable words:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAs I have said, I do not hope for any amelioration, and this\n    because I have not committed any crime. I might expect pardon\n    and favour if I had done wrong, for wrong-doing affords rulers\n    occasion for the exercise of clemency and pardon, while towards\n    an innocent man under condemnation, it behoves them to maintain\n    the utmost severity, in order to show that they have proceeded\n    according to law. But believe me, revered sir, and it will\n    console you to know it, this troubles me less than would be\n    supposed, for two grounds of consolation continually come to\n    my aid: one of these is, that in looking all through my works,\n    no one can find the least shadow of anything which deviates\n    from love and veneration for the Holy Church; the other is my\n    own conscience, which can only be fully known to myself on\n    earth and to God in heaven. He knows that in the cause for\n    which I suffer, many might have acted and spoken with far more\n    learning and knowledge, but no one, not even among the holy\n    fathers, with more piety and greater zeal for the Holy Church,\n    nor altogether with purer intentions. My sincerely religious,\n    pious spirit would only be the more apparent if the calumnies,\n    intrigues, stratagems, and deceptions, which were resorted to\n    eighteen years ago to deceive and blind the authorities, were\n    brought to the light of day.\u201d[499]\n\nIf the issue of the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616 were admitted,\nthis letter would be a piece of hypocrisy as glaring as it was\npurposeless; for in that case Galileo would not have been an innocent\nman under condemnation, who had committed no crime, and his conscience\ncould not have consoled him in his painful situation. What he wrote to\nPeiresc about his religious spirit was also quite true, Galileo really\nwas a truly religious man; his own revolutionary discoveries had not for\na moment given rise to any doubts in his mind of supernatural mysteries\nas taught by the Roman Catholic Church. All his letters, even to his\nmost intimate friends, proclaim it indisputably. He also perfectly well\nknew how to make his researches and their results agree with the dogmas\nof his religion, as is clear from his explanations to Castelli, Mgr.\nDini, and the Grand Duchess Christine. The strangest contradictions were\ncontinually arising from this blending of a learned man striving to\nsearch out the truths of nature, and a member of the only true Church\nbound in the fetters of illusive credulity. Thus, at the end of 1633,\nhe did not hesitate to act in opposition to his solemn oath, literally\nconstrued, by secretly sending a copy of his condemned and prohibited\n\u201cDialogues\u201d to Diodati, at Paris, that they might be translated into\nLatin, and thus be more widely circulated. In 1635 the work really\nappeared in a Latin translation, from the press of the Elzevirs, in\nHolland, edited by a Strasburg professor, Mathias Bernegger, in order\nthat no suspicion might rest upon Galileo of having had anything to do\nwith it.[500] Such an act was very improper for a pious Catholic, and\nGalileo really was one. In the following year, however, he told his old\nfriend, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, at Venice, with great delight, that\nBernegger had brought out by the same publishers the Apology to the Grand\nDuchess Christine of 1615, in Italian with a Latin translation. The\nsecret translator, concealed under the pseudonym of Ruberto Robertini\nBorasso, was also Diodati.[501] In a letter to Micanzio, as well as in\nanother of 12th July, Galileo expressed an ardent wish that a large\nnumber of copies of it might be introduced into Italy, \u201cto shame his\nenemies and calumniators.\u201d[502] As we know, this letter to the Grand\nDuchess contained nothing but a theological apology for the Copernican\nsystem, so that what gratified Galileo so much in its publication, was\nthat the world would now learn that he, who had been denounced as a\nheretic, had always been an orthodox Christian, into whose head it had\nnever entered, as his enemies gave out, to attack the holy faith. Martin\nis quite justified in saying that \u201cthe reputation of a good Christian and\ntrue Catholic was as dear to Galileo as that of a good astronomer.\u201d[503]\n\nWhile Galileo was enjoying the twofold satisfaction of seeing his\n\u201cDialogues\u201d attain a wider circulation (they had meanwhile been\ntranslated into English),[504] and yet of being acknowledged as a pious\nsubject of the Roman Catholic Church, the Count de Noailles continued\nhis efforts at Rome, before his approaching departure from Italy, to\nobtain pardon for Galileo. Castelli, who, in consequence of his too great\ndevotion to Galileo and his system, had been banished for three years\nfrom Urban\u2019s presence, had at length, by the end of 1635, been taken\ninto favour again,[505] and reported faithfully to Galileo all the steps\ntaken to procure his liberty. The utmost caution had been exercised in\norder to attain this end.[506] Count Noailles and Castelli had persuaded\nCardinal Antonio Barberini, in repeated interviews, that nothing had been\nfurther from Galileo\u2019s intention than to offend or make game of Urban\nVIII., upon which the cardinal, at the request of the French ambassador,\npromised to intercede with his papal brother for Galileo. On 11th July\nNoailles made the same assurances to the Pope at an audience, whereupon\nhe exclaimed: \u201cLo crediamo, lo crediamo!\u201d (We believe it), and again\nsaid that he was personally very well disposed to Galileo, and had\nalways liked him; but when Noailles began to speak of his liberation,\nhe said evasively that _this affair was of the greatest moment to all\nChristendom_. The French diplomatist, who knew Urban\u2019s irritable temper,\ndid not think it advisable to press him further, and consoled himself for\nthe time, even after this cool reply, with the thought that the brother\ncardinal had promised to use his good offices for Galileo.\n\nCastelli informed Galileo in a letter of 12th July[507] of all this, and\nadvised him to write a letter of thanks to Cardinal Antonio for his kind\nintercession, which he at once did.[508] Noailles placed all his hopes on\na farewell audience with the Pope, in which he meant to ask for Galileo\u2019s\npardon. On 8th August he drove for the last time to the Vatican. Urban\nwas very gracious, and when Galileo\u2019s affairs were introduced he even\npromised at last to bring the subject before the Holy Congregation.[509]\nNoailles told Cardinal Antonio of this most favourable result with joyful\nemotion, who said at once: \u201cGood! good! and I will speak to all the\ncardinals of the Holy Congregation.\u201d[510] They were apparently justified\nin entertaining the most sanguine hopes, but the future taught them that\nall this was nothing but fair speeches with which Urban had taken leave\nof the French ambassador. For there can be no doubt that if the Pope,\nwith his absolute power, had been in earnest about Galileo\u2019s liberation,\nthe Congregation would not have been slow to comply with his wishes.\nGalileo, however, remained as before, a prisoner in his villa at Arcetri,\nwhich he had meanwhile bought, and the papal favour, of which a promise\nhad been held out, was limited to allowing him, at the end of September,\nto accept an invitation from the Grand Duke to visit him at his Villa\nMezzomonte, three miles from Florence,[511] and on 16th October to\nleave his place of exile for one day to greet the Count de Noailles, at\nPoggibonsi, in passing through it on his way to France.[512] This was the\nextent of the papal clemency for the present, and it was not till the old\nman was quite blind and hopelessly ill, with one foot in the grave, that\nany humane feeling was awakened for him at the Vatican.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT._\n\n    Galileo\u2019s Labours at Arcetri.\u2014Completion of the \u201cDialoghi delle\n    Nuove Scienze.\u201d\u2014Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.\u2014Method\n    of taking Longitudes at Sea.\u2014Declined by Spain and offered\n    to Holland.\u2014Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the\n    Moon.\u2014Visit from Milton.\u2014Becomes Blind.\u2014Letter to Diodati.\u2014On\n    a hint from Castelli petitions for his Liberty.\u2014The Inquisitor\n    to visit him and report to Rome.\u2014Permitted to live at Florence\n    under Restrictions.\u2014The States-General appoint a Delegate to\n    see him on the Longitude Question.\u2014The Inquisitor sends word\n    of it to Rome.\u2014Galileo not to receive a Heretic.\u2014Presents\n    from the States-General refused from fear of Rome.\u2014Letter to\n    Diodati.\u2014Galileo supposed to be near his End.\u2014Request that\n    Castelli might come to him.\u2014Permitted under Restrictions.\u2014The\n    new \u201cDialoghi\u201d appear at Leyden, 1638.\u2014They founded Mechanical\n    Physics.\u2014Attract much Notice.\u2014Improvement of Health.\u2014In 1639\n    goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily.\n\n\nGalileo was unceasingly active in his seclusion at Arcetri. In the year\n1636 he completed his famous \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.\u201d[513] He also\nexerted himself, like a loving father who wishes to see his children\nprovided for before he dies, about the preservation and republication\nof his works which were quite out of print. But all these efforts were\nfrustrated by envy, ecclesiastical intolerance, and the unfavourable\ntimes. His cherished scheme of bringing out an edition of his collected\nworks could neither be carried out by the French mathematician, Carcavy,\nwho had warmly taken up the subject,[514] nor by the Elzevirs through\nthe mediation of Micanzio.[515] He had also to give up his project of\ndedicating his \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze\u201d to the German Emperor,\nFerdinand II., and of publishing them at Vienna, as he learnt from his\nfriend and former pupil there, Giovanni Pieroni, that his implacable\nfoes, the Jesuits, were all-powerful; that Ferdinand himself was entirely\nunder their influence; and moreover that his bitterest foe, Father\nScheiner, was just then at Vienna.[516] In the following year, however\n(1637), Pieroni succeeded by his prudent and untiring efforts, during\nthe temporary absence of Scheiner, in obtaining a licence for Galileo\u2019s\nlatest work,[517] and afterwards one at Olm\u00fctz also; but meanwhile he had\nsent the MS. by Micanzio[518] to be printed by the Elzevirs at Leyden,\nand, under the circumstances described by Pieroni, he did not prefer to\nbring out his book at a place where his bitterest enemies were in power.\n\nHe was at this time also deeply interested in a subject which originated\nas far back as 1610. It had occurred to him soon after the discovery\nof Jupiter\u2019s moons, by a series of observations of them, to make\nastronomical calculations and tables which would enable him to predict\nevery year their configurations, their relative positions and occasional\neclipses with the utmost precision; this would furnish the means of\nascertaining the longitude of the point of observation at any hour of\nthe night, which appeared to be of special importance to navigation.\nFor hitherto the eclipses of the sun and moon had had to be employed\nfor the purpose, which, however, on account of their rarity and the\nwant of precise calculation, were neither entirely to be relied on nor\nsufficient. Galileo had offered his discovery,\u2014the practical value of\nwhich he overrated,\u2014in 1612, to the Spanish Government, and in 1616\ntedious negotiations were carried on about it, which however led to\nno result, were then postponed till 1620, and in 1630 entirely given\nup.[519] Now (August, 1636,) as he heard that the Dutch merchants\nhad even offered a premium of thirty thousand scudi to any one who\nshould invent a sure method of taking longitudes at sea, he ventured,\nwithout the knowledge of the Inquisition, to offer his invention to the\nProtestant States-General. Diodati at Paris was the mediator in these\nsecret and ceremonious negotiations. On 11th November, Galileo\u2019s offer\nwas entertained in the most flattering manner in the Assembly of the\nStates-General, and a commission was appointed, consisting of the four\n_savans_, Realius, Hortensius, Blavius, and Golius, to examine into the\nsubject and report upon it.[520]\n\nWhile Galileo was impatiently waiting for the decision that was never\ncome to, he made his last great telescopic discovery, although suffering\nmuch in his eyes, that of the libration and titubation of the moon, about\nwhich he wrote his remarkable letter to Alfonso Antonini, bearing the\nsignal date: \u201cDella mia carcere di Arcetri li 10 febbrajo 1637.\u201d[521]\n\nThe complaint in Galileo\u2019s eyes grew rapidly worse. By the end of June\nthe sight of the right eye was gone, and that of the other diminished\nwith frightful rapidity from a constant discharge.[522] But in spite of\nthis heavy calamity, combined with his other sufferings, his interest\nin science did not diminish for a moment. Even at this sad time we\nfind him carrying on a brisk correspondence with the learned men of\nGermany, Holland, France, and Italy, continuing his negotiations with\nthe States-General with great zest,[523] as well as occupying himself\nperpetually with astronomy and physics. He was indeed often obliged to\nemploy the hand of another;[524] but his mind worked on with undiminished\nvigour, even though he was no longer able to commit to paper himself the\nideas that continually occupied him.\n\nOn 2nd September he received a visit from his sovereign, who came to\nconsole and encourage him in his pitiable situation.[525] A few months\nlater an unknown young man, of striking appearance from his handsome face\nand the unmistakable evidences which genius always exhibits, knocked\nat the door of the solitary villa at Arcetri: it was Milton, then\ntwenty-nine years of age, who, travelling in Italy, sought out the old\nman of world-wide fame to testify his veneration.[526]\n\nIn December of the same year Galileo became permanently quite blind, and\ninformed Diodati of his calamity on 2nd January, 1638, in the following\nwords:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn reply to your very acceptable letter of 20th November, I\n    inform you, in reference to your inquiries about my health,\n    that I am somewhat stronger than I have been of late, but alas!\n    revered sir, Galileo, your devoted friend and servant, has been\n    for a month totally and incurably blind; so that this heaven,\n    this earth, this universe, which by my remarkable observations\n    and clear demonstrations I have enlarged a hundred, nay, a\n    thousand fold beyond the limits universally accepted by the\n    learned men of all previous ages, are now shrivelled up for\n    me into such narrow compass that it only extends to the space\n    occupied by my person.\u201d[527]\n\nUp to the time when Galileo entirely lost his sight, absolutely\nnothing had been able to be done for his liberation at Rome. Even the\nfaithful Castelli wrote on 12th September, to Galileo\u2019s son Vincenzo,\nthat he had not been able to do anything whatever for his father; but\nhe piously adds, \u201cI do not fail every morning at holy mass to pray the\nDivine Majesty to comfort him, to help him, and to grant him His Divine\ngrace.\u201d[528] This precisely indicates the hopeless state of Galileo\u2019s\naffairs. Just then, during the first few days of December of the same\nyear, darkness closed round him for ever; and not long afterwards, 12th\nDecember, Castelli suddenly wrote to him, that he had been given to\nunderstand that Galileo had not been forbidden in 1634 to send petitions\n_direct_ to the Holy Office, but only through other persons.[529] When\nthe decided papal rescript of 23rd March, 1634,[530] is compared with\nthis curious interpretation of it, there can be no doubt that it was\nintended to enable the curia to take a more lenient view without direct\ncollision with a former mandate. Galileo at once sent Castelli\u2019s letter\nto the Tuscan Court, with a request for instructions, as he did not wish\nto do anything without the concurrence of his sovereign.[531] He was\ninformed that he had better draw up a petition to the Holy Office, and\nget it handed in at Rome through Castelli.[532] The latter had meanwhile\ninformed himself under what formalities Galileo should make his request,\nand sent him on 19th January, 1638,[533] a draught of the petition, with\nthe remark that it must be sent, together with a medical certificate,\ndirect to the assessor of the Congregation of the Holy Office; this\nGalileo immediately did. The petition was as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cGalileo Galilei, most humble servant of your most worthy\n    Eminence, most respectfully showeth that whereas, by command\n    of the Holy Congregation, he was imprisoned outside Florence\n    four years ago, and after long and dangerous illness, as the\n    enclosed medical certificate testifies, has entirely lost his\n    eyesight, and therefore stands in urgent need of medical care:\n    he appeals to the mercy of your most worthy Eminences, urgently\n    intreating them in this most miserable condition and at his\n    advanced age to grant him the blessing of his liberty.\u201d\n\nThe utmost caution was exercised at Rome before granting this\npetition. No confidence was placed in the medical certificate; but\nthe Inquisitor-General of Florence, Father Fanano, was instructed to\nvisit Galileo and to make an exact report of his health, and whether it\nwas to be feared, if he lived at Florence, that he would promote the\npropagation of his errors.[534] Fanano at once conscientiously executed\nhis commission, and on 13th February, 1638, sent the following report to\nCardinal Francesco Barberini:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn order the better to execute his Holiness\u2019s commission, I\n    went myself, accompanied by a strange physician, an intimate\n    friend of mine, to see Galileo, quite unexpectedly, at his\n    villa at Arcetri, to find out the state he was in. My idea\n    was not so much by this mode of proceeding to put myself in a\n    position to report on the nature of his ailments, as to gain\n    an insight into the studies and occupations he is carrying on,\n    that I might be able to judge whether he was in a condition, if\n    he returned to Florence, to propagate the condemned doctrine\n    of the double motion of the earth by speeches at meetings. I\n    found him deprived of his eyesight, entirely blind; he hopes\n    for a cure, as the cataract only formed six months ago, but at\n    his age of seventy the physician considers it incurable. He has\n    besides a severe rupture, and suffers from continual weariness\n    of life and sleeplessness, which as he asserts, and it is\n    confirmed by the inmates of his house, does not permit him one\n    hour\u2019s sound sleep in the twenty-four. He is besides so reduced\n    that he looks more like a corpse than a living man. The villa\n    is a long way from the city, and the access is inconvenient, so\n    that Galileo can but seldom, and with much inconvenience and\n    expense, have medical aid.[535] His studies are interrupted by\n    his blindness, though he is read to sometimes; intercourse\n    with him is not much sought after, as in his poor state of\n    health he can generally only complain of his sufferings\n    and talk of his ailments to occasional visitors. I think,\n    therefore, in consideration of this, if his Holiness, in his\n    boundless mercy, should think him worthy, and would allow him\n    to live in Florence, he would have no opportunity of holding\n    meetings, and if he had, he is so prostrated that I think it\n    would suffice, in order to make quite sure, to keep him in\n    check by an emphatic warning. This is what I have to report to\n    your Eminence.\u201d[536]\n\nThis report at last opened the eyes of Urban VIII. as to Galileo\u2019s real\ncondition. The cry of distress from the blind old man, approaching\ndissolution, was too well justified to be wholly ignored, and a partial\nhearing was given to it at all events, at a sitting of the Congregation\nheld on 25th February, under the presidency of the Pope.[537] But a full\nrelease, in spite of the information that Galileo was more like a corpse\nthan a living man, still appeared too dangerous to be ventured on. On 9th\nMarch Galileo received from the Inquisitor-General, Father Fanano, the\nfollowing communication:\u2014\n\n    \u201cHis Holiness is willing to allow you to remove from your villa\n    to the house which you own in Florence, in order that you may\n    be cured of your illness here. But on your arrival in the city\n    you must immediately repair, or be taken, to the buildings of\n    the Holy Office, that you may learn from me what I must do and\n    prescribe for your advantage.\u201d[538]\n\nGalileo availed himself of the permission to return to his little\nhouse, Via della Costa, at Florence, on the very next day. Here the\nInquisitor-General, as charged by the Holy Office, informed him, \u201cfor\nhis advantage,\u201d of the order, _not to go out in the city under pain of\nactual imprisonment for life and excommunication, and not to speak with\nany one whomsoever of the condemned opinion of the double motion of the\nearth_.[539] It was also enjoined upon him not to receive any suspicious\nvisitors.\n\nIt is characteristic of the mode of proceeding of the Inquisition, that\nFanano set Galileo\u2019s own son, who was nursing him with the tenderest\naffection, to watch over him. The Inquisitor enjoined upon Vincenzo\nto see that the above orders were strictly obeyed, and especially to\ntake care that his father\u2019s visitors never stayed long. He remarks, in\na report to Francesco Barberini of 10th March, that Vincenzo could be\ntrusted, \u201cfor he is very much obliged for the favour granted to his\nfather to be medically treated at Florence, and fears that the least\noffence might entail the loss of it; but it is very much to his own\ninterest that his father should behave properly and keep up as long as\npossible, for with his death a thousand scudi will go, which the Grand\nDuke allows him annually.\u201d In the opinion of the worthy Father Fanano,\nthen, the son must be anxious for his father\u2019s life for the sake of the\nthousand scudi! In the same letter the Inquisitor assured Barberini that\nhe would himself keep a sharp look out that his Holiness\u2019s orders were\nstrictly obeyed, which, as we shall soon see, he did not fail to do.\n\nGalileo\u2019s confinement in Florence was so rigorous that at Easter a\nspecial permission from the Inquisition was required to allow him to go\nto the little Church of San Giorgio, very near his house, to confess,\nto communicate, and to perform his Easter devotions,[540] and even\nthis permission only extended expressly to the Thursday, Good Friday,\nSaturday, and Easter Sunday.[541] On the other hand, as appears from\nthe dates of his letters,[542] he was allowed, during June, July, and\nAugust, to go several times to and fro between his villa at Arcetri and\nFlorence.\n\nGalileo was now once more to discover how rigidly he was watched by the\nInquisition. His negotiations with the States-General, in spite of the\nurgent intercession of such men as Diodati, Hortensius, Hugo Grotius,\nRealius, Constantine Huyghens (Secretary of the Prince of Orange, and\nfather of the celebrated Christian Huyghens), and others, had not led to\nany result. His proposed method of taking longitudes at sea, well worked\nout as it was theoretically, presented many difficulties in practical\napplication. His methods of precisely determining the smallest portions\nof time, and of overcoming the obstacles occasioned by the motion of the\nvessel, did not prove to be adequate.[543] He had endeavoured, in a long\nletter to Realius of 6th June, 1637,[544] to dismiss or refute all the\nobjections that had been made; but this did not suffice, and although the\nStates-General acknowledged his proposal in the main in the most handsome\nterms, even accepted it, and offered him a special distinction (of which\npresently), it appeared necessary to have some personal consultation\non the subject with the inventor. For this purpose, Hortensius, who\nhad also a great desire to make Galileo\u2019s acquaintance, was to go to\nFlorence.[545] The Inquisitor-General heard that a delegate was coming\nfrom Germany to confer with Galileo on the subject. He at once reported\nthis on 26th June to Rome,[546] whence he received instructions under\ndate of 13th July from the Congregation of the Holy Office, that Galileo\n_must not receive the delegate if he were of a heretical religion, or\nfrom a heretical country_, and the Inquisitor will please communicate\nthis to Galileo; on the other hand, there was nothing to prevent the\ninterview _if the person came from a Catholic country, and himself\nbelonged to the Catholic religion_; only, in accordance with the previous\nregulations, the doctrine of the double motion of the earth must not be\nspoken of.[547]\n\nA few days after the Inquisitor had delivered his instructions to\nGalileo, the German merchants of the name of Ebers residing in Florence,\npresented him in the name of the Dutch Government with a very flattering\nletter, and a heavy gold chain, as a recognition of his proposals and\na pledge of the ultimate adjustment of the negotiations. The envoys\nof the States-General found Galileo very ill in bed, his blinded eyes\ncontinually running and very much inflamed. He _felt_ the gold chain,\nwhich he could not see, and had the letter read to him. He then handed\nthe chain back to the merchants, on the plea that he could not keep it\nnow, as the negotiations had been interrupted by his illness and loss of\nsight, and he did not at all know whether he should ever be in a position\nto carry them through.[548] The real motive, however, was nothing but\nfear of the Inquisition,[549] and as the sequel showed, he was quite\nright. Fanano sent a report on 25th July of all these circumstances\nto Cardinal Barberini at Rome. It is so characteristic that we cannot\nrefrain from giving it:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThe person who was to come to see Galileo has neither appeared\n    in Florence, nor is likely to appear, so far as I am informed;\n    but I have not yet been able to learn whether in consequence\n    of some hindrance on the journey or from some other cause. I\n    know, however, that presents for Galileo and a letter to him\n    have come to some merchants here. A highly estimable person,\n    who is in my confidence, and has spoken with the person who\n    has the presents and letter in charge, told me that both bear\n    the seal of the Dutch Government; the presents are in a case,\n    and may be gold or silver work. Galileo has steadily refused\n    to accept either the letter or the presents, whether from fear\n    of incurring some danger, on account of the warning I gave\n    him on the first news of the expected arrival of an envoy,\n    or whether because he really could not perfect his method of\n    taking longitudes at sea, and is not in a state to do it; for\n    he is now quite blind, and his head is more in the grave than\n    fit for mathematical studies. Insurmountable difficulties had\n    also occurred in the use of the instruments indicated by him.\n    Besides, it is said here, that if he had fully brought his plan\n    to perfection, his Highness (Ferdinand II. of Tuscany) would\n    never have permitted it to pass into the hands of renegades,\n    heretics, or enemies of the allies of his house. This is what I\n    have to report to your Eminence.\u201d[550]\n\nThe news that Galileo had not accepted the distinction offered him by\nthe Dutch Government gave great satisfaction at Rome; and Urban VIII.\neven charged the Inquisitor at Florence, by a mandate of 5th August, to\nexpress to Galileo the gratification of the Holy Congregation at his\nconduct in this affair.[551]\n\nAbout this time he was sunk so low, physically as well as mentally,\nthat he and every one thought his dissolution was at hand. In a letter\nto Diodati of 7th August, in which he told him of his interview with\nthe German merchants at Florence, he expressed the fear that \u201cif his\nsufferings increased as they had done during the last three or four days,\nhe would not even be able to dictate letters.\u201d[552] He added, perhaps in\nreference to the Inquisitor\u2019s intimation of 13th July: \u201cIt would be a\nfruitless undertaking if Signor Hortensius were to take the trouble to\ncome and see me, for if he found me living (which I do not believe), I\nshould be quite unable to give him the least satisfaction.\u201d\n\nHis profound vexation about the regulations imposed upon him in this\nmatter by the Roman curia is very evident in a letter to Diodati of 14th\nAugust. He writes:\u2014\n\n    \u201cAs ill luck would have it, the Holy Office came to know of\n    the negotiations I was carrying on about the geographical\n    longitude with the States-General, which may do me the\n    greatest injury. I am extremely obliged to you for having\n    induced Signor Hortensius to give up his intended journey, and\n    thereby averted some calamity from me which would probably\n    have been in store for me if he had come. It is indeed true\n    that these negotiations ought not to do me any harm, for the\n    just and obvious reasons that you mention, but rather to bring\n    me fame and honour, if my circumstances were but like those\n    of other men, that is, if I were not pursued by misfortune\n    more than others. But having been often and often convinced by\n    experience of the tricks fate plays me, I can but expect from\n    its obstinate perfidy, that what would be an advantage to any\n    one else will never bring anything but harm to me. But even in\n    this bitter adversity I do not lose my peace of mind, for it\n    would be but idle audacity to oppose inexorable destiny.\u201d[553]\n\nGalileo, who thought his hours were numbered, dictated his will on 21st\nAugust, in the presence of a notary and witnesses, and directed that he\nshould be buried in the family vault of the Galilei in the Church of\nSanta Croce at Florence.[554] On 8th September the Grand Duke paid the\ndying astronomer, as was supposed, a visit of two hours, and himself\nhanded him his medicine.[555]\n\nIt had been for a long time a cherished wish of Galileo\u2019s to have with\nhim during the evening of his days his most devoted and favourite\ndisciple, Father Castelli.[556] But the professorship which he held at\nRome made the attainment of this wish difficult. As it was now supposed\nthat a speedy death would deprive the world of the great philosopher,\nthe Grand Duke requested through Niccolini at Rome that Castelli might\ncome to Florence, for a few months at least, that he might yet receive\nfrom the lips of his dying master many ideas of importance for science,\nwhich he might not perhaps confide to any but his trusted friend.[557]\nAfter some difficulties were surmounted, he actually received the papal\nconsent, but only on condition that a third person should always be\npresent during the conversations with Galileo.[558] Early in October\nCastelli arrived in Florence, where the Inquisitor-General, as charged by\nthe Holy Office, gave him permission to visit Galileo, with the express\nprohibition, _under pain of excommunication, to converse with him on the\ncondemned doctrine of the earth\u2019s double motion_.[559] The permission,\nhowever, to visit Galileo seems to have been very limited, for Castelli\nrepeatedly wrote to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, with the most urgent\nentreaties to obtain an extension of it for him from the Pope. Castelli\nprotests in this letter that he would rather lose his life than converse\nwith Galileo on subjects forbidden by the Church. He gives as a reason\nfor the need of more frequent interviews that he had received from\nthe Grand Duke the twofold charge to minister to Galileo in spiritual\nmatters, and to inform himself fully about the tables and ephemerides of\nthe Medicean stars, because the Prince Giovanni Carlo, Lord High Admiral,\nwas to take this discovery to Spain.[560] The cardinal replied that in\nconsideration of these circumstances, Urban VIII. granted permission for\nmore frequent visits to Galileo, under the known conditions;[561] but the\nofficial permission, was not issued until about November.[562] Nothing is\nknown in history, however, of the Lord High Admiral\u2019s having ever taken\nGalileo\u2019s method of taking longitudes to the Peninsula.\n\nDuring the same year (1638), the Elzevirs at Leyden issued Galileo\u2019s\nfamous work: \u201cDiscourses on and Demonstrations of Two New Sciences\nappertaining to Mechanics and Motion.\u201d[563] This work, known under the\nabridged title, \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,\u201d was dedicated to the\nCount de Noailles, in grateful remembrance of the warm interest which he\nhad always shown in the author.[564] It is the most copious and best of\nall Galileo\u2019s writings, and he himself valued it more highly than any of\nthe others.[565] In it he created the new sciences of the doctrine of\ncohesion in stationary bodies, and their resistance when torn asunder;\nalso that of phoronomics, and thereby opened up new paths in a field\nof science that had been lying fallow. He must, indeed, be regarded as\nthe real founder of mechanical physics. It is not our province to enter\nfarther into the contents of this work, or its importance for science.\nIt has, however, some significance in our historical review of Galileo\u2019s\nrelations with the curia, for it excited immense attention in all learned\ncircles, and increasingly attracted the notice of the scientific world\nto the prisoner of the Inquisition. This was by no means agreeable to\nthe Romanists, who would have been glad to see him sink into oblivion.\nGalileo now again received communications from all countries, some of\nthem expressing the highest admiration of his new work, and others asking\nmore information on many of the theories expounded. And we now behold\nthe shattered old man of seventy-four, only partially recovered from his\nsevere illness, carrying on an extensive correspondence full of the most\nabstruse problems in physics and mathematics.[566]\n\nIn January, 1639, as his health had so far improved as to allow the hope\nto be indulged that he might be spared some time longer, he returned\nto his villa at Arcetri, not to leave it again alive. Was this move a\nvoluntary one? We have no document which finally settles the question.\nBut we hold ourselves justified in doubting it. Not only because it is\ndifficult to reconcile a voluntary return to Arcetri with his previous\nefforts to obtain permission to reside in Florence, but there is a later\nletter from him bearing the expressive date: \u201cFrom the Villa Arcetri,\nmy perpetual prison and place of exile from the city.\u201d[567] And when\nthe wife of Buonamici, who was distinguished for her mental powers,\ngave him a pressing invitation to Prato, which is only four miles from\nFlorence, he reminds her in his reply of 6th April, 1641, that \u201che was\nstill a prisoner here for reasons which her husband was well aware of\u201d;\nhe then presses her to visit him at Arcetri, adding: \u201cDo not make any\nexcuses, nor fear that any unpleasantness may accrue to me from it, for\nI do not trouble myself much how this interview may be judged by certain\npersons, as I am accustomed to bearing many heavy burdens as if they were\nquite light.\u201d[568] From such utterances it is clear that Galileo had\nlittle pleasure in residing at Arcetri, and that therefore his second\nbanishment from Florence was not voluntary, but was the result of a papal\norder.[569]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_LAST YEARS AND DEATH._\n\n    Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.\u2014His pious\n    Resignation.\u2014Continues his scientific Researches.\u2014His\n    pupil Viviani.\u2014Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations\n    about Longitudes.\u2014Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with\n    him.\u2014Last Discussion of the Copernican System in reply to\n    Rinuccini.\u2014Sketch of its Contents.\u2014Pendulum Clocks.\u2014Priority\n    of the discovery belongs to Galileo.\u2014Visit from\n    Castelli.\u2014Torricelli joins Viviani.\u2014Scientific discourse on his\n    Deathbed.\u2014Death, 8th Jan., 1642.\u2014Proposal to deny him Christian\n    Burial.\u2014Monument objected to by Urban VIII.\u2014Ferdinand II. fears\n    to offend him.\u2014Buried quietly.\u2014No Inscription till thirty-two\n    years later.\u2014First Public Monument erected by Viviani in\n    1693.\u2014Viviani directs his Heirs to erect one in Santa\n    Croce.\u2014Erected in 1738.\u2014Rome unable to put down Copernican\n    System.\u2014In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the Clause in Decree\n    forbidding Books which teach the new System to be expunged.\u2014In\n    1820 permission given to treat of it as true.\u2014Galileo\u2019s Work\n    and others not expunged from the Index till 1835.\n\n\nWe now come to the last three years of Galileo\u2019s life.\n\nFrom two documents published by Professor Gherardi,[570] we learn that\nin 1639 Galileo once more asked at Rome for some favours not specified,\nbut that they were absolutely refused by the Pope. From this time Galileo\ncame no further into direct contact with the Roman curia. He had been\ncompelled to give up all hope of any amelioration of his lot from the\nimplacable Urban VIII. So he ended his days quietly and resigned, as the\nprisoner of the Inquisition, in his villa at Arcetri. Castelli also, who\n(as his letters to Galileo of 1639 bear witness)[571] had warmly exerted\nhimself on his behalf with Cardinal Barberini and other influential\npersons, had probably come to the conclusion that nothing more could\nbe done for his unfortunate friend, for from this time we find nothing\nin his letters to Galileo but scientific disquisitions and spiritual\nconsolations.[572]\n\nThis indicates the two interests which occupied the latest period\nof Galileo\u2019s life\u2014deep piety and scientific meditations. His utter\nhopelessness and pious resignation are very clearly expressed in the\nbrief sentence he used often to write to Castelli: \u201cPiace cosi a Dio,\ndere piacere cosi ancora a Noi.\u201d[573] (If it please God, it ought also to\nplease us.) He never omitted in any letter to his old friend and pupil to\ncommend himself in conclusion to his prayers,[574] and in his letter of\n3rd December, 1639, he added: \u201cI remind you to persevere in your prayers\nto the all-merciful and loving God, that He will cast out the bitter\nhatred from the hearts of my malicious and unhappy persecutors.\u201d\n\nThe lofty genius with which nature had endowed Galileo never displayed\nitself in so striking and surprising a manner as during these last three\nyears. No sooner were his physical sufferings in some measure relieved,\nthan he occupied himself in scientific speculations, the results of which\nhe partly communicated to his great pupil and subsequent biographer,\nViviani, by word of mouth, and partly dictated them to some of those\nabout him. The society of young Viviani, then eighteen years of age, who,\nby permission of the Inquisition, spent the last two years and a half of\nthe old master\u2019s life near him,[575] was the greatest comfort to him,\nand he conceived a fatherly affection for the talented youth. We owe it\npartly to the assistance and stimulus given by Viviani that the aged\nGalileo worked on to the end in improving and enlarging his \u201cDialoghi\ndelle Nuove Scienze,\u201d made a number of additions, and added new evidence\nof great importance to science in two supplementary dialogues.[576]\n\nDuring this last period of his life also, he again took up the\nnegotiations with the States-General, broken off by his severe illness\nin 1638. After he became blind he had given up all his writings,\ncalculations, and astronomical tables relating to the Medicean stars, to\nhis old pupil, Father Vincenzo Renieri, in order that he might carry them\nfurther; he was well adapted for the task, and executed it with equal\nskill and zeal.[577] The new ephemerides were just about to be sent to\nHortensius, when Diodati informed Galileo of his sudden death in a letter\nof 28th October, 1639.[578] The three other commissioners charged by\nthe States-General with the investigation of Galileo\u2019s proposal having\nalso died one after another, in quick succession, it was difficult to\nresume the negotiations. The interest of the Netherlanders in Galileo\u2019s\nscheme (perhaps from its acknowledged imperfection) had also evidently\ncooled, and his proposal to replace the commissioners was not carried\nout, although he offered to send Renieri to Holland to give all needful\nexplanations by word of mouth. Galileo\u2019s death then put an end to these\nfruitless negotiations.[579]\n\nAt the beginning of 1640 Fortunio Liceti, a former pupil of Galileo\u2019s,\npublished a book on the phosphorescent Bolognian stone. In the fiftieth\nchapter of this work he treats of the faint light of the side of the moon\nnot directly illuminated by the sun, and rejects the view advocated\nby Galileo in his \u201cSidereus Nuntius,\u201d that it arises from a reflection\nof the sun\u2019s rays striking our earth, which the earth reflects to our\nsatellite, who again reflects them to us. Galileo was undecided whether\nit were not best to take no notice of Liceti\u2019s objections, the scientific\nvalue of which he did not estimate very highly, when a letter from Prince\nLeopold de\u2019 Medici, brother of the reigning Grand Duke, relieved him of\nhis doubts.[580] This prince, who has gained a permanent name in the\nhistory of science by founding the celebrated \u201cAccad\u00e9mia del Cimento,\u201d\ninvited Galileo to give him his views on Liceti\u2019s objections.[581] This\nchallenge sufficed to rouse all the blind old man\u2019s dialectic skill,\nthough he was then seventy-six and bowed down by mental and bodily\nsufferings. He dictated a reply, in the form of a letter to Prince\nLeopold, which occupies fifty large pages in the extant edition of his\n\u201cOpere,\u201d and in fire, spirit, mastery of language, and crushing argument,\nit is quite a match for the most famous controversial works of his\nmanhood.[582]\n\nA most interesting direct correspondence then ensued between Galileo\nand Liceti, which was carried on from June, 1640, to January, 1641, in\nwhich not this question only was discussed, but Galileo took occasion\nto express his opinions, with great spirit and learning, on the modern\nPeripatetic school and philosophy, on Aristotle himself, and his\nfanatical followers. These letters of the venerable hero of science are\ncharacterised by ostensible politeness pervaded by cutting irony, which\nmakes them instructive and stimulating reading.[583]\n\nTen months before his death, thanks to an indiscreet question from one\nof his former pupils, a last opportunity occurred of speaking of the\nCopernican system. Francesco Rinuccini, Tuscan resident at Venice, and\nafterwards Bishop of Pistoja, having apparently forgotten that the master\nhad solemnly abjured that opinion, and had even been compelled to promise\nto denounce its adherents wherever he met with them to the Inquisition,\ninformed him in a letter of 23rd March, 1641,[584] that the mathematician\nPieroni asserted that he had discovered by means of the telescope a small\nparallax of a few seconds in some of the fixed stars, which would place\nthe correctness of the Copernican system beyond all question. Rinuccini\nthen goes on to say, in the same breath, that he had lately seen the\nmanuscript of a book about to appear, which contained an objection to\nthe new doctrine, and made it appear very doubtful. It was this: because\nwe see exactly one half of the firmament, it follows inevitably that the\nearth is the centre of the starry heavens. Rinuccini begs Galileo to\nclear up these doubts for him, and to help him to a more certain opinion.\n\nThis was the impulse to Galileo\u2019s letter of 29th March, 1641,[585] which,\nas Alfred Von Reumont truly says,[586] whether jest or mask, had better\nnever have been written. There is no doubt that it must not be taken in\nits literal sense. Precisely the same tactics are followed as in the\nletter which accompanied the \u201cTreatise on the Tides,\u201d to the Grand Duke\nof Austria in 1618, and in many passages of the \u201cDialogues on the Two\nSystems.\u201d Galileo conceals his real opinions behind a thick veil, through\nwhich the truth is only penetrable by the initiated. The cautious course\nhe pursued in this perilous answer to Rinuccini is as clever as it is\ningenious, and appears appropriate to his circumstances; but it does\nnot produce a pleasant impression, and for the sake of the great man\u2019s\nmemory, one would prefer to leave the subject untouched.\n\nWe will now examine this interesting letter more closely. When we call\nto mind the disquisitions on the relation of Scripture to science, which\nGalileo wrote to Castelli in 1613, and to the Grand Duchess Christine\nin 1615, the very beginning is a misrepresentation only excusable on\nthe ground of urgent necessity. He says: \u201cThe incorrectness of the\nCopernican system should not in any case be doubted, especially by us\nCatholics, for the inviolable authority of Holy Scripture is opposed\nto it, as interpreted by the greatest teachers of theology, whose\nunanimous declaration makes the stability of the earth in the centre,\nand the revolution of the sun round it, a certainty. The grounds on\nwhich Copernicus and his followers have maintained the contrary fall to\npieces before the fundamental argument of the Divine omnipotence. For\nsince this is able to effect by many, aye, endless means, what, so far\nas we can see, only appears practicable by one method, we must not limit\nthe hand of God and persist obstinately in anything in which we may\nhave been mistaken.[587] And as I hold the Copernican observations and\nconclusions to be insufficient, those of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and their\nfollowers appear to me _far more delusive and mistaken, because their\nfalsity can clearly be proved without going beyond the limits of human\nknowledge_.\u201d[588]\n\nAfter this introduction Galileo proceeds to answer Rinuccini\u2019s question.\nHe treats that argument against the Copernican system as delusive, and\nsays that it originates in the assumption that the earth stands still\nin the centre, and by no means from precise astronomical observation.\n_He refutes, therefore, the scientific objection to the new doctrine._\nSpeaking of the assumed discovery of Pieroni, he says, that if it should\nbe confirmed, however small the parallax may be, _human science must\ndraw the conclusion from it that the earth cannot be stationary in the\ncentre_. But in order to weaken this dangerous sentence, he hastens to\nadd, that if Pieroni might be mistaken in thinking that he had discovered\nsuch a parallax of a few seconds, those might be still more mistaken who\nthink they can observe that the visible hemisphere never varies, not\neven one or two seconds; for such an exact and certain observation is\nutterly impossible, partly from the insufficiency of the astronomical\ninstruments, and partly from the refraction of the rays of light.\n\nAs will be seen, Galileo takes great care to show the futility of the\nnew arguments brought into the field against the Copernican system.\nIt therefore seems very strange that some writers, and among them the\nwell-known Italian historian, Cesare Cantu, suppose from this letter that\nat the close of his life Galileo had really renounced the prohibited\ndoctrine from profound conviction![589] The introduction, and many\npassages thrown in in this cautious refutation, must, as Alb\u00e8ri and\nHenri Martin justly observe, be regarded as fiction, the author having\nthe Inquisition in view; it had recently given a striking proof of its\nwatchfulness by forbidding the author of a book called \u201cDe Pitagorea\nanimarum transmigratione,\u201d to apply the epithet \u201cclarissimus\u201d to\nGalileo, and it had only with great difficulty been persuaded to permit\n\u201cnotissimus Galileus\u201d![590]\n\nA short time before the close of Galileo\u2019s brilliant scientific career,\nin spite of age, blindness, and sickness, he once more gave striking\nevidence of the genius which could only be quenched by death. It will\nbe remembered that the inadequacy of his proposed chronometer had been\nthe chief obstacle to the acceptance by the States-General of his method\nof taking longitudes at sea. Now, in the second half of the year 1641,\nit occurred to him, as is confirmed beyond question by Viviani, who\nwas present,[591] though the idea is generally ascribed to Christian\nHuyghens, of adding a pendulum to the then very imperfect clocks, as\nregulator of their motion. As this was sixteen years before Huyghens made\nknown his invention of pendulum clocks, priority indisputably belongs to\nGalileo. But it was only permitted to the blind master to conceive the\ngreat idea\u2014he was not to carry it out. It was his intention to employ the\neyes and hands of his son Vincenzo, a very clever mechanician, to put\nhis idea in practice, and he told him of his plan. Vincenzo was to make\nthe necessary drawings according to his father\u2019s instructions, and to\nconstruct models accordingly. But in the midst of these labours Galileo\nfell ill, and this time he did not recover.[592] His faithful pupil,\nCastelli, who probably foresaw the speedy dissolution of the revered old\nman, came to see him about the end of September, 1641. In October, on the\nrepeated and urgent invitation of Galileo, Torricelli joined Castelli\nand Viviani, not to leave the Villa Arcetri until they left it with\nGalileo\u2019s coffin. Torricelli was then thirty-three, and the old master\nhad discerned his eminent talents from a treatise on the theory of motion\nwhich he had sent him.[593] Castelli was not permitted to stay till the\nclose. At the beginning of November he had to return to Rome, leaving\nGalileo, Torricelli, and Viviani eagerly occupied with the completion of\nthe \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze.\u201d\n\nOn 5th November Galileo was attacked by an insidious hectic fever, which\nslowly but surely brought him to the grave.[594] Violent pains in his\nlimbs threw him on a sick bed, from which he did not rise again. In spite\nof all these sufferings, which were augmented by constant palpitation\nof the heart and almost entire sleeplessness, his active mind scarcely\nrested for a moment, and he spent the long hours of perpetual darkness\nin constant scientific conversation and discussions with Torricelli and\nViviani, who noted down the last utterances of the dying man with pious\ncare. As they chiefly related to the \u201cDialoghi delle Nuove Scienze,\u201d they\nare to be found in the two supplementary Dialogues added to that work.\n\nOn 8th January, 1642, the year of Newton\u2019s birth, having received the\nlast sacraments and the benediction of Urban VIII., Galileo breathed his\nlast, at the age of nearly seventy-eight years. His son Vincenzo, his\ndaughter-in-law Sestilia Bocchineri, his pupils Torricelli and Viviani,\nand the parish priest, were around his bed.[595] And when Vincenzo closed\nhis father\u2019s sightless eyes for their last long sleep, they gave not a\nthought at Rome to the severe loss sustained by science by Galileo\u2019s\ndeath, but only prepared in hot haste to guard the interests of the\nChurch, and as far as it lay in their power, to persecute the C\u00e6sar of\nscience even beyond the grave. The aim was now, as far as possible, to\nextinguish his memory, with which so many perils for Rome were bound up.\n\nEven around his bier the struggle began. Some pettifogging theologians\nwent so far as to wish that Christian burial should be denied him, and\nthat his will should be declared null and void, for a man condemned\non suspicion of heresy, and who had died as a prisoner of the\nInquisition, had no claim to rest in consecrated ground, nor could he\npossess testamentary rights. A long consultation of the ecclesiastical\nauthorities in Florence, and two circumstantial opinions from them were\nrequired to put these fanatics to silence.\n\nImmediately after Galileo\u2019s death his numerous pupils and admirers made a\ncollection for a handsome monument to the famous Tuscan. The Inquisitor,\nFanano, at once sent word of this to Rome, and received a reply by order\nof the Pope, dated 23rd January, that he was to bring it in some way to\nthe ears of the Grand Duke that it was not at all suitable to erect a\nmonument to Galileo, who was sentenced to do penance by the tribunal of\nthe Holy Office and had died during that sentence; good Catholics would\nbe scandalised, and the reputation of the Grand Duke for piety might\nsuffer. But if this did not take effect, the Inquisitor must see that\nthere was nothing in the inscription insulting to the reputation of the\nholy tribunal, and exercise the same care about the funeral sermon.[596]\n\nBesides this, Urban VIII. seized the next opportunity of giving the\nTuscan ambassador to understand that \u201cit would be a bad example for the\nworld if his Highness permitted such a thing, since Galileo had been\narraigned before the Holy Office for such false and erroneous opinions,\nhad also given much trouble about them at Florence, and had altogether\ngiven rise to the greatest scandal throughout Christendom by this\ncondemned doctrine.\u201d[597] In the despatch in which Niccolini reported\nthese remarks of the Pope to his Government, he advised that the matter\nbe postponed, and reminded them that the Pope had had the body of the\nDuchess Matilda, of Mantua, removed from the Carthusian convent there,\nand buried at St. Peter\u2019s at Rome, without saying a word to the Duke\nabout it beforehand, excusing himself afterwards by saying that all\nchurches were papal property, and therefore all the bodies buried in them\nbelonged to the clergy! If, therefore, they did not wish to incur the\ndanger of perhaps seeing Galileo\u2019s bones dragged away from Florence, all\nidea must be given up for the present of suitably celebrating his memory.\n\nNiccolini received an official reply that there had been a talk of\nerecting a monument to Galileo, but that his Highness had not come to any\ndecision, and proper regard would certainly be paid to the hints received\nfrom the Pope.[598] The weak Ferdinand II. did not venture to act in the\nleast against the heartless Pope\u2019s wishes. Even Galileo\u2019s desire in his\nwill to be buried in the vault of his ancestors in the Church of Santa\nCroce, at Florence, was not respected. His mortal remains were placed in\na little obscure room, in a side chapel belonging to the Church, called\n\u201cthe Chapel of the Novitiate.\u201d He was buried according to the desire of\nUrban VIII., very quietly, without any pomp. No monument nor inscription\nmarked his resting place; but though Rome did all she could to obliterate\nthe memory of the famous philosopher, she could not effect that the\nimmortal name of Galileo Galilei should be buried in the grave with his\nlifeless remains.\n\nIt was not till thirty-two years later, when Urban VIII. had long been in\nhis grave, and more lenient views were entertained about Galileo at the\nVatican, that Fra Gabriel Pierozzi, Rector of the Novices of the Convent\nof Santa Croce, ventured to adorn Galileo\u2019s grave with a long bombastic\ninscription.[599] In 1693 Viviani, whose greatest pride it was to sign\nhimself \u201cDisc\u00e9polo ultimo di Galileo,\u201d erected the first public monument\nto his immortal master. The front of his handsome house in the Via San\nAntonio was made to serve for it, for he placed the bronze bust of\nGalileo, after the model of the famous sculptor, Giovanni Caccini, over\nthe door. A long eulogy on Galileo was engraved over and on both sides of\nit.[600]\n\nBut Viviani was not content with thus piously honouring the memory of the\nmaster; in his last will he enjoined on his heirs to erect a splendid\nmonument to him, which was to cost about 4000 scudi, in the Church of\nSanta Croce.[601] Decades, however, passed after Viviani\u2019s death before\nhis heirs thought of fulfilling his wishes. At length, in 1734, the\npreliminary steps were taken by an inquiry from the Convent of Santa\nCroce, whether any decree of the Holy Congregation existed which would\nforbid the erection of such a monument in the Church? The Inquisitor at\nFlorence immediately inquired of the Holy Office at Rome whether it would\nbe permitted thus to honour a man \u201cwho had been condemned for notorious\nerrors.\u201d[602] The opinion of the counsellors of the Holy Office was\ntaken. They said that there was nothing to prevent the erection of the\nmonument, provided the intended inscription were submitted to the Holy\nCongregation, that they might give such orders about it as they thought\nproper.[603] This opinion was confirmed by the Congregation of the Holy\nOffice on 16th June, 1734.[604] And so the pompous monument to Galileo,\nwhich displayed the tastelessness of the age, and was not completed till\nfour years later, could be raised in the Church of Santa Croce, this\npantheon of the Florentines, where they bury their famous dead, and of\nwhich Byron finely sings in \u201cChilde Harold\u201d:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn Santa Croce\u2019s holy precincts lie\n    Ashes which make it holier, dust which is\n    Even in itself an immortality,\n    Though there were nothing save the past, and this,\n    The particle of those sublimities\n    Which have relapsed to chaos:\u2014here repose\n    Angelo\u2019s, Alfieri\u2019s bones, and his,\n    The starry Galileo, with his woes;\n    Here Machiavelli\u2019s earth returned to whence it rose.\u201d[605]\n\nOn 12th March, 1737, Galileo\u2019s remains were removed, in presence of all\nthe professors of the University of Florence, and many of the learned\nmen of Italy, with great solemnity and ecclesiastical pomp, from their\nmodest resting-place to the new mausoleum in a more worthy place in the\nChurch of Santa Croce itself, and united with those of his last pupil,\nViviani.[606]\n\nIt had long been perceived at Rome that, in spite of every effort,\nit was vain to try to bury the Copernican system with Galileo in the\ngrave. It could no longer greatly concern the Roman curia that Galileo\u2019s\nmemory was held in high honour, when the cause for which he suffered had\ndecidedly gained the victory. It was by a singular freak of nature that\nin the very same year which closed the career of this great observer of\nher laws, another who was to complete the work begun by Copernicus and\ncarried on by Galileo, entered upon his. He it is, as we all know, who\ngave to science those eternal forms now recognised as firmly established,\nand whose genius, by the discovery of the law of gravitation, crowned\nthe edifice of which Copernicus laid the foundations and which Galileo\nupreared. During the lifetime of the latter, and the period immediately\nsucceeding his death, the truth of the system of the earth\u2019s double\nmotion was recognised by numerous learned men; and in 1696, when\nNewton published his immortal work, \u201cPhilosophi\u00e6 naturalis principia\nMathematica,\u201d it became thoroughly established. All the scientific world\nwho pursued the paths of free investigation accepted the Copernican\nsystem, and only a few ossified devotees of the old school, in common\nwith some theological philosophers, still raised impotent objections to\nit, which have been continued even up to this day by some wrong-headed\npeople.[607]\n\nAt Rome they only accommodated themselves to the new system slowly and\nreluctantly. In 1757, when it was no longer doubted by any one but a few\nfanatics, the Congregation of the Index thought the time was come for\nproposing to Pope Benedict XIV. to expunge the clause from the decree\nof 5th March, 1616, prohibiting all books which teach that the sun is\nstationary and the earth revolves. This enlightened pontiff, known as\na patron of the arts and sciences, entirely agreed, and signified his\nconsent on 11th May, 1757.[608] But there still remained on the Index\nthe work of Copernicus, \u201cDe Revolutionibus Orbium C\u0153lestium,\u201d Diego di\nZu\u00f1iga\u2019s \u201cCommentary on the Book of Job\u201d (these two works, however, only\n\u201cdonec corrigantur,\u201d but this was quite worthless for strict Catholics as\nfar as the work of Copernicus was concerned, as since the announcement of\nthese \u201ccorrections\u201d by the decree of 15th May, 1620, no new edition had\nappeared), Foscarini\u2019s \u201cL\u00e9ttera s\u00f3pra l\u2019opinione de i Pittagorici e del\nCopernico della mobilit\u00e0 della Terra et stabilit\u00e0 del Sole, e il nuove\nPittagorico Sist\u00e9ma del Mondo,\u201d Kepler\u2019s \u201cEpitome astronomi\u00e6 Copernic\u00e6,\u201d\nand finally, Galileo\u2019s \u201cDialogo sopra i due Massimi Sist\u00e9mi del Mondo.\u201d\nThis last work had indeed been allowed to appear in the edition of\nGalileo\u2019s collected works,[609] undertaken at Padua in 1744, which had\nreceived the prescribed ecclesiastical permission; but the editor, the\nAbbot Toaldo, had been obliged expressly to state in an introduction\nthat the theory of the double motion can and must be regarded only as a\nmathematical hypothesis, to facilitate the explanation of certain natural\nphenomena. Besides this, the \u201cDialogues on the Two Principal Systems\u201d had\nto be preceded by the sentence on and recantation of Galileo, as well as\nby an Essay \u201cOn the System of the Universe of the Ancient Hebrews,\u201d by\nCalmet, in which the passages of Scripture bearing on the order of the\nworld were interpreted in the traditional Catholic fashion.[610]\n\nThe celebrated French astronomer Lalande, as he himself relates,[611]\ntried in vain when at Rome, in 1765, to get Galileo\u2019s works expunged from\nthe Index. The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Index objected\nthat there was a sentence of the Congregation of the Holy Office in\nexistence which must first be cancelled, but this was not done, and all\nremained as before; and even in the edition of the Index of 1819, strange\nto say, the five works mentioned above were to be found as repudiated by\nthe Roman curia!\n\nIt then happened in the following year, 1820, that Canon Joseph Settele,\nprofessor of optics and astronomy at the Archive-gymnasium at Rome,\nwrote a lesson book, \u201cElementi d\u2019astronomia,\u201d in which the Copernican\nsystem, in accordance with the results of science, was treated _ex\nprofesso_. The Master of the Palace, Philip Anfossi, to whom in his\ncapacity of chief censor of the press the book was submitted, demanded\nunder appeal to the decree of 5th March, 1616, still in force, that the\ndoctrine of the double motion should be only treated hypothetically, and\nrefused the _imprimatur_ until the MS. had been altered. Canon Settele,\nhowever, was not disposed to make himself ridiculous in face of the whole\nscientific world by compliance with these antiquated conditions, and\nappealed to Pope Pius VII., who referred the matter to the Congregation\nof the Holy Office. Here at last some regard was had to the times, and\nin the sitting of 16th August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might\ntreat the Copernican system as established, which was approved by Pius\nVII. without hesitation. Father Anfossi could not, after this decision,\nprevent the work from publication as it was, but he resolutely pointed\nout the contradiction between this permission and the decree of 5th\nMarch, 1616, and published a treatise entitled: \u201cCan any one who has\nmade the Tridentine Confession, defend and teach as a thesis, and as\nan absolute truth and not a mere hypothesis, that the earth revolves\nand the sun is stationary?\u201d[612] This gave rise to discussions in the\nCollege of Cardinals of the Holy Inquisition as to the attitude to be\nadopted by ecclesiastical authority towards the Copernican system, which\nhad been universally adopted for more than a century. In the sitting of\n11th September, 1822, they finally agreed, with express reference to the\ndecree of the Index Congregation of 10th May, 1757, and 16th August,\n1820, \u201cthat the printing and publication of works treating of the motion\nof the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general\nopinion of modern astronomers is permitted at Rome.\u201d[613] This decree\nwas ratified by Pius VII. on 25th September.\n\nBut full thirteen years more went by until, in 1835, when the new edition\nof the catalogue of prohibited books appeared, the five works in which\nthe theory of the double motion was maintained and defended were expunged\nfrom the list.\n\nIt was not until 1835, therefore, that the last trace was effaced of the\nmemorable warfare so long and resolutely waged by ecclesiastical power\nagainst the superior insight of science. If it is denied to history to\nsurround the head of Galileo, the greatest advocate of the new system,\nwith the halo of the martyr, ready to die for his cause, posterity\nwill ever regard with admiration and gratitude the figure of the man,\nwho, though he did not heroically defend the truth, was, by virtue of\nhis genius, one of her first pioneers, and had to bear for her sake an\naccumulation of untold suffering.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n_HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._[614]\n\n\nWe know next to nothing of the history of the Vatican MS. up to the time\nwhen Napoleon I. took possession of the papal city. During this period,\nwhen proud Rome had sunk so low as to be a department of France, in\n1811, by the mandate of the then ruler of the world, the treasures of\nthe Vatican archives were removed from Rome to Paris. Among them was\nthe volume containing the Acts of Galileo\u2019s trial. It is not known how\nNapoleon\u2019s special attention came to be directed to them; but it is\ncertain that he requested Alexander Barbier, then State Librarian, to\nfurnish him with a detailed report about them.[615] Barbier handed it\nto the Minister of Worship and Instruction. He also proposed that the\nwhole of the documents should be printed, in the interests of historical\ntruth, in the original Latin and Italian, with a French translation. The\nproposal was approved by the Emperor, and the volume was handed over to\nBarbier that he might have the translation made.\n\nWhen the convulsions of 1814 had swept Napoleon out of Paris, and\ntransported him to Elba, and the Bourbons again ruled France, the Roman\ncuria repeatedly took steps to regain possession of the volume.\n\nAfter the return of Pius VII. to Rome in 1814, after his compulsory\nresidence at Fontainebleau, Mgr. Marini was staying at Paris as Papal\nCommissary, in order to demand from the new French Government the\nrestitution of the archival treasures taken by Napoleon from the Holy\nSee. He first applied for the Acts of Galileo\u2019s trial to the Minister\nof the Interior, who referred him to the Count de Blacas, Minister of\nthe Royal Household.[616] He assured Marini that he would have a search\ninstituted in the royal library.[617] He wrote on the same day to Barbier\ncharging him to search for the documents, and to report to him on their\nhistorical value.[618] Barbier\u2019s answer is too characteristic not to be\ngiven.\n\n                 \u201cA Son Excellence le Ministre de la Maison du Roi,\n                                           Paris, 5 Decembre, 1814.\n\n    Monseigneur,\n\n    Je m\u2019empresse de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la lettre par laquelle votre\n    Excellence me fait l\u2019honneur de me demander s\u2019il existe, dans\n    le d\u00e9p\u00f4t g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des biblioth\u00e8ques de S.M. ou dans l\u2019une de ses\n    Biblioth\u00e8ques particuli\u00e8res, des pi\u00e8ces qui faisaient partie\n    des Archives Pontificales et qui sont reclam\u00e9es par le garde de\n    ces Archives, savoir le proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e.\n\n    _Il y a plus de trois aus que je poss\u00e8de le proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e._\n\n    Rien n\u2019est plus c\u00e9l\u00e8bre que ce proc\u00e8s dans l\u2019histoire des\n    Sciences et dans celle de l\u2019Inquisition. Aussi s\u2019en est on\n    occup\u00e9 avec un grand z\u00e8le jusqu\u2019\u00e0 ces derniers temps; ce qui\n    est probablement cause qu\u2019 apr\u00e8s l\u2019avoir examin\u00e9 avec tante\n    l\u2019attention qu\u2019il merite, _je n\u2019y ai remarqu\u00e9 ancun d\u00e9tail qui\n    ne soit connu_ (sic). L\u2019importance de ce recueil consiste donc\n    principalement dans la r\u00e9union des pi\u00e8ces qui ont motiv\u00e9, dans\n    le XVII\u1d49 si\u00e8cle, la condamnation d\u2019un habile astronome, pour\n    une opinion qui est g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement enseign\u00e9e aujourd\u2019hui dans\n    toutes les \u00e9coles, m\u00eame eccl\u00e9siastiques.\n\n                    Je suis, Monseigneur, etc.,\n\n                                                     BARBIER.\u201d[619]\n\nIt is clear that Barbier expected to find support in the Acts of the\ntrial for the assumed torture of Galileo; and as they reported nothing\nof the kind, and could not report anything consistently with the facts\nof history, the librarian entirely overlooked the vast importance of the\npapers. After this report Count Blacas felt no scruple about letting the\nPapal Commissary have them. On 15th December the minister wrote a note to\nBarbier, asking him for the volume of documents, that he might himself\nhand it to Marini.[620] He also wrote to the Papal Commissary that the\ndocuments had been found, and that it would give him great pleasure to\ndeliver them to him.[621] Marini accordingly went three times to the\nminister\u2019s hotel, and once to the Tuileries, but without success. He\ntherefore begged, in a letter of 28th January, 1815, to have a day and\nhour appointed for an audience.[622] To his dismay he received in reply\na letter from Count Blacas of 2nd February, 1815, saying that the King\nhimself wished to look through the trial of Galileo, that the MS. was in\nhis majesty\u2019s cabinet, and therefore could not be given up immediately,\nbut it should be done as soon as the King had returned it.[623]\n\nMarini was therefore on the track of the documents, though he did not\nget them. But only twenty-four days after he received this explanation\nthe famous hundred days occurred, and Louis XVIII. left his palace in\nthe darkness of night for Ghent. Napoleon had scarcely set out for St.\nHelena, and the legitimate sovereign made his entry into Paris, than we\nfind the Papal Commissary again eagerly trying to get back the precious\nMS.[624] But what must have been his dismay when he was informed by Count\nPradel, temporary successor of Count Blacas, on 6th November, 1815,\nthat the documents were no longer to be found in the King\u2019s cabinet,\nand that it was not known what had become of them.[625] Further efforts\nwere fruitless. All that he could get from the French Government was the\ndoubtful promise that the papers should be restored when found.\n\nTwo years later, in August, 1817, he again attacked Count Pradel on the\nsubject,[626] and was assured that they were not in the cabinet of the\nroyal palace; he might have a search made among the archives in the\nLouvre, they might have been put aside there.[627] Marini suspected that\nthe papers had been purloined, and asked the minister of police, Count\nDecazes, to help him in his search. He, however, referred him to the\nMinister Of the Interior,[628] that is, to the place where he had begun\nhis inquiries three years before. Afterwards he applied to the president\nof the ministry, the Duke of Richelieu, and to the influential M. de\nLain\u00e9, but with no more success than before.\n\nIn 1820 Venturi applied to Delambre, Secretary of the Academy of\nSciences, with the request to get for him, if possible, extracts from\nand copies of the Acts of the trial, as he was urgently in want of them\nfor the second volume of his \u201cMemorie e lettere inedite fuora o disperse\ndi Galileo Galilei.\u201d Delambre eagerly took up the question. Some light\nis thrown on the steps he took by the following note to Barbier of 27th\nJune, only published a few months ago:\u2014\n\n    \u201cLe secretaire perp\u00e9tuel de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie pour les Sciences\n    Math\u00e9matiques est venu pour avoir l\u2019honneur de converser\n    avec M. Barbier, sur un article int\u00e9ressant de biographie\n    astronomique, le proc\u00e9s de Galil\u00e9e et les pi\u00e8ces originales\n    dont M. Barbier a \u00e9t\u00e9 longtemps d\u00eapositaire. Il desire\n    cette conversation pour lui-m\u00eame et pour M. Venturi, etc.,\n    Delambre.\u201d[629]\n\nThree days later Delambre wrote to Venturi that the original Acts\ncertainly had been at Paris some years ago, but had disappeared, and it\nwas not now known whether they were still there or had been taken away.\nHe told him that during the Empire the publication and translation of\nthe documents had been projected, but political events had prevented it\nfrom being carried out; the extracts, however, then made, and the French\ntranslation which had been begun, were in existence. These, which M.\nBarbier had placed at Delambre\u2019s disposal, he sent to Venturi. Delambre\nexpressed his great regret that the material which he could obtain was\nnot complete; but he consoled himself with the opinion that by the\npublication of the documents in Riccioli\u2019s \u201cAlmagestum novum,\u201d 1651,\nand in the first volume of Venturi\u2019s work, nothing essential would be\nwanting; and \u201cthat unfortunate business, which would be ridiculous if\nit were not so repulsive, is now as widely known as can be desired.\u201d\nDelambre, as it seems, was only concerned with the clearing up of the\ntorture question; and as the fragments which had come to his knowledge\ncontained no evidence of torture, and as he might have been informed by\nBarbier that there was no trace of it in any of the papers, he wrote as\nabove in calm conviction to Venturi.\n\nEight years afterwards Count Dar\u00fc, who was intending to bring out his\nwork on astronomy, made inquiries of Barbier about the existence of the\nActs of Galileo\u2019s trial. The information he received must have been\nwholly unsatisfactory, as appears from the following letter from the\nCount to Barbier of 16th October, 1828:\u2014\n\n    \u201cJ\u2019ai re\u00e7u Monsieur ... les deux lettres que vous m\u2019avez fait\n    l\u2019honneur de m\u2019\u00e9crire. J\u2019ai trouv\u00e9, joint \u00e0 la seconde, le\n    billet de M. l\u2019abb\u00e9 Denina[630] qui prouve que la traduction du\n    proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e a exist\u00e9 au moins en partie. Du reste, nous\n    en avions d\u00e9j\u00e0 la preuve par l\u2019extrait de M. Delambre. _Je suis\n    persuad\u00e9 que le proc\u00e8s existe quelque part \u00e0 Paris_, et ce me\n    semble, il doit se trouver dans quelque biblioth\u00e8que du roi,\n    peut \u00eatre m\u00eame aux Archives de la liste civile. J\u2019en parlerai a\n    M. le baron de la Bouillerie.\n\n                          Recevez, etc.,\n\n                                                        DAR\u00dc.\u201d[631]\n\nBut Dar\u00fc\u2019s further inquiries seem to have been unsuccessful; anyhow, the\nlong-sought-for volume remained concealed for seventeen years longer. In\n1845 Gregory XVI. requested Pelegrino Rossi, French ambassador at Rome,\nwho was devoted to the papacy, to use his influence to get the Acts\nrestored, if they should be discovered at Paris. This shows that it was\ndisbelieved at Rome that they could not be found. At first Rossi\u2019s urgent\nmediation only obtained the assurance from Louis Philippe that the Pope\u2019s\ncherished wish should be fulfilled, provided that the papers should be\nfound, but on the express condition that they should be published entire\nat Rome. And as the curia, of course, promised to comply, the MS. which\nhad been mysteriously concealed for thirty-one years was \u201cfound\u201d and\nrestored.\n\nIn 1848-9, when the Papal See was attacked by the revolutionary spirit\nwhich pervaded Europe, the fugitive Pope, Pius IX., confided the\nhardly-won documents to the prefect of the Secret Archives, Marino\nMarini. He not only took good care of them, but took the opportunity of\nfulfilling the obligation to the French Government incurred on their\nrestoration. On 12th April, 1850, the Pope returned from Gaeta to his\ncapital under the protection of French bayonets, and his thoughts must\nsoon have recurred to these documents, for on 8th May of the same year he\npresented them to the Vatican Library. In the same year, also, Marini\u2019s\nwork, \u201cGalileo Galilei e l\u2019Inquizione,\u201d appeared at Rome, intended to be\nthe fulfilment of the French conditions.\n\nWe purposely say \u201cintended to be,\u201d for they were not really so at all.\nThe entire contents of the Vatican MS. were thereby by no means given\nto the public, but such a sight of it as the editor thought proper, and\nwhich was, as far as possible, an apology for the Inquisition. Instead of\nthe full original text of the Acts, the world only received disjointed\nextracts, arbitrary fragments\u2014in many instances nothing at all. Perhaps\nit was perceived at head-quarters that a comparison of Marini\u2019s work with\nthe documents would bring strange things to light, for they were suddenly\nremoved from the too public Vatican Library and placed among the papal\narchives.\n\nAnd for a long time there seemed to be no disposition to place these\nimportant historical materials at the disposal of independent historians.\nThus we learn from Alb\u00e8ri, editor of \u201cLe Opere di Galileo Galilei,\u201d\nFlorence, 1842-1856, in 16 vols, in which all the materials for the\nhistory of Galileo are collected, that Marini had made obliging offers\nto him about the Vatican MS.; but his death put an end to the hopes thus\nraised, and Alb\u00e8ri had to content himself with reproducing the extracts\nand documents given by Venturi and Marini. It is obvious that the MS.\nwas not accessible to him, or he would surely have included the Acts in\nhis great work. Professor Moritz Cantor, who asked to see them ten years\nlater, met with no better success. He complains bitterly in his essay,\n\u201cGalileo Galilei,\u201d that the attempts he made through the good offices of\nan eminent _savant_, with Father Theiner, keeper of the Secret Archives,\nhad been without avail.\n\nHowever, though neither Alb\u00e8ri nor Cantor attained their wish, Henri de\nL\u2019Epinois, a few years later, was more successful. In the introduction\nto his work, \u201cGalil\u00e9e, son proc\u00e8s sa Condemnation,\u201d 1867, he relates\nthat in a conversation with Theiner at Rome, he expressed his regret at\nthe inadequacy of Marini\u2019s book, and his desire to see the subject of\nGalileo\u2019s trial cleared up. Theiner liberally responded to this appeal\nby placing the documents at his disposal. But Epinois had only just\nmade hasty copies of the most important, and indices of others, when\nhe was compelled by urgent private affairs to return to France. The\ncopies of the Vatican MS. which he took with him were therefore in many\nrespects inaccurate and incomplete, and even the indices left much to be\ndesired. Nevertheless, historical research will always be indebted to\nEpinois for publishing his notes, in spite of their shortcomings, which\nwere best known to himself.[632] The melancholy picture of Galileo\u2019s\ntrial was first presented in faithful outline, and it became possible to\nweave the story with approximate accuracy. Many details, however, were\nstill wanting; and though the fictitious stories of many writers were\nconsiderably checked by Epinois\u2019s communications, some scope was still\nleft for them. What was wanted was the entire publication of the Vatican\nMS., and if possible with diplomatic precision.\n\nNine years again went by, during which Epinois seems to have found no\nopportunity of completing his work. Meanwhile, Professor Domenico Berti\nasked for the favour of a sight of the papers, and in 1876 he was engaged\nin Theiner\u2019s room in copying the documents.[633] In the same year his\nwork, \u201cIl Processo Originale di Galileo Galilei,\u201d appeared, bearing upon\nthe title page the unwarranted addition, \u201cpublicato per la prima volta da\nDomenico Berti.\u201d Epinois had been the first to publish the Vatican MS.,\nthough only partially; the words would only have been correct if Berti\nhad published them complete. This he professes to have done,[634] but as\nfive documents are wanting, and the contents of fifty others only shortly\ngiven, it cannot be regarded as complete.\n\nBesides these unfortunate lapses, Berti\u2019s publication is very\ndisappointing to the historian. Instead of giving the reader as good an\nidea as possible of this interesting MS., the documents are taken out of\nall connection, and given numbers and superscriptions of which there is\nnot a trace in the original, and the marking of the folios is omitted.\n\u201cImprovement\u201d of the orthography, punctuation, etc., is consistently\ncarried out. One of the numberings is quite left out (the oldest, upper\npaging), and, following Epinois, he reads the second incorrectly.\n\nIn the same year in which Berti\u2019s book appeared, Sante Pieralisi received\nan invitation from high quarters to inspect the volume. He accepted the\nflattering offer with no small satisfaction, but does not seem to have\nknown how to turn it to account. He confined himself to comparing the\nmost important documents in Epinois and Berti with the originals, and to\ngiving a list, by no means complete, of their deviations from them.[635]\n\nIn consequence of the controversy as to the genuineness of the document\nof 26th February, 1616, we resolved in the spring of 1877 to attempt to\nget a sight of the papers, our sole reason being the desire to see for\nourselves whether external evidence was for or against falsification, or\nwhether any certain conclusions could be drawn from it. We had then no\nidea whatever of publishing the Vatican MS. ourselves, as we at that time\nconsidered Berti\u2019s publication of it to be nearly complete.\n\nThrough the good offices of the Austrian ambassador, we were promised\nthat when we came to Rome, Cardinal Simeoni, Secretary of State, would\npermit us to see the documents. Two days afterwards we were on our way\nto Rome, and soon had the volume in our hands. As we turned over the\npages with a curiosity easy to be imagined, and compared it with Berti\u2019s\npublication, we discovered, to our no small surprise, its many omissions\nand inaccuracies. The idea then occurred to us of making a copy of all\nthe documents in the collection with the greatest possible precision. Not\nthe least \u201cimprovement\u201d should be made; the text should be reproduced\nexactly, with its peculiar orthography, accentuation, and punctuation,\nits abbreviations, errors, and special marks, so far as it was possible\nby means of typography.\n\nWe made known our intention to the first prefect of the Vatican Library,\nMgr. Martinuzzi, to whom Cardinal Simeoni had referred us; he not only\nmade not the slightest objection, but showed great interest in our\nproject. During our long daily tarriance in the Vatican afterwards, he\nwas most obliging, and heaped attentions upon us which lightened the\nlabour.\n\nWe might have been engaged about three weeks in copying the MS., sending\nthe pages copied during the day to Messrs. Cotta, at Stuttgard, to be\nprinted, when we were surprised one morning by a visit in the Vatican\nfrom M. de L\u2019Epinois. He told us that he had been two months at Rome,\nand had undertaken a correction of Berti\u2019s book from the original. We\ninformed him of our enterprise, which he spoke of as \u201cquite a different\nthing\u201d; and when we returned his call, he again spoke of a correction\nof Berti, and regretted that he had not copied the whole MS. Of any\nintention of publishing it complete he said not a word. We therefore\ncontentedly went on with our work; the copying was nearly finished and\nthe printing in progress, when one afternoon on our return from the\nVatican we found a letter from Epinois, in which he said that he had not\nhad time to call on us again, and informed us of the speedy appearance of\nhis complete publication of the Vatican MS., and that we should receive\na copy in a few days. This announcement was most surprising. We went at\nonce to seek M. de L\u2019Epinois, but learnt that he had left Rome early that\nmorning.\n\nOur work was too far advanced to be given up, and so we went on, in the\nhope that even now there might be some little place in the world for it.\nBy the time Epinois\u2019s book reached us the copying was finished, and we\nwere correcting the proofs by the originals. It was not without value,\neven for our enterprise, for we compared our proofs with it line by\nline and word by word, made notes of deviations, and then went to the\nVatican to see which was right. We readily acknowledge that in this way\nwe discovered and corrected many errors which had crept into our copy.\nThe variations which still exist are all well known to us, and are left,\neither because Epinois is mistaken, or we consider our reading to be the\nbest. This is not the place for a criticism of his work; we will only\nbear witness, after comparing it with the original, to its accuracy.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n_DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._\n\n\nThe Acts of the two trials of Galileo, of 1615-16 and 1632-33, which\nare stitched together, and to which several other documents are added\nrelating to the surveillance of Galileo until his death, and the\nerection of his monument, form a pretty thick quarto volume, twenty-two\ncentimeters broad and thirty high.\n\nIt is done up in a loose sheet of white paper, which can lay no claim to\nveneration from age, and is in an equally loose green pasteboard cover,\nwhich may boast of historic antiquity, as may also the faded and frail\nred strings by which the volume is fastened. The cover is too short\nand too narrow, so that the edges get mercilessly rubbed. In this way,\nunfortunately, many a letter, word and even signature in these precious\npapers have been lost, and it is high time to protect them from further\ninjury.\n\nThe documents are only slightly fastened together in places, and you can\nsee from the outside how far the Acts of the first trial extend. This\nslight fastening also enables you to see that all the blank pages, of\nwhich there are 194, are partly reverse sides, partly second pages of\ndocuments, and it may easily be discovered to which document each blank\npage belongs. In some cases these second pages have been cut away, as\nappears from the broad piece left. The suspicion from this that important\ndocuments have been withdrawn seems inadmissible, for the pages cut out,\nas is seen from those left, which correspond with the rest, belonged to\nfinished documents, and the abstraction of a document would certainly\nnot have been betrayed by leaving a broad strip behind.\n\nThe paging is in the greatest confusion. On the title page, in the right\nhand corner, are the figures 949, and under them 336. The historical\nintroduction, by an unknown hand, prefixed to the papers, is numbered\n337-340. The first document bears the double paging\n\n    950\n    341,\n\nthe upper number being struck through. On folio\n\n    951\n    342\n\na third paging begins with 1, on the right hand lower edge. The triple\nnumbering goes on regularly to\n\n    959\n    350\n      9.\n\nAfter\n\n    992\n    383\n     41\n\nthe uppermost and oldest paging is discontinued. Folios 384-386, blank\npages of the Acts of the first trial, only bear the double paging,\nprobably because, being blank, they were not paged until the papers of\nboth trials were put together.\n\nThe double paging may be thus explained. The old numbering comprises all\nthe documents belonging to 1616; and as it is to be seen on the title\npage, as well as the words: \u201cEx archivo S. Offij,\u201d and Vol. 1181, it\nis clear that these documents were originally comprised in a volume of\nthe Archives of the Holy Office numbered 1181. The Acts of the second\ntrial, 1632-33, must have belonged to another volume, as appears from\nthe paging, as the first document bears the number 387, but the number\nof the volume is not traceable. When the Acts of 1616 and 1632-33 were\nbound together, in order to form a continuous paging, the old numbers of\nthe first trial were struck through, and the paging continued backwards,\nreckoning from the first folio of the second trial.\n\nThe Introduction helps to determine the time when the two parts were\nunited. It only extends to the mention of Galileo\u2019s defence; it is clear,\ntherefore, that it was written after 10th May (the date of the defence),\nand before 21st June, the date of the last examination, while the\nnumbering, which is that of the second paging only, shows that the union\nhad taken place. The title page also is included in the second paging. We\nmay therefore conclude that the authorship of the Introduction and the\njoining of the Acts up to 10th May, 1633, is to be attributed to the same\nperson.\n\nThe object of this report undoubtedly was to give the Pope and\nCongregation, before their final verdict on Galileo; a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\nwhole affair from its beginning. The united Acts were the vouchers. The\ndrawing up of such a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ was part of the ordinary proceeding in\nevery trial before the Inquisition, and it had to be circulated among the\ncardinals and qualifiers before the final sitting[636]. As in Galileo\u2019s\ncase this final sitting took place on 16th June, under the personal\npresidency of the Pope, it is in exact agreement with this that both the\nsummary and paging referred to in it only extend to the events of 16th\nJune.\n\nAs to the addition of the further documents, it may be observed that\nafter the papers were put together the collection ended with six second\npages, of which four, 448, 449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of\nPasqualigus; and two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of\nGalileo of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of 16th\nJune, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the last second page, 451,\nforming part of the above-named document, and the three previous pages\nwere left blank. The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June\nwas written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining space\n(half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes were made\u2014the first about\nthe mandate of 30th June, to send the sentence and recantation to all\nInquisitors, etc., and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second\nnote reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd July. The\nrest of the documents which the Vatican MS. now contains must have been\nadded as they came in, or when there were several to be added. The paging\nwas, of course, continuously carried out.\n\nThe last document but one of the collection is a short historical summary\nof the process. Berti says that this must have been drawn up at least a\nyear after its conclusion,[637] but Pieralisi[638] has pointed out that\nhe should have said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when\nthe inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, 1734, came in as\nto the erection of a monument in Santa Croce, this _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ was drawn up\nto put the cardinals, who might not know much about it, in possession of\nthe chief facts of Galileo\u2019s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of paper\ncontaining the _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ is stitched to the letter of Fra. Ambr*** and\nthe decision of the cardinals written on the fourth page. If any doubts\nremain that this summary was written in 1734, they will disappear on\ncomparing it with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol\nof the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, within\nparentheses, the most important part of the summary, followed by the\ndecision of the cardinals, in almost verbatim translation from Italian\ninto Latin. The date and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n_ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._\n\n\nWe now proceed to the examination of the documents contained in this\nfamous volume. They differ in historical value, for they are not all\nas Professor Berti says,[639] original documents, but often copies,\nand more or less cursory annotations. Those only can be considered\noriginal documents which have autograph signatures; as all the letters\nin the MS. with one exception,[640] the protocol of the examination of\nCaccini, and the protocols of the examinations of Galileo; those of the\ndepositions of Ximenes and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor\nat Florence to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of\ntheir authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly of annotations on\nthe decrees relating to the trial, decrees and mandates of the Pope and\nHoly Congregation, or notices of their execution. _But the original Acts\ncorresponding with these annotations are not comprised in the Vatican\nMS._ Moreover, a careful examination of the Vatican Acts with Gherardi\u2019s\nDocuments shows, that especially after the conclusion of the trial till\nGalileo\u2019s death, many papal decrees were issued of which there is no\nmention in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must be looked\nupon as an incomplete source. But on the other hand, there is no doubt\nthat the Acts of the trial itself lie before us altogether.\n\nDr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed the suspicion\nthat a short time before the MS. was removed from the Archives of the\nHoly Office to France, the Acts of the trial underwent alterations\nwith a special purpose, in the expectation that the Archives would be\nrobbed, and that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr.\nMarino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations were\ncompleted![641] Wohlwill takes all the preliminary report\u2014the origin of\nwhich is clear, and in accordance with the rules of the Inquisition\u2014for\na forgery intended to influence \u201creaders outside the Vatican.\u201d He also\nthinks that the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head\nof the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one can make out,\nand Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory reason for it. As he\nhad only Epinois\u2019s first edition of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti\u2019s\nimperfect publication in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions.\nIt is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill\u2019s bold conjectures turn\nout to be phantoms on an actual examination of the papers, and this will\ncertainly be confirmed by Epinois, Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have\nseen them. This is not the place to refute Wohlwill\u2019s suspicions, as we\nhave done so elsewhere.[642] It only remains for us to give the material\nevidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of 26th February\nneither is nor can be a later falsification.\n\nAs is well known, before we had inspected these documents we had fully\nadopted the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and\nProfessor Gherardi in Italy, that the \u201cdocument\u201d of 26th February,\n1616, was of a later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according\nto the ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of the\n\u201cDialogues on the Two Systems\u201d to trial for disobedience to an order of\nthe Sacred Congregation, though the work seemed to be protected by the\necclesiastical _imprimatur_. We confess that we went to Rome with but\nlittle hope of finding external evidence for or against the genuineness\nof the document. It had been long in Professor Berti\u2019s hands, and he had\ndefended it with learned dialectics, while the controversy would have\nbeen closed by adducing material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore,\nsufficient inducement to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should\nenable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document was not\na falsification, even though its genuineness might not be capable of\ndemonstration.\n\nContrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, and we\nmay say, entirely objective examination, we must pronounce _that the\nsuspicion of a later origin is not tenable_.\n\nNow for the reasons. The note of 26th February begins on the same page as\nthat of the 25th, and they are in precisely the same ink and handwriting.\nAs, however, in case of a forgery, the perpetrator would not have been\nso unskilful as to add a note in different ink and writing under another\nsixteen years old, but would have written both on another sheet, and\ncarefully incorporated them with the Acts, we had to find out whether\nit was possible that the pages on which the notes are found (folios 378\nvo. and 379 ro.), could have been afterwards added to the Acts. This was\nfound to be impossible. It is excluded by two circumstances.\n\n1. Folios 378 vo. and 379 ro. are _second_ pages to existing documents;\nand folio 378 belongs to 377, on which is written the famous opinion of\nthe Qualifiers of the Holy Office on the two propositions of Galileo,\ntaken from the work on the Solar Spots. Folio 379 again belongs to folio\n357, which is a page of the protocol of the examination of Caccini.\n\n2. In this collection of the Acts of the trial, all the paper on which\nthe documents of the Holy Office were written at Rome, bears the same\nwatermark,\u2014a dove in a circle,\u2014which is not found on any of the paper\nof later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the\nnotes of 25th and 26th February.\n\nAs from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had\nto be given up, there was still one suspicion left\u2014that the two notes\nhad been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there\nare so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But\nthis hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a\nscrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in\nthe same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be\nfound in any document of the later trial.\n\nIn the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to\nmaintain that the note of 26th February is a _later_ falsification.\nNevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured,\nand Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the \u201cfalsifiers\u201d went\nto work. In the _Revista Europa_, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877,\nDr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most\nconvincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it\nis entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is\nthat the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th\nFebruary was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding\nthe edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery\nby transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini\nquotes only the second paging, which was done _after_ the assumed\nforgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according\nto the pleasure\u2014not of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632\nthere was a regular numbering from 949-992, originating in 1616, and no\ntransposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini\u2019s plan,\nwithout entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm\nof impossibilities.\n\nBut firmly as it is now established that the document of 26th February,\n1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally certain that the proceedings\ndid not take place in the rigid manner described in that annotation.\nIn the course of this work we have become acquainted with the various\nreasons which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a downright\nuntruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To all these reasons one\nmore may now be added. Had the course of events been that recorded in the\nannotation, so important an act would have been made into a protocol,\nand would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and witnesses. Only a\ndocument of this kind would have afforded conclusive evidence on another\ntrial. We learn from another document of the trial that such a proceeding\nwas a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, in order\nthat the accused might not be able to deny what had happened. When on 1st\nOctober, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence,\nwho issued the command to him to present himself at Rome in the course of\nthe month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had received the order\nand would obey it; no sooner had he left the room than it was entered by\na notary and witnesses who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment,\nand affirmed under Galileo\u2019s signature that they had been present when he\n\u201cpromised, wrote, and signed the above.\u201d[643]\n\nIf these measures were so strictly observed in the case of this much less\nimportant act, we may be tolerably certain that they would not have been\nomitted in the far more important one of 1616, if the stringent command\nhad really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General in the name\nof the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before notary and witnesses, to\nmaintain henceforth absolute silence, in speaking and writing, about the\nCopernican system. Such a document would have furnished the Holy Office\nwith legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in case of his breaking\nhis word, and for punishing his disobedience; in short, for subjecting\nhim to the consequences of this categorical injunction.\n\nDid such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact of the stringent\nintimation, we did not believe that such a document ever had existed.\nNevertheless, when at Rome, we eagerly sought to discover whether,\ncontrary to all expectation, this most important document was extant,\nor to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the Archives of\nthe Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor Gherardi had found\nsuch valuable notes about the trial of Galileo. We therefore addressed\na memorial to the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which\nwe made a concise statement of the present state of the researches\nrelating to Galileo\u2019s trial, remarking that though the suspicion of\na falsification was not tenable, the correctness of the note of 26th\nFebruary seemed doubtful, and could only be acknowledged as trustworthy\nif either the original protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were\ndiscovered in the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four\nweeks we received the following reply:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIllm\u0303o Signore,\n\n    In sequito della richiesta fattasi da V. S. Illm\u0303a di avere dei\n    documenti relativi a Galileo, mi recai a premura di commetterne\n    le opportune indagini. Praticatesi le pi\u00f9 diligenti ricerche,\n    vengo informato non esistere affatto negli Archivi i documenti\n    che si desideravano.\n\n    Nel portare ci\u00f2 a sua notizia, ho il piacere di dichiararle i\n    sensi della mia distinta stima\u2014\n\n        Di V. S. Illm\u0303a,\n\n                        Affmo per servirla,\n\n                                            GIOVANNI CARD. SIMEONI.\n\n    Roma 20 Luglio, 1877.\u201d\n\nBy this decisive information it is established that _now_, at any\nrate, _no other document is extant relating to the proceedings of 26th\nFebruary, 1616, than the well-known annotation_. Was this also the\ncase in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for disobedience and signally\npunished? The history of the trial, the otherwise incomprehensible\nattitude of the Interrogator towards Galileo, are strongly in favour\nof an affirmative answer. From his first examination to his defence,\nGalileo persistently denies having received any other command than the\nwarning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor defend the Copernican\ndoctrine, while the Interrogator maintains that a command was issued to\nhim before a notary and witnesses \u201cnot in any way to hold, teach, or\ndefend that doctrine.\u201d The contradiction is obvious. In confirmation of\nhis deposition, Galileo brings an autograph certificate from Cardinal\nBellarmine which fully agrees with it. One would then have expected\nto see the Interrogator spare no pains to convict Galileo on this\nturning-point of the trial. The production of a legal protocol about\nthe proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole affair\nand annihilated Galileo\u2019s defence. But as it was not produced, and the\nInterrogator, singularly enough, omits all further inquiry into Galileo\u2019s\nignorance of the absolute prohibition, and simply takes it for granted,\nwe may conclude that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act\nof 26th February than this note without signature. It must therefore\nbe admitted by the historical critic that one of the heaviest charges\nagainst Galileo was raised on a paper of absolutely no legal value, and\nthat sentence for \u201cdisobedience\u201d was passed entirely on the evidence of\nthis worthless document.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n_GHERARDI\u2019S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS._\n\n\nIn the course of this work we have always acknowledged the authenticity\nof the documents first published by Gherardi in his \u201cIl Processo Galileo:\nRiveduto Sopra documenti di nuove fonte,\u201d in the _Rivista Europea_,\nvol. iii., 1870, and our story has in many cases been based on them. It\nbehoves us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity\nbeyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin of the\ncollection; secondly, by comparing the documents with others universally\nacknowledged to be authentic.\n\nOn the first point we refer to the professor\u2019s account prefixed to the\ndocuments. In December, 1848, he came to Rome, and was at first, though\nonly for a short time, deputy to the parliament summoned by Pius IX.,\nthen held, in quick succession, the offices of member of the assembly\nfor framing a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister\nof Instruction to the Revolutionary Government. These offices greatly\nfacilitated Gherardi\u2019s historical researches, and he pursued them with\nardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. His attention was specially\ndirected to the discovery of the original documents of Galileo\u2019s trial.\nEven in December, 1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the\nArchives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully guarded\nby the soldiers and agents of the Provisional Government to save these\nhistorical treasures from the fury of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to\nget a sight of the complete collection of the Acts, which had two years\nbefore been brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, for\nas we know, during the Revolution, these documents were in the hands of\nMgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Secret Archives. So Gherardi had to\ncontent himself with seeking more or less evident traces of the trial\namong the Archives left in the greatest confusion and partly hastily\nplundered by the fugitive custodians. It was not without difficulty that\nhe discovered, what was before unknown, that the Acts of the Inquisition\nwere divided into two classes: the first contains the protocols of the\nsittings and decrees of the Holy Congregation, sometimes in full and\nsometimes merely extracts. The folios containing these were marked\nDecreta. The second class contains the protocols of the examinations of\naccused persons and witnesses, all Acts relating to trials, and finally\nthe sentences passed. These folios were marked Processus. There was a\nthird register marked Rubricelle, which served as an index to everything\nrelating to any person or cause.\n\nAs there were not nearly so many gaps in the Decreta as in the Processus,\nGherardi turned his attention, the Rubricelle in hand, to the former. He\nbegan to make extracts from the documents relating to Galileo\u2019s trial,\nand had already made ten, when he came upon a collection of papers\ncontaining thirty-two of such extracts, all relating to the trial. To\nthese papers was added an extract from a letter from Count Blacas, from\nPrague, of 20th January, 1835, in which he stated that he had repeatedly,\nbut without success, instituted a search for the Acts of Galileo\u2019s trial,\nwhich had been detained at Paris since 1815, and that nothing would give\nhim greater pleasure, should they come into his hands, than to deliver\nthem to his Holiness, but this was not a suitable time to renew the\ndemand for them.\n\nIt is clear from this letter that the curia made at least one attempt to\nregain possession of the Vat. MS. between 1820 and 1845, and Gherardi\nconcludes from the circumstance that this letter was found with the\nsaid collection that a copy of it had been sent to the Count, perhaps\nto show him that it was desired to put all the papers relating to\nGalileo\u2019s cause together\u2014a project intended to urge the Count to renewed\nefforts for their recovery. Be that as it may, the important thing is\nthat Gherardi, having convinced himself of the entire agreement of his\nten extracts (the most important), with the corresponding ones in the\ncollection, concluded that the other twenty-two were correct, and did not\nmake any more extracts.\n\nIn April, 1849, in spite of the precautions taken, the Archives of\nthe Inquisition seemed no longer safe from the mob, and were removed,\nwith other ecclesiastical libraries, to the Apollinarius church, where\nGherardi was again able to look at them. But it was but for a moment,\nas he decidedly declined all responsibility for a collection of such\nimmense historical value. Moreover, the advance of the French army to\nRome to effect the restoration of Pius IX., would have left him but\nlittle time for historical researches. On 4th July, in consequence of\nthe capitulation of the municipal council, the French General Ouidinot\nmarched at the head of his troops into \u201cliberated\u201d Rome, while Garibaldi\nleft it on the other side with his 4000 volunteers, and with him all the\npatriots who had specially distinguished themselves in the service of the\nRepublic during its short existence. Among these was Gherardi, who turned\nhis steps towards Genoa, where he lived for his studies during his exile.\nOn leaving Rome he had only been able to take ten extracts with him, and\nhad now to wait for an opportunity of completing them by those in the\nArchives of the Inquisition, and he waited patiently twenty-one years.\nIn 1870 the time at length came. He gives us no further particulars as\nto how he succeeded in getting the collection into his hands again, but\nsimply says that he did so, and no longer delayed to give this valuable\nhistorical material to the world.\n\nThe history of Gherardi\u2019s Documents is of itself a pledge of their\nauthenticity, and it is absolutely confirmed by comparing them with the\ncorresponding documents of the Vatican MS. We have compared them line\nfor line and word for word, and have found that they contain nothing\nWhatever that in the least diverges from those Acts. On the contrary,\nthey throw light on and complete them, and in some cases agree with them\nverbatim\u2014perhaps the best possible proof of the authenticity of both.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nDECRETVM[644]\n\n989. Fol. 380 ro. 38\n\n\nSacr\u00e6 Congregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium, \u00e0 S.D.N.\nPAVLO Papa V. Sanct\u00e0q. Sede Apostolica ad Indicem Librorum, eorumdemq;\npermissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem, et impressionem, in vniuersa\nRepublica Christiana specialiter deputatorum, vbiqu\u00e8 publicandum.\n\n    Cvm ab aliquo tempore citra, prodierint in lucem inter alios\n    nonnulli Libri, varias h\u00e6reses, atq; errores continentes,\n    Ideo Sacra Congregatio Illustrissimorum S. R. E. Cardinalium\n    ad indicem deputatorum, n\u00e8 ex eorum lectione grauiora in\n    dies damna in tota Republica Christiana oriantur, eos omnin\u00f2\n    damnandos, atque prohibendos esse voluit; Sicuti pr\u00e6senti\n    Decreto p\u0153nitus damnat, et prohibet vbicumq; et quouis idiomate\n    impressos, aut imprimendos. Mandans, vt nullus deinceps\n    cuiuscumque gradus, et conditionis, sub p\u0153nis in Sacro Concilio\n    Tridentino, et in Indice Librorum prohibitorum contentis, eos\n    audeat imprimere, aut imprimi curare, vel quomodocumque apud\n    se detinere, aut legere; Et sub ijsdem p\u0153nis quicumque nunc\n    illos habent, vel habuerint in futurum, locorum Ordinarijs, se\u00f9\n    Inquisitoribus, statim \u00e0 pr\u00e6sentis Decreti notitia exhibere\n    teneantur, Libri autem sunt infrascripti, videlicet.\n\n    _Theologi\u00e6 Calvinistar\u016d Libri tres, auctore Conrado\n    Schlufferburgio. | Scotanus Rediuiuvs, siue Comentarius\n    Erotematicus in tres prio- | res libros, codicis, &._\n\n    _Grauissim\u00e6 qu\u00e6stionis Christianarum Ecclesiarum in\n    Occidentis\u2019, | pr\u00e6fertim partibus ab Apostolicis temporibus\n    ad nostram vsque | \u00e6tatem continua successione, &. statu:\n    historica explicato, Au- | ctore Jacobo Vsserio Sacr\u00e6 Theologi\u00e6\n    in Dulbiniensi[645] Academia | apud Hybernos professore._\n\n    _Federici Achillis Ducis Vuertemberg. Consultatio de Pincipatu\n    | inter Provincias Europ\u00e6 habita Tubingi\u00e6 in Illustri Collegio\n    | Anno Christi 1613._\n\n    _Donnelli Enucleati, siue Commentarium Hugonis Donelli, de Iure\n    | Ciuili in compendium ita redactorum &._\n\n    Et quia etiam ad notitiam pr\u00e6fat\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6 Congregationis\n    peruenit, falsam illiam doctrinam Pithagoricam, diuin\u00e6q;\n    scriptur\u00e6 omnino aduersantem, de mobilitate Terr\u00e6, et\n    immobilitate Solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus de reuolutionibus\n    orbium c\u0153lestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job etiam docent,\n    iam diuulgari et \u00e0 multis recipi; sicuti videre est ex\n    quadam epistola impressa cuiusdam Patris Carmelit\u00e6, cui\n    titulus, Lettera del R. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini\n    Carmelitano, sopra l\u2019opinione de Pittagorici, e del Copernico,\n    della mobilit\u00e0 della Terra, e stabilit\u00e0 del Sole, et il nuouo\n    Pittagorico Sistema del Mondo, in Napoli per Lazzaro Scoriggio\n    1615. in qua dictus Pater ostendere conatur, pr\u00e6fatam doctrinam\n    de immobilitate Solis in centro Mundi, et mobilitate Terr\u00e6,\n    consonam esse, veritati, et non aduersari Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6: Ideo\n    n\u00e8 vlteri\u00f9s huiusmodi opinio in perniciem Catholic\u00e6 veritatis\n    serpat, censuit dictos Nicolaum Copernicum de reuolutionibus\n    orbium, et Didacum Astvnica in Job, suspendendos esse donec\n    corrigantur. Librum ver\u00f2 Patris Pauli Antonij Foscarini\n    Carmelit\u00e6 omnin\u00f2 prohibendum, atque damnandum; aliosq\u0301; omnes\n    Libros pariter idem docentes prohibendos, Prout pr\u00e6senti\n    Decreto omnes respectiu\u00e8 prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In\n    quorum fidem pr\u00e6sens Decretum manu, et sigillo Illustrissimi &\n    Reuerendissimi D. Cardinalis S. C\u00e6cili\u00e6 Ep\u0303i Albane\u00f1 signatum,\n    et munitum fuit die 5. Martij 1616.\n\n    P. Episc. Albanen. Card. S. C\u00e6cili\u00e6.\n\n               Locus \u2020 sigilli.       _Registr. fol. 90._\n\n    _F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus Ord. Pr\u00e6dic. Secret._\n\nROME, Ex Typographia Camer\u00e6 Apostolic\u00e6. M.DCXVI.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n_REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._[646]\n\n\nWe give the Sentence and Recantation as given by Giorgio Polacco in his\nwork, \u201cAnticopernicus Catholicus seu de terr\u00e6 Statione, et de salis motu,\ncontra systema Copernicanum, Catholic\u00e6 Assertionis,\u201d pp. 67-76, Venice,\n1644. Everything indicates that these are the only authentic copies of\nthe originals, while the opinion adopted by many authors that the Latin\ntexts published by P. Riccioli in his \u201cAlmagestum Novum,\u201d 1651, are\nthe originals, is not tenable on close examination, for it is obvious\nthat they are translated from the Italian. According to the rules of\nthe Inquisition, sentences and recantations were written in the mother\ntongue,[647] that they might be generally understood. P. Olivieri,\nGeneral of the Dominicans and Commissary of the Inquisition, also says\nin his posthumous work, \u201cDi Copernico e di Galileo,\u201d Bologna, 1872, p.\n62, \u201cWe find the history of it, etc., in the sentence passed on Galileo,\nwhich is given in many works in a Latin translation. I take it from\nVenturi, who gives it in the Italian original.\u201d\n\nProfessor Berti, in his \u201cIl Processo originale di Galileo Galilei,\u201d etc.,\npp. 143-151, has given the Sentence and Recantation in a Latin text which\nagrees precisely with Riccioli\u2019s, even in some misprints. He says that\nthey are taken from some MS. copies in the Archivio del Santo, at Padua,\nand thinks that they are the very copies sent by the Cardinal of St.\nOnufrio, at the command of the Pope, to the Inquisitor at Padua in 1633.\nIncited by this remark, when at Padua we went to inspect these valuable\nMSS. But what was our surprise on being told that these documents had\nalready been sought for in vain at the request of Dr. Wohlwill, and that\nno one remembered to have seen them. Professor Berti will perhaps have\nthe goodness to clear the matter up. The documents were probably only\nexact copies of Riccioli\u2019s text.\n\n\n_SENTENZA._\n\n    Noi Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia.\n        Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasis, detto d\u2019Ascoli.\n        Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio.\n        Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona.\n        Fra Antonio Barberina detto di S. Onofrio.\n        Laudivi\u00f2 Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di\n          S. Sisto.\n        Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi.\n        Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna. Verospi,\n          chiamato Prete.\n        Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e\n        Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi.\n\n    Perla misericordia di Dio della S. R. E. Cardinali in tutta\n    la repubblica cristiana contra l\u2019eretica pravit\u00e0 Inquisitori\n    Generali della S. Sede Apostolica specialmente deputati.\n\n    Essendo che tu Galileo, figliolo del qu. Vincenzo Galilei\n    Fiorentino dell\u2019 et\u00e0 tua d\u2019 anni 70 fosti denonciato del\n    1615 in questo S. Officio, che tenessi come vera la falsa\n    dottrina da molti insegnata, che il Sole sia centro del mondo\n    et immobile, e che la terra si muova anco di moto diurno:\n    Che avevi alcuni discepoli, a\u2019 quali insegnavi la medesima\n    dottrina: Che circa l\u2019 istessa tenevi corrispondenza con alcuni\n    Matematici di Germania: Che tu avevi dato alle stampe alcune\n    lettere intitolate delle Macchie Solari, nelle quali spiegavi\n    l\u2019 istessa dottrina, come vera: Et che all\u2019 obbiezioni, che\n    alle volte ti venivano fatte, tolte dalla Sacra Scrittura\n    rispondevi glossando detta Scrittura conforme al tuo senso.\n    E successivamente fu presentata copia d\u2019 una scrittura sotto\n    forma di lettera, quale si diceva essere stata scritta da te\n    ad un tale gi\u00e0 tuo discepolo, ed in essa seguendo la posizione\n    di Copernico, si contengono varie proposizioni contro il vero\n    senso, ed autorit\u00e0 della sacra Scrittura.\n\n    Volendo per ci\u00f2 questo S. Tribunale provvedere al disordine\n    ed al danno, che di qu\u00ec proveniva, et andava crescendosi con\n    pregiudizio della Santa Fede; d\u2019 ordine di Nostro Signore, e\n    degli Emin. Signori Cardinali di questa suprema, et universale\n    Inquisizione, furono dalli Qualificatori Teologi qualificate\n    le due proposizioni della stabilit\u00e0 del Sole e del moto della\n    terra; cio\u00e8.\n\n    Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile di moto locale,\n    \u00e8 proposizione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente\n    eretica per essere espressamente contraria alla sacra Scrittura.\n\n    Che la terra non sia centro del mondo, n\u00e8 immobile, ma che si\n    move etiandio di moto diurno, \u00e8 parimenti proposizione assurda,\n    e falsa in filosofia, e considerata in teologia, ad minus\n    erronea in fide.\n\n    Ma volendosi per allora proceder teco con benignit\u00e0, fu\n    decretato nella S. Congregazione tenuta avanti Nostro Signore\n    \u00e0 25 Febbraro 1616. Che l\u2019 Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale\n    Bellarmino ti ordinasse che tu dovessi onninamente lasciare\n    la detta dottrina falsa, e ricusando tu di ci\u00f2 fare, che dal\n    Commissario del S. Uffizio ti dovesse esser fatto precetto\n    di lasciar la detta dottrina, e che non potessi insegnarla\n    ad altri, n\u00e8 difenderla, n\u00e8 trattarne; al qual precetto non\n    acquietandoti, dovessi esser carcerato; et in esecuzione\n    dell\u2019 istesso decreto, il giorno seguente nel Palazzo, et\n    alla presenza del suddetto Eminentissimo Signore Cardinale\n    Bellarmino, dopo essere stato dall\u2019 istesso Signor Cardinale\n    benignamente avvisato et ammonito, ti fu dal Padre Commissario\n    del Santo Uffizio di quel tempo fatto precetto, con notaro e\n    testimonii, che onninamente dovessi lasciar la detta falsa\n    opinione, e che nell\u2019 avvenire tu non la potessi, n\u00e8 difendere,\n    n\u00e8 insegnare in qual si voglia modo, n\u00e8 in voce, n\u00e8 in scritto;\n    et avendo tu promesso d\u2019 obbedire fosti licenziato.\n\n    Et acciocch\u00e8 si togliesse affatto cos\u00ec perniciosa dottrina,\n    e non andasse pi\u00f9 oltre serpendo, in grave pregiudizio della\n    cattolica verit\u00e0, usci decreto della Sacra Congregazione dell\u2019\n    Indice, col quale furono proibiti i libri, che trattano di tal\n    dottrina, et essa dichiarata falsa, et onninamente contraria\n    alla sacra e divina Scrittura.\n\n    Et essendo ultimamente comparso qu\u00e0 un libro stampato in\n    Fiorenza l\u2019 anno prossimo passato, la cui inscrizione mostra\n    che tu ne fossi l\u2019 autore, dicendo il titolo: _Dialogo di\n    Galileo Galilei delli due massimi sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico\n    e Copernicano_. Et informata appresso la sacra Congregazione,\n    che con l\u2019 impressione di detto libro ogni giorno pi\u00f9 prendeva\n    piede la falsa opinione del moto della terra, e stabilit\u00e0 del\n    Sole; fu il detto libro diligentemente considerato, e in esso\n    trovata apertamente la transgressione del suddetto precetto\n    che ti fu fatto, avendo tu nel medesimo libro difesa la detta\n    opinione gi\u00e0 dannata, et in faccia tua per tale dichiarata,\n    avvenga che tu in detto libro con varii raggiri ti studii di\n    persuadere, che tu la lasci, come idecisa et espressamente\n    probabile. Il che pure \u00e8 errore gravissimo, non potendo in modo\n    niuno essere probabile un\u2019 opinione dichiarata e definita per\n    contraria alla Scrittura divina.\n\n    Che perci\u00f2 d\u2019 ordine nostro fosti chiamato a questo Santo\n    Uffizio, nel quale con tuo giuramento esaminato riconoscesti\n    il libro come da to composto, e dato alle stampe. Confessasti,\n    che dieci o dodici anni sono in circa, dopo essersi fatto il\n    precetto come sopra, cominciasti a scrivere detto libro. Che\n    chiedesti la facolt\u00e0 di stamparlo, senza, per\u00f2 significare a\n    quelli che ti diedero simile facolt\u00e0, che tu avessi precetto di\n    non tenere, difendere, n\u00e8 insegnare in qualsivoglia modo tal\n    dottrina.\n\n    Confessasti parimenti che la scrittura di detto libro \u00e8 in pi\u00f9\n    luoghi distesa in tal forma, che il lettore potrebbe formar\n    concetto, che gli argomenti portati per la parte falsa fossero\n    in tal guisa pronunciati, che pi\u00f9 tosto per la loro efficacia\n    fossero potenti a stringere, che facili ad esser sciolti;\n    scusandoti d\u2019 esser incorso in errore tanto alieno, come\n    dicesti, dalla tua intenzione, per aver scritto in Dialogo,\n    e per la natural compiacenza, che ciascuno ha delle proprie\n    sottigliezze, e del mostrarsi pi\u00f9 arguto del comune degli\n    uomini, in trovar, anco per le proposizioni false, ingegnosi et\n    apparenti discorsi di probabilit\u00e0.\n\n    Et essendoti stato assegnato termine conveniente a far le tue\n    difese producesti una fede scritta di mano dall\u2019 Eminentissimo\n    signor Cardinale Bellarmino da te procurata come dicesti,\n    per difenderti dalle calunnie de tuoi nemici, da\u2019 quali ti\n    veniva opposto, che avevi abiurato, e fossi stato penitenziato\n    dal santo Offizio. Nella qual fede si dice, che tu non avevi\n    abiurato n\u00e8 meno eri stato penitenziato, ma che ti era solo\n    stata denunciata la dichiarazione fatta da Nostro Signore e\n    pubblicata dalla santa Congregazione dell\u2019 Indice, nella quale\n    si contiene, che la dottrina del moto della terra, e della\n    stabilit\u00e0 del Sole sia contraria alle sacre Scritture, e per\u00f2\n    non si possa difendere, n\u00e8 tenere; e che perci\u00f2 non si facendo\n    menzione in detta fede delle due particole del precetto,\n    cio\u00e8 _docere, et quovis modo_ si deve credere che nel corso\n    di quattordici o sedici anni, ne avessi perso ogni memoria;\n    e che per questa stessa cagione avevi taciuto il precetto,\n    quando chiedesti licenza di poter dare il libro alle stampe.\n    E tutto questo dicevi non per scusar l\u2019 errore, ma perch\u00e8 sia\n    attribuito non a malizia, ma a vana ambizione. Ma da detta fede\n    prodotta da te in tua difesa restasti maggiormente aggravato,\n    mentre dicendosi in essa, che detta opinione \u00e8 contraria\n    alla sacra Scrittura, hai nondimeno ardito di trattarne, di\n    difenderla, e persuaderla probabile; n\u00e8 ti suffraga la licenza\n    da te artificiosamente, e callidamente estorta, non avendo\n    notificato il precetto che avevi.\n\n    E parendo a noi, che non avevi detta intieramente la verit\u00e0\n    circa la tua intenzione, giudicassimo esser necessario\n    venir contro di te al rigoroso esame, nel quale (senza per\u00f2\n    pregiudizio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, e contro di\n    te dedotte come di sopra, circa la detta tua intenzione)\n    rispondesti cattolicamente. Per tanto visti, et maturamente\n    considerati i meriti di questa tua causa, con le suddette tue\n    confessioni, e scuse, e quanto di ragione si doveva vedere\n    e considerare, siamo venuti contro di te all\u2019 infrascritta\n    difinitiva sentenza.\n\n    Invocato dunque il Santissimo Nome di Nostro Signore Ges\u00f9\n    Cristo, e della sua gloriosissima Madre sempre Vergine Maria,\n    per questa nostra difinitiva sentenza, la quale sedendo pro\n    tribunali, di Conseglio e parere dei Reverendi Maestri di\n    sacra Teologia, et Dottori dell\u2019 una e l\u2019 altra legge nostri\n    Consultori, proferiamo in questi scritti, nella causa e cause\n    vertenti avanti di noi tra il Magnifico Carlo Sinceri dell\u2019\n    una e dell\u2019 altra legge Dottore, Procuratore fiscale di\n    questo Santo Offizio per una parte, e te Galileo Galilei reo,\n    qu\u00e0 presente processato, e confesso come sopra dall\u2019 altra.\n    Diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, che tu Galileo\n    suddetto per le cose dedotte in processo, e da te confessate,\n    come sopra, ti sei reso a questo Santo Offizio veementemente\n    sospetto d\u2019 eresia, cio\u00e8 d\u2019 aver creduto, e tenuto dottrina\n    falsa, e contraria alle sacra, e divine Scritture, che il\n    Sole sia centro della terra, e che non si muova da oriente ad\n    occidente, e che la terra si muova, e non sia centro del mondo;\n    e che si possa tenere difendere per probabile una opinione\n    dopo d\u2019 esser stata dichiarata, difinita per contraria alla\n    sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le\n    censure, e pene da\u2019 Sacri Canoni, et altre Constituzioni\n    generali, et particolari, contro simili delinquenti imposte, e\n    promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti, che sii assoluto, pur\n    che prima con cuor sincero, et fede non finta avanti di noi\n    abiuri, maledichi, et detesti li suddetti errori, et eresie, e\n    qualunque altro errore, et eresia contraria alla cattolica et\n    apostolica Romana Chiesa, nel modo che da noi ti sar\u00e0 dato.\n\n    _Et acciocch\u00e8 questo tuo grave, e pernicioso errore, e\n    transgressione non resti del tutto impunito_, e sii pi\u00f9 cauto\n    nell\u2019 avvenire; et esempio agli altri, che s\u2019astenghino da\n    simili delitti. Ordiniamo che per pubblico editto sia proibito\n    il libro de\u2019 _Dialoghi di Galileo Galilei_.\n\n    Ti condanniamo al carcere formale di questo S. Offizio per\n    tempo ad arbitrio nostro, e per penitenze salutari t\u2019imponiamo,\n    che per tre anni a venire dichi una volta la settimana li sette\n    Salmi Penitenziali.\n\n    Riservando a noi facolt\u00e0 di moderare, mutare, o levar in tutto\n    o in parte le suddette pene, e penitenze.\n\n    E cosi diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo,\n    ordiniamo, condenniamo, e riserviamo in questo, et in ogni\n    altro miglior modo, e forma, che di ragione potemo, e dovemo.\n\n    Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinales infrascripti.\n\n      F. Cardinalis De Asculo.\n      G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.\n      F. Cardinalis De Cremona.\n      Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.\n      B. Cardinalis Gypsius.\n      F. Cardinalis Verospius.\n      M. Cardinalis Ginettus.\n\n\n_ABJURA DI GALILEO._\n\n    Io Galileo Galilei figlio de q. Vincenzo Galilei da Fiorenza\n    dell\u2019 et\u00e0 mia d\u2019 anni 70 constituito personalmente in judicio,\n    et inginocchio avanti di voi Eminentissimi, e Reverendissimi\n    Signori Cardinali in tutta la Christiana Republica contro\n    l\u2019heretica pravit\u00e0 Generali Inquisitori havendo avanti gli\n    occhi miei li Sacrosanti Evangeli, quali sono con le proprie\n    mani, giuro che sempre ho creduto, credo adesso, e con l\u2019aiuto\n    di Dio creder\u00f2 per l\u2019 avenire, tutto quello, che tiene,\n    predica, et insegna la Santa Cattolica, et Apostolica Romana\n    Chiesa. Ma perche da questo S. Officio per haverio doppo\n    d\u2019 essermi stato con precetto dall\u2019 istesso giuridicamente\n    intimato, che omninamente dovessi lasciare la falsa opinione,\n    Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la\n    terra non sia Centro, e che si muova, e che non potessi\n    tenere, difendere, ne insegnare in qual si voglia modo,\n    ne in voce, ne in scritto la detta falsa dottrina, e dop\u00f2\n    dessermi stato notificato, che detta dottrina \u00e8 contraria\n    alla Sacra scrittura, scritto, e dato alle stampe un libro\n    nel quale tratto l\u2019 istessa dottrina gi\u00e0 dannata et apporto\n    ragioni con molta efficacia a favor d\u2019essa, senza apportar\n    alcuna solutione, son stato giudicato vehementemente sospetto\n    d\u2019heresia, cio\u00e8 d\u2019haver tenuto, e creduto, che il Solo sia\n    centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia centro, e\n    si muova.\n\n    Per tanto volendo io levare dalle menti dell\u2019 Eminenze Vostre,\n    e d\u2019 ogni fedel Christiano, questa vehemente sospittione,\n    contro di me ragionevolmente conceputa, con cuor sincero, e\n    fede non finta, abiuro, maledico, e detesto li sudetti errori,\n    et heresie, e generalmente ogni e qualunque altro errore, e\n    setta contraria alla sudetta Santa Chiesa; E giuro che per l\u2019\n    avenire, non dir\u00f2 mai pi\u00f9, ne asserir\u00f2 in voce, \u00f2 in scritto\n    cose tali, per le quali si possi haver di me simil sospittione;\n    ma se conoscero alcuno heretico, \u00f2 che sia sospetto d\u2019heresia\n    lo denuntiar\u00f2 \u00e0 questo Santo Officio \u00f2 vero all\u2019 Inquisitore,\n    et ordinario del luogo, ove me trovero.\n\n    Giuro anco, e promesso d\u2019adempire, et ossevra re intieramente,\n    tutte le penitenze, che mi sono state, \u00f2 mi saranno da questo\n    Santo Officio imposte. Et contravenendo io ad alcuna delle\n    dette mie promesse, proteste, \u00f2 giuramenti (il che Dio non\n    voglia) mi sottopongo a tutte le pene, e castighi, che sono da\n    Sacri Canoni, et altri Constitutioni Generali, e particolari\n    contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate; Cosi Dio m\u2019\n    aiuti, e questi suoi santi Evangelij, che tocco con le proprie\n    mani.\n\n    Io Galileo Galilei sopradetto ho abiurato, giurato, e promesso,\n    e mi sono obligato come sopra, et in fede del vero di propria\n    mia mano h\u00f2 sottoscritto la presente Cedola di mia abiuratione,\n    e recitata di parola in parola in Roma nel Convento della\n    Minerva questo di 22 Giugno 1633.\n\n    Io Galileo Galilei h\u00f2 abiurato come di sopra di mano propria.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] \u201cDie Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen\nHandschrift, von Karl von Gebler.\u201d Cotta, Stuttgard, 1877.\n\n[2] The above letter is adapted from a draft of one addressed to the\nItalian Translator, the letter to myself not having, unfortunately, been\nsent before the Author\u2019s death, nor found among his papers afterwards. He\nhad written but a few weeks before that he would send it shortly, and as\nit would probably have been almost exactly similar to the above, I have\navailed myself of it, the Author\u2019s father having sent me a copy with the\nnecessary alterations and authorised its use.\u2014TR.\n\n[3] See Appendix IV.\n\n[4] Riccioli, vol. i. part ii. pp. 496-500.\n\n[5] In the references the name only of the author is given. Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s\n\u201cOpere\u201d is designated Op. Those marked * are new for the English\ntranslation.\n\n[6] This is the writing referred to when Gherardi is quoted.\n\n[7] Compare Nelli, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, and Opere xv. p. 384. The\nstrange mistake, which is without any foundation, that Galileo was an\nillegitimate child, was set afloat soon after his death by Johann Victor\nRossi (Janus Nicius Erythr\u00e6us) in his \u201cPinacotheca Illustrium Virorum,\u201d\nCologne, Amsterdam, 1643-1648, and afterwards carelessly and sometimes\nmaliciously repeated. Salviati has published the marriage certificate of\n5th July, 1563, of Vincenzio di Michel Angelo di Giovanni Galilei and\nGiulia degli Ammanati Pescia.\n\n[8] Many of these essays, which have never been printed, are among the\nvaluable unpublished MSS. in the National Library at Florence.\n\n[9] Galileo had a younger brother, Michel Angelo, and three sisters,\nVirginia, Elenor, and Livia. The former married a certain Benedetto\nLanducci, the latter Taddeo Galetti. Galileo was very kind to his brother\nand sisters all his life, assisted them in many ways, and even made great\nsacrifices for their sakes.\n\n[10] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 26, 27.\n\n[11] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 330; and Op. vi. p. 18.\n\n[12] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 328.\n\n[13] The correctness of this date is indisputable, as according to Nelli,\nvol. i. p. 29, it was found in the university registers. It is a pity\nthat Alb\u00e8ri, editor of the \u201cOpere complete di Galileo Galilei,\u201d Florence,\n1842-1856, relied for the date on Viviani, who is often wrong.\n\n[14] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 331; also Jagemann, p. 5.\n\n[15] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 332; also Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 722, 723.\n\n[16] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 334.\n\n[17] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 32, 33.\n\n[18] That Galileo had been in Rome before 8th January, 1588, a fact\nhitherto unknown to his biographers, is clear from the letter of that\ndate addressed from Florence to Clavius. (Op. vi. pp. 1-3.)\n\n[19] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 1-13.)\n\n[20] About \u00a313.\u2014[TR.]\n\n[21] About 7\u00bc_d._ 100 kreuzers = the Austrian florin.\n\n[22] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 336; and Nelli, vol. i. p. 44.\n\n[23] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 336, 337; Nelli, vol. i. pp. 46, 47; Venturi,\nvol. i. p. 11.\n\n[24] See the decree of installation of 26th Sept. (Op. xv. p. 388.)\n\n[25] Op. viii. p. 18; Nelli, vol. i. p. 51.\n\n[26] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337 and 389.\n\n[27] Published by Venturi, 1818, vol. i. pp. 26-74.\n\n[28] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 339, 340.\n\n[29] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337, 338.\n\n[30] Op. ii. pp. 1-6.\n\n[31] \u201cProdromus Dissertationum Cosmographicarum.\u201d\n\n[32] Op. vi. pp. 11, 12.\n\n[33] Op. viii. pp. 21-24.\n\n[34] See Humboldt\u2019s \u201cCosmos,\u201d vol. ii. pp. 345, 346, and 497-499.\n\n[35] Op. xv. p. 390. His salary at first was 72 Florentine zecchini =\n\u00a318, and rose by degrees to 400 zecchini = \u00a3100. (Op. viii. p. 18, note\n3.)\n\n[36] Some fragments of these lectures are extant, and are included by\nAlb\u00e8ri in the Op. v. part ii.\n\n[37] Op. iii. (\u201cAstronomicus Nuncius,\u201d pp. 60, 61.) In his \u201cSaggiatore\u201d\nalso he relates the circumstance in precisely the same way, only adding\nthat he devised the construction of the telescope in one night, and\ncarried it out the next day.\n\n[38] Nelli, pp. 186, 187.\n\n[39] History has acknowledged the optician Hans Lipperhey, of Middelburg,\nto be the inventor of the telescope. Compare the historical sketch in\n\u201cDas neue Buch der Erfindungen,\u201d etc., vol. ii. pp. 217-220. (Leipzig,\n1865.) The instrument received its name from Prince Cesi, who, on\nthe advice of the learned Greek scholar Demiscianus, called it a\n\u201cteleskopium.\u201d\n\n[40] Op. vi. pp. 75-77.\n\n[41] See the decree of the senate, 25th Aug., 1609 (Op. xv. pp. 392-393.)\n\n[42] Cosmo II. showed all his life a sincere attachment to his old\nteacher, Galileo. From 1605, before Cosmo was reigning prince, Galileo\nhad regularly given him mathematical lessons during the academical\nholidays at Florence, and had thereby gained great favour at the court of\nTuscany.\n\n[43] Op. vi. pp. 107-111.\n\n[44] See the letter of Martin Hasdal from Prague, of 15th April, 1610,\nto Galileo (Op. viii. pp. 58-60); also a letter from Julian de\u2019 Medici,\nTuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, to Galileo, from Prague, 19th\nApril, 1610. (Wolynski, \u201cLettere inedite,\u201d etc., p. 20.)\n\n[45] This reprint bore the following superscription: \u201cJoannis Kepleri\nMathematici C\u00e6sarei Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo nuper ad mortales\nmisso a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico Patavino.\u201d Comp. Venturi, vol. i.\npp. 99-120.\n\n[46] Op. vi. p. 121, note 1.\n\n[47] Compare the letters of Martin Hasdal, Alexander Sertini, and Kepler\nto Galileo in 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 60-63, 65-68, 82-85, 88, 89, 101,\n113-117.)\n\n[48] See the letter which Kepler wrote about it to Galileo on 25th Oct.\n1610. (Op. viii. pp. 113-117.)\n\n[49] Wedderburn\u2019s reply was called: \u201cQuatuor Problematum, qu\u00e6 Martinius\nHorky contra Nuncium Sidereum de quatuor Planetis novis proposuit\u201d;\nRoffeni\u2019s, \u201cEpistola apologetica contra c\u0153cam peregrinationem cujusdam\nfuriosi Martini cognomine Horky editam adversus, Nuncium Sidereum.\u201d\n\n[50] Op. vi. pp. 114, 115.\n\n[51] Op. vi. p. 127.\n\n[52] May 7th, 1610. (Op. vi. pp. 93-99.)\n\n[53] Op. vi. p. 165.\n\n[54] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 343.\n\n[55] Op. vi. p. 129.\n\n[56] Op. vi. pp. 116-118. Ponsard in his drama, \u201cGalileo,\u201d of which a\nthird edition appeared at Paris in 1873, in which he mostly turns history\nupside down, in Act i. sc. iii. and iv. takes off capitally the proud and\nsilly opposition of the Aristotelians.\n\n[57] Comp. Op. xv. p. 397, note 11, also Venturi, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.\nJagemann (p. 52) even believes \u201cthat Gustavus Adolphus, who created an\nentirely new science of warfare which set all Europe in consternation and\nterror, had derived his wonderful knowledge from Galileo\u201d!\n\n[58] Op. vi., 71-75. It is unfortunately unknown to whom this letter was\naddressed; but, as appears from the contents, it must have been to some\none high in office at the court of Tuscany.\n\n[59] It is not known that these last mentioned treatises ever appeared.\nAs not the least trace of them is to be found, and yet numerous\nparticulars have come down to us of other works afterwards lost, it may\nbe concluded that these essays were never written.\n\n[60] Op. viii. pp. 63, 64.\n\n[61] Op. viii. pp. 73, 74.\n\n[62] Op. vi. p. 112.\n\n[63] Libri justly says, p. 38: \u201cthis mistake was the beginning of all his\nmisfortunes.\u201d\n\n[64] In a letter from Galileo to his brother Michel Angelo, of May\n11th, 1606, he describes the somewhat comical scene of the nocturnal\ndeportation of the Jesuits from the city of Lagunes. (Op. vi. p. 32.)\n\n[65] Op. viii. p. 146-150.\n\n[66] 11th Dec., 1610. (Op. vi. p. 128.)\n\n[67] Op. vi. pp. 130-133 and 134-136.\n\n[68] Op. vi. pp. 137, 138.\n\n[69] Op. vi. p. 139, 140.\n\n[70] Op. vi. p. 140, note 1. See also Vinta\u2019s answer to Galileo, 20th\nJan. 1611 (Wolynski, \u201cLettere inedite,\u201d p. 27); also the Grand Duke\u2019s\nletter to his ambassador at Rome, Giovanni Niccolini, of 27th Feb., 1611\n(Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,\u201d p. 10).\n\n[71] Pieralisi has first published this letter in his work \u201cUrban VIII.\nand Galileo Galilei,\u201d p. 41.\n\n[72] See, for Bellarmine\u2019s request and the opinion, Op. viii. pp. 160-162.\n\n[73] Op. viii. p. 145.\n\n[74] Gherardi\u2019s Collection of Documents: Doc. i.\n\n[75] Op. vi. p. 274.\n\n[76] The full title was: \u201cDianoja Astronomica, Optica, Physica, qua\nSiderei Nuncii rumor de quatuor Planetis a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico\nceleberrimo, recens perspicilli cujusdam ope conspectis, vanus redditur.\nAuctore Francisco Sitio Florentino.\u201d\n\n[77] Op. vi. p. 94, note 1; and xv. \u201cBibliografia Galileiana,\u201d p. vi.\n\n[78] This letter reports the facts above mentioned. (Op. viii. p. 188.)\n\n[79] Op. viii. pp. 222-224.\n\n[80] Op. viii. pp. 241, 242.\n\n[81] Op. vi. pp. 194-197.\n\n[82] \u201cDiscorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno\nalle cose che stanno in su l\u2019aqua o che in quella si muovano.\u201d\n\n[83] Op. viii. p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i. pp. 195,\n196.\n\n[84] Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612.\n\n[85] \u201cIstoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro\naccidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da\nGalileo Galilei.\u201d\n\n[86] Letter of 20th April, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 262.)\n\n[87] Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.)\n\n[88] Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.)\n\n[89] Op. viii. pp. 290, 291.\n\n[90] Op. viii. pp. 291-293.\n\n[91] Op. ii. pp. 6-13.\n\n[92] Op. viii. pp. 337, 338.\n\n[93] Vol. i. p. 397.\n\n[94] Comp. Govi, p. 47.\n\n[95] Epinois, \u201cLa Question de Galilei,\u201d p. 43.\n\n[96] Op. viii. pp. 337-343.\n\n[97] The title of \u201cEminence\u201d was first given to cardinals by Pope Urban\nVIII. in 1630.\n\n[98] See Lorini\u2019s Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois\nthis letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which shows\nit to have been of the 7th. (Gherardi\u2019s Collection of Documents, Doc. ii.)\n\n[99] Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. ii.\n\n[100] See Castelli\u2019s letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this\nvisit is described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.)\n\n[101] In the letter before quoted of 12th March.\n\n[102] Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350.\n\n[103] Op. viii. p. 365.\n\n[104] Op. viii. pp. 369, 370.\n\n[105] Vat. MS. fol. 341.\n\n[106] Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. iii.\n\n[107] Compare the text of Caccini\u2019s evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353 ro.-358\nvo.)\n\n[108] See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371\nro.-373 vo.)\n\n[109] Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. v.\n\n[110] Op. ii. pp. 13-17.\n\n[111] Op. ii. pp. 17-26.\n\n[112] Op. viii. pp. 350-353.\n\n[113] Op. viii. pp. 354-356.\n\n[114] As we should say, \u201cas a working hypothesis.\u201d [TR.]\n\n[115] This was the work which was condemned and absolutely prohibited by\nthe Congregation of the Index a year later: \u201cLettera del R. P. Maestro\nPaolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra l\u2019opinione de i Pittagorici e\ndel Copernico della mobilit\u00e0 della Terra e stabilit\u00e0 del Sole, e il nuovo\nSisteme del Mondo.\u201d (For Cesi\u2019s letter, Op. viii. pp. 356-358.)\n\n[116] See Dini\u2019s letter to Galileo, March 14th, 1615 (Op. viii. p. 360);\nand of August 18th, 1615 (Wolynski, \u201cLettere Inedite,\u201d p. 34); and\nCiampoli\u2019s of March 21st (Op. viii. pp. 366, 367.)\n\n[117] Op. viii. p. 368.\n\n[118] Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.\n\n[119] Op. viii. pp. 378, 379.\n\n[120] See his letter to Galileo, May 16th, 1615. (Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.)\n\n[121] Op. ii. pp. 26-64. It did not appear in print until twenty-one\nyears later, in Strasburg.\n\n[122] See the letters of Cosmo II., November 28th, to his ambassador\nGuicciardini, at Rome, to Cardinal del Monte, Paolo Giordano Orsini, and\nAbbot Orsini; also to Cardinal Orsini, of December 2nd. (Wolynski: \u201cLa\nDiplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,\u201d pp. 18-20.)\n\n[123] Page 69.\n\n[124] Compare the letters of Sagredo from Venice of 11th March and 23rd\nApril, 1616, to Galileo at Rome. (Op. Suppl. pp. 107-113. Also Nelli,\nvol. i. p. 414.)\n\n[125] Op. viii. p. 383.\n\n[126] See his letters of 12th Dec., 1615, and 8th Jan., 1616, to the\nTuscan Secretary of State, Curzio Picchena, at Florence. (Op. vi. pp.\n211, 212, 214, 215.)\n\n[127] Vat. MS. fol. 414 vo.\n\n[128] Compare also Wohlwill, p. 86, note 1.\n\n[129] See his letters to Picchena of 26th Dec., 1615, and 1st Jan., 1616.\n(Op. vi. pp. 213, 214.)\n\n[130] Op. vi. pp. 215, 216.\n\n[131] 23rd Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 218, 219.)\n\n[132] Letter to Picchena, 6th Feb. (Op. vi. p. 222.)\n\n[133] Letter to Picchena. (Op. vi. pp. 225-227.)\n\n[134] Op. vi. pp. 221-223.\n\n[135] See the letter of Mgr. Queringhi, from Rome, of 20th January, 1616,\nto Cardinal Alessandro d\u2019Este. (Op. viii. p. 383.)\n\n[136] Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza im\u0303obile di\nmoto locale.\n\nChe la Terra non \u00e8 centro del mondo, ne im\u0303obile, ma si move secondo se\ntutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.)\n\n[137] Sol est centr\u0169 mundi, et omnino im\u0303obilis motu locali;\n\nCensura: Omnes dixerunt dicta proposition\u1ebd \u1ebde stult\u00e3 et absurdam in\nPhilosophia, et formaliter heretic\u00e3, quatenus contradicit expresse\nsententijs sacre scripture in multis locis. Secund\u0169 proprietate verbor\u0303,\net secund\u0169 commun\u1ebd exposition\u1ebd, et sens\u0169. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor\u0303\ndoctor.\n\nTerra non est centr. mundi, nec im\u0303obilis, sed secund\u0169 se tota, movetur\net moto diurno.\n\nCensura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc proposition\u1ebd recip\u1ebd eand\u1ebd censura in\nPhilosophia; et spectando veritat\u1ebd Theologic\u00e3, at minus \u1ebde in fide\nerronea. (Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.)\n\n[138] Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616.\n\nIll\u1d50\u1d58\u02e2. D. Card\u02e1\u2071\u02e2. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseos\u02b3.\net Commiss. S\u1d57\u2071. Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologor\u0169 ad\nproposit\u207f\u1d49\u02e2. Gallilei Mathem\u1d9c\u2071., q. Sol sit centr\u0169 mundi, et im\u0303obilis\nmotu locali, et Terra moveatur et motu diurno; S\u1d50\u1d58\u02e2. ordinavit Ill\u1d50\u1d52.\nD. Card\u02e1\u2071. Bellarm\u1d52., ut vocet cor\u00e3 se d\u1d50. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad\ndeserendas d\u1d43\u1d50. op\u0303onem, et si recusaverit parere, P. Comiss\u02e2. cora Noto\n(Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, ut \u0129o (omnino) abstineat\nhu\u00f5i (huiusmodi) doctrina, et op\u0303onem docere, aut defendere, seu de ea\ntractare, si vero n\u00f5 acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. folio 378 vo.)\n\n[139] Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem.\n\nIn Palatio solite habit\u207f\u2071\u02e2: d\u2071: Ill\u1d50\u2071: D. Card\u2071\u02e2: Bellarm\u2071. et in\nm\u00e3sionib. Dom\u207f\u2071\u02e2. sue Ill\u1d50\u1d52: Idem Ill\u1d50\u1d58\u02e2: D. Card\u02e1\u2071\u02e2: vocato suprad\u1d57\u1d52.\nGalileo, ipsoq. cor\u00e3 D. sua Ill\u1d50\u1d43: ex\u0303nte (existente) in p\u0303ntia adm. R.\np. F\u0129s Michaelis Angeli Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Com\u0303issarij qualis\ns\u1d57\u2071. officij pred\u1d50. Galile\u0169 monuit de errore suprad\u1d57\u1d49 op\u0303onis, et ut\nilla deserat, et successive, ac ic\u00f5tinenti in mei &, et Testi\u0169 & p\u0303nte\n\u1ebdt adhuc eodem Ill\u1d50\u1d52. D. Card\u02e1\u2071. suprad\u1d52. P. Com\u0303iss\u02e2. pred\u1d57\u1d52. Galileo\nadhuc ibidem p\u0303nti, et Constituto precepit, et ordinavit ... [Here the\nMS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the second might be nome (nomine);\nthe first began with a p (proprie?) but is quite illegible.] S\u1d50\u2071. D. N.\nPape et totius Congreg\u207f\u2071\u02e2. s\u1d57\u2071. officij, ut suprad\u1d57\u1d43. oponione q. sol\nsit c\u1ebd: trum mundi, et im\u0303obilis, et Terra moveatur omnino relinquat,\nnec e\u00e3 de Cetero q\u1d52vis m\u00f5 teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, aut\nscriptis, al\u0303s (alias) co\u00f1 ips\u0169 procedetur \u0129 (in) S\u1d57\u1d52. offo., cui\nprecepto Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum\nRome ubi subra p\u0303ntibus ibid\u1ebd R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia \u0129 Regno\nCypri, et Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. Politiane\u00f1\n(Poletianensis) familiarib. d\u2071. Ill\u1d50\u2071. D. Card\u02e1\u2071\u02e2. Testibus. (Vat. MS.\nfolio 379 ro, 379 vo.)\n\n[140] Marini, p. 42.\n\n[141] Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141.\n\n[142] In the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen\nUnterricht_, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy\nbetween Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nMathematik_, etc., 17th series. Part ii., pp. 9-31; part iii., pp. 41-45;\npart v., pp. 81-98.\n\n[143]\n\n                                        _Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616._\n\nFacta relatione per Illumum. D. Card\u1d49\u1d50. Bellarminum quod Galilaeus\nGalilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad\ndeserendam (prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, _disserendam_)\nopinionem quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum,\net immobilis, terra autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto\nCongregationis Indicis, qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et\nsuspensa respective scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium\nc\u0153lestium....) Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini\nCarmelit\u00e6, SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S.\nPalatii hujusmodi suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi\u2019s\nDocuments, Doc. vi.)\n\n[144] See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345.\n\n[145] Op. vi. pp. 231-233.\n\n[146] Op. Suppl. 109-112.\n\n[147] Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sig\u02b3 Galileo\nGalilei sia calumniato, \u00f2 imputato di havere abiurato in mano nr\u0303a, et\nanco di essere stato perci\u00f2 penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et\nessendo ricercati della verit\u00e0 diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no\nha abiurato i mano nr\u0303a n\u00e8 di altra qua in Roma ne meno \u0129 altro luogo\nche noi sappiamo alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, n\u00e8 manco h\u00e0 ricevuto\npenitenzie salutarj, n\u00e8 d\u2019altra sorte, ma solo, ql\u2019\u00e8 stata denunziata la\ndichiarazione fatta da Nr\u0303o Sig\u02b3\u1d49: e publicata dalla Sacra Congreg\u207f\u1d49:\ndell\u2019indice, nella quale si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al\nCopernico che la terra si muova intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel\ncentro del M\u00f5do senza muoversi da oriente ad occidente sia c\u00f5traria\nalle sacre scritture, e per\u00f2 n\u00f5 si possa difendere n\u00e8 tenere. Et in fede\ndi ci\u00f2 habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta la pres\u1ebdte di nr\u0303a propria mano\nquesto di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Card\u02e1\u1d49.\nBellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.)\n\n[148] Martin, pp. 79, 80.\n\n[149] Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p.\n17) to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of\nGalileo, published in 1873.\n\n[150] For the particulars, see Appendix, \u201cEstimate of the Vat. MS.\u201d\n\n[151] Pietro Guiccardini had relieved his predecessor, Giovanni\nSicculini, of his post on 14th May, 1611, when Galileo was still at Rome.\nGuiccardini remained there till 27th November, 1621.\n\n[152] Op. vi. pp. 227-230.\n\n[153] See Galileo\u2019s letter to Picchena, from Rome, of 12th March. (Op.\nvi. pp. 233-235.)\n\n[154] Wolynski\u2019s \u201cLettere inedite,\u201d etc., p. 36.\n\n[155] Op. vi. pp. 235-237.\n\n[156] Op. viii. p. 385.\n\n[157] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. See these despatches verbatim in Wolynski\u2019s\n\u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,\u201d p. 22.\n\n[158] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2.\n\n[159] See letter from Cesi to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 389, 390.)\n\n[160] Op. ii. pp. 387-406.\n\n[161] Op. vi. pp. 278-281.\n\n[162] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 350.\n\n[163] Nelli, vol. i. p. 432.\n\n[164] Op. iv. p. 16. This appears also from a letter from Galileo of 19th\nJune, 1619, to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, afterwards Pope Urban VIII.,\naccompanying the treatise. (See this letter in \u201cPieralisi,\u201d pp. 63, 64;\nand \u201cGuitoloni et Gal. Galilei,\u201d Livorno, 1872, vol. i. p. 263.)\n\n[165] \u201cLibra Astronomica ac Philosophica qua Galil\u00e6i Galil\u00e6i opiniones de\ncometis a Mario Guiduccio in Florentina Academia exposit\u00e6, atque in lucem\nnuper edit\u00e6 examinatur a Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.\u201d (Op. iv. pp. 63-121.)\n\n[166] See the letter of Mgr. Ciampoli of 6th December, 1619, to Galileo.\n(Op. viii. pp. 430, 431.)\n\n[167] Compare the letters of Stelluti (27th January, 1620) to Prince\nCesi, 4th March and 18th May, 1620; and from Mgr. Ciampoli, 18th May,\n1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 436-439, and 441-443.)\n\n[168] See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii.\np. 447; Wolynski, \u201cLettere inedite,\u201d etc., p. 59.)\n\n[169] See Ciampoli\u2019s letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)\n\n[170] Compare Cesarini\u2019s letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1621, and 7th\nMay, 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.)\n\n[171] See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and\n16-18; and Wolynski, \u201cLettere,\u201d etc., p. 65.)\n\n[172] \u201cScandaglio della Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi\nnella controversia delle Comete, e particolarmente delle tre ultimamente\nvedute l\u2019anno 1618, di Giovanni Battista Stelluti da Fabriano dottor di\nLegge.\u201d\n\n[173] \u201cIl Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si\nponderano le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di\nLothario Sarsi Sigensano.\u201d\n\n[174] See Cesarini\u2019s letter to Galileo, 12th January, 1623. (Op. ix. pp.\n22-24.)\n\n[175] Op. ix. p. 26.\n\n[176] See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, \u201cLettere,\u201d etc.,\np. 68.)\n\n[177] See Ciampoli\u2019s Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)\n\n[178] See Ranke: \u201cDie r\u00f6mischen P\u00e4pste,\u201d etc., vol. ii. p. 531, etc.\n\n[179] See Op. viii. pp. 173, 206, 208, 209, 262, 427; ix. p. 31.\n\n[180] Op. viii. p. 206.\n\n[181] Op. viii. p. 262.\n\n[182] Op. viii. p. 451. Pieralisi in his work, \u201cUrban VIII. and Galileo\nGalilei,\u201d Rome, 1875, pp. 22, 27, gives Barberini\u2019s ode, which is in\nLatin, and consists of nineteen strophes, as well as a commentary on it,\nwhich has not been printed by Campanella. See also pp. 65, 66, Galileo\u2019s\nreply to Barberini, in which he expresses his warm thanks and his\nadmiration of the poetry. This is not in Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s work.\n\n[183] Op. iv., \u201cSaggiatore,\u201d p. 172.\n\n[184] See for these transactions the letter of Mario Guiducci, from Rome,\nto Galileo, of 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)\n\n[185] Cesarini\u2019s letter to Galileo, 28th October, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 43,\n44.)\n\n[186] Rinuccini\u2019s letters to Galileo, 3rd November and 2nd December,\n1623. (Op. Suppl. p. 154; and ix. p. 50.)\n\n[187] Op. vi. pp. 289, 290.\n\n[188] Op. ix. pp. 42, 43.\n\n[189] Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.)\n\n[190] See Rinuccini\u2019s letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and\nGuiducci\u2019s of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.)\n\n[191] Compare Ciampoli\u2019s letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix.\np. 55.)\n\n[192] Op. ix. p. 56.\n\n[193] Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at\nAquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)\n\n[194] Ibid.\n\n[195] ... \u201cFu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l\u2019avea dannata,\nne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria.\u201d Comp. Galileo\u2019s\nletter to Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)\n\n[196] Page 92.\n\n[197] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned.\n\n[198] History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to\nZacharias Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop\nthe first microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century,\nprobably in 1590.\n\n[199] Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40.\n\n[200] Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64.\n\n[201] Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in\n1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. His\ndaughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri. The\nmother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with\nwhom Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which\nwas quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at\nthat period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing\nto the religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo\u2019s son did\nnot accept it. It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved\nunworthy of it, to Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars,\nbut with the condition, as it was derived from two ecclesiastical\nbenefices, that he should adopt the tonsure, to which he consented. He\ndrew the pension which thus irregularly accrued to him as long as he\nlived.\n\n[202] Op. vi. p. 295.\n\n[203] Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76.\n\n[204] This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree\nof 10th March, 1619.\n\n[205] Op. ii. pp. 64-115.\n\n[206] See Guiducci\u2019s letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op.\nix. pp. 78-80.)\n\n[207] Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164.\n\n[208] See Guiducci\u2019s letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November,\n21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp.\n168-178.)\n\n[209] Op. ix. p. 97.\n\n[210] Op. iv. pp. 486, 487.\n\n[211] \u201cDialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si\ndiscorre sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano,\nproponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per\nl\u2019una parte, che par l\u2019altra.\u201d\n\n[212] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan, 1630, to\nCesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi\u2019s letter to Galileo,\n12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71).\n\n[213] Op. i. (\u201cDialogo di Galileo Galilei,\u201d etc.), pp. 11, 12.\n\n[214] Op. i. pp. 501-503.\n\n[215] Martin, p. 99.\n\n[216] Comp. for example the essay: \u201cDer Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo\nGalilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus\u201d; also Marini, pp.\n70-73.\n\n[217] Op. vi. pp. 333-336.\n\n[218] Ibid. pp. 333 and 336.\n\n[219] Op. ix. p. 167.\n\n[220] Ibid. pp. 173-175.\n\n[221] This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned\nby Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having\ntaken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal\nopinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of\na charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for\nappearance\u2019s sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629,\nbeen at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo\u2019s most zealous\nadherents, and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded\nwith him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is\nnoteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave\nall other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive\nquestion of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the\nsingular offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of\n\u201cthe astrological medicine\u201d! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had\nbeen denounced by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal\nGaetani applied to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning,\nto give his opinion on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In\ncompliance with this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for\nGalileo, in which the expert theologian and mathematician brought the\nsystem into agreement with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations\nof the imprisoned philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the\nSacred Congregation.\n\n[222] \u201cNon fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si\nsarrebe fatto quel decreto.\u201d (Op. ix. p. 176.)\n\n[223] Op. ix. pp. 176, 177.\n\n[224] \u201cChe lei \u00e8 desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella.\u201d\n(Op. ix. p. 178.)\n\n[225] Op. ix. p. 188.\n\n[226] In the narration of this most important transaction we have\nfollowed the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of\nGalileo, was handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an\nauthentic document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions\nwith Galileo\u2019s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274-277; Suppl. pp. 233-235.)\nIt is inconceivable how Alb\u00e8ri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have\nfallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received the\n_imprimatur_ at all, though he himself publishes documents which prove\nthe contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of 16th\nJune, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo\u2019s to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 (Op.\nvi. pp. 374-376); a letter of Riccardi\u2019s to the Tuscan ambassador at\nRome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally,\na letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420-423).\nMartin also expresses his surprise at this error of Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s (p. 102,\nnote 2).\n\n[227] Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205.\n\n[228] Op. vi. p. 346, note 2.\n\n[229] Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,\u201d p. 35.\n\n[230] Op. ix. pp. 198, 199.\n\n[231] Ibid. pp. 201, 202.\n\n[232] Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the \u201cDialogues,\u201d this\npermission to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are\nalso reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in\n4to).\n\n[233] Op. ix. pp. 205, 206.\n\n[234] See Caterina Niccolini\u2019s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.)\n\n[235] Op. vi. p. 375.\n\n[236] In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent\nfollowed Galileo\u2019s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we\nhave made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary\ncommission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389\nvo.), and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat.\nMS. 413 ro.-419 ro.)\n\n[237] Compare the letter of Geri Bocchineri, private secretary at the\nCourt of Tuscany, to Galileo (Op. ix. pp. 225, 226), and the letter of\nCioli to Niccolini of 8th March, in which the latter is charged, in the\nname of the Grand Duke, to support Galileo\u2019s cause to the utmost with the\nMaster of the Palace. (Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana,\u201d etc., p. 39.)\n\n[238] Op. vi. pp. 377, 378.\n\n[239] Op. ix. pp. 242, 243.\n\n[240] The Roman censorship only granted licences to works published at\nRome itself.\n\n[241] See this letter from Riccardi to Niccolini. (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244.)\n\n[242] Op. iv. pp. 382-284.\n\n[243] See Niccolini to Galileo, 25th May, 1631. (Wolynski, \u201cLettere\ninedite,\u201d etc., p. 83.)\n\n[244] ... \u201cSi che non mai si conceda la verita assoluta ma solamente la\nhipotetica, e senza la Scrittura, a questa opinione ...\u201d\n\n[245] Vat. MS. fol. 390 ro.\n\n[246] Ibid. fol. 390 vo.\n\n[247] Letter of 19th July, 1631. (Op. ix. p. 246.)\n\n[248] See this important letter of Riccardi\u2019s to the Inquisitor at\nFlorence. (Vat. MS. fol. 393 ro.)\n\n[249] See points 1 and 3 of the memorial which was handed to the Pope at\nthe first examination of Galileo by the preliminary commission. (Vat. MS.\nfol. 388.)\n\n[250] Comp. p. 120.\n\n[251] Marini, p. 127. Pieralisi tries to convince the reader that\nCiampoli acted quite despotically in the matter; and says that when\nRiccardi refers to \u201cthe Pope,\u201d it was not Maffeo Barberini, but Mgr.\nCiampoli, \u201cGiovanni Ciampoli non Maffeo Barberini era il Papa\u201d! p. 113, a\nstatement which, considering Urban\u2019s despotic character and the absence\nof historical proof, appears very arbitrary.\n\n[252] _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Mathematik u. Physik._ 9th Series, Part 3, p. 184.\n\n[253] Marini, pp. 116, 117; Op. Suppl. pp. 324, 325.\n\n[254] Op. vi. p. 389.\n\n[255] Ibid. p. 390.\n\n[256] Ibid.\n\n[257] Op. ix. p. 271.\n\n[258] Ibid. p. 253.\n\n[259] Op. ix. pp. 270-272.\n\n[260] Op. Suppl. p. 319.\n\n[261] Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp.\n163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234.\n\n[262] Comp. on this subject the chapters on \u201cDie Gesellschaft Jesu\u201d in\n\u201cKulturgeschichte in ihrer nat\u00fcrlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart,\u201d by\nFr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966.\n\n[263] ... \u201cI Gesuiti lo persequiterano acerbissimamente.\u201d (See\nMagalotti\u2019s letter to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th Aug., 1632. Op.\nSuppl. p. 321)\n\n[264] See their letters. (Op. ix. pp. 264-267, 270-272, 276-282.)\n\n[265] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. ix. pp. 25, 72, 97, 166-168,\n174-177, 210, 255; Suppl. p. 181.)\n\n[266] On the reverse side of the title page of the \u201cDialogues\u201d stands:\u2014\n\n  \u201cImprimatur, si videbitur Rever. P. Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici.\n                    A. Episcopus Bellicastensis Vices gerens.\n\n  Imprimatur. Fr. Nicolaus Ricardus, Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister.\n\n  Imprimatur Florenti\u00e6; ordinibus consuetis servatis. 11 Septembris 1630.\n                    Petrus Nicolinus Vic. Gen. Florenti\u00e6.\n\n  Imprimatur. Die 11 Septembris 1630.\n                    Fra Clemens Egidius Inquisit. Gen. Florenti\u00e6.\n\n  Stampisi. A. di 12 di Settembre 1630.\n                    Niccol\u00f2 dell\u2019Altella.\u201d\n\n[267] It is reproduced in Venturi, vol. ii. p. 117.\n\n[268] See on all this the two detailed letters of Count Magalotti to\nMario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th August and 4th September, 1632. (Op.\nSuppl. pp. 318-329.)\n\n[269] Scheiner had two years before published a work called \u201cRosa\nUrsina,\u201d in which he again fiercely attacked Galileo, and stoutly\nmaintained his unjustifiable claims to the first discovery of the solar\nspots. Galileo did not directly answer him in his \u201cDialogues,\u201d but dealt\nhim some side blows, and stood up for his own priority in the discovery\nwith weighty arguments. Castelli, in a letter to Galileo of 19th June,\n1632 (Op. ix. p. 274), gives an amusing description of Scheiner\u2019s\nrage. When a priest from Siena praised the book in his presence at\na bookseller\u2019s, and called it the most important work that had ever\nappeared, Scheiner left the shop, pale as death, and trembling with\nexcitement in every limb. But he did not always thus curb his rage. The\nnatural philosopher, Torricelli, who afterwards became famous, a pupil\nof Castelli\u2019s, reported to Galileo, in a letter of 11th September, 1632\n(Op. ix. p. 287), a conversation he had had with Scheiner about the\n\u201cDialogues.\u201d Although he shook his head about them, he had concurred\nin Torricelli\u2019s praise, but could not help remarking that he found the\nfrequent digressions tedious; and no wonder, for they often referred to\nhimself, and he always got the worst of it. He broke off the conversation\nby saying that \u201cGalileo had behaved very badly to him, but he did not\nwish to speak of it.\u201d In a letter of 23rd February, 1633, to Gassendi\n(Op. ix. p. 275), Scheiner is less reserved. Rage and fury evidently\nguided his pen, and he complains bitterly that Galileo had dared in his\nwork to \u201clay violent hands\u201d on the \u201cRosa Ursina.\u201d Scheiner was doubtless\none of the most zealous in instituting the trial against Galileo,\nalthough Targioni (vol. i. p. 113, note _a_) overshoots the mark in\nmaking him his actual accuser.\n\n[270] Op. ix. pp. 420-425.\n\n[271] See Magalotti\u2019s letter to Guiducci of 4th September, 1632 (Op.\nSuppl. p. 324); and Niccolini\u2019s report to Cioli of 5th September (Op. ix.\np. 422).\n\n[272] Op. ix. p. 271, note 1.\n\n[273] Comp. Niccolini\u2019s report to Cioli of 13th March, 1633. (Op. ix. p.\n437.)\n\n[274] Op. i. \u201cDialogo di Galileo Galilei,\u201d etc., p. 502.\n\n[275] This point has been recently thoroughly discussed by Henri Martin.\nComp. pp. 159-168.\n\n[276] Pages 34-38, etc.\n\n[277] ... \u201cChe fu il primo motere di tutti i miei travagli.\u201d (Op. vii. p.\n71.)\n\n[278] This erroneous idea is found among a large number of historians;\nfor instance, Biot (_Journal des Savans_, July-Oct. 1858), pp. 464, 465;\nPhilar\u00e8te Chasles, pp. 129, 130, 208; Reumont, p. 336; and Parchappe, p.\n206. Epinois (pp. 56, 57) and Martin (pp. 159-168) have merely given the\nimportance to this circumstance which it deserves, for it really was of\ngreat moment in the course of the trial.\n\n[279] \u201c ... E da buona banda intendo i Padri Gesuiti aver fatto\nimpressione in testa principalissima che tal mio libro \u00e8 piu esecrando e\npiu pernicioso per Santa Chiesa, che le scritture di Lutero e di Calvino\n...\u201d (Letter from Galileo to Elia Diodati of 15th Jan., 1633, Op. vii. p.\n19. Comp. also his letter to King Ladislaus of Poland, Op. vii. p. 190.)\n\n[280] See the letter of Magalotti to Guiducci, before mentioned, of 7th\nAugust, 1632. (Op. Suppl. pp. 318-323.)\n\n[281] Op. Suppl. p. 319.\n\n[282] See the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 18th Sep.,\n1632. (Op. ix. pp. 422 and 426.)\n\n[283] See Campanella\u2019s letters to Galileo of 31st August and 25th Sep.,\n1632. (Op. ix. pp. 284 and 294.)\n\n[284] Op. vii. pp. 3, 4.\n\n[285] Op. ix. pp. 420-423.\n\n[286] Il Serenissimo Padrone ha sentito le lettere di V. E. de 4 et 5, et\nper questa materia del Sig. Mariano e per quella del Sig. Galileo resta\nin tanta alterazione chio non so come le cose passarano; so bene che S.\nSantita non havera mai cagione di dolessi de ministri ni de mali consigli\nlora. (Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana,\u201d etc., p. 45.)\n\n[287] Op. Suppl. pp. 324-330.\n\n[288] It never did in fact come to this; for the _supreme authority_ is\nthe Pope, speaking _ex cathedra_, or an \u0152cumenical Council.\n\n[289] Op. ix. pp. 423-425.\n\n[290] ... \u201cMa sopra tutte le cose dice, con la solita confidenza e\nsegretezza, essersi trovato ne\u2019 libri del S. Offizio, che circa a 16 anni\nsono essendosi sentito che il Signor Galilei aveva questa opinione, e\nla seminara in Fiorenza, e che per questo essendo fatto venire a Roma,\ngli fu proibito in nome del Papa e del S. Offizio dal Signor Cardinale\nBellarmino il poter tenere questa opinione, _e che questo solo \u00e9 bastante\nper rovinarlo affatto_.\u201d\n\n[291] Comp. pp. 71, 72.\n\n[292] Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.\n\n[293] See Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix.\npp. 425-428.)\n\n[294] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli, 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp.\n425-428.)\n\n[295] Vat. MS. p. 394 vo.\n\n[296] After Galileo\u2019s signature follow the autograph attestations of the\nnotary and witnesses, of whose presence Galileo knew nothing. (Vat. MS.\nfol. 398 ro.)\n\n[297] Op. vii. p. 6.\n\n[298] The address does not indicate which of the Cardinals Barberini, but\nit is clear from Niccolini\u2019s despatch of 13th November, 1632, to Cioli,\nthat it was to Cardinal Antonio, jun., nephew of the Pope, and not, as\nAlb\u00e8ri assumes, to Cardinal Antonio, sen., the Pope\u2019s brother.\n\n[299] There is no clue whatever as to who this personage was. From what\nGalileo says, it must have been some high ecclesiastical dignitary.\n\n[300] On this point also a passage in a letter of Campanella\u2019s to Galileo\nof 22nd October, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 303), is worth mentioning. He says:\n\u201cThey are doing all they possibly can here in Rome, by speaking and\nwriting, to prove that you have acted contrary to orders.\u201d\n\n[301] Op. vii. pp. 7-13.\n\n[302] Vat. MS. fol. 403 ro.\n\n[303] Op. ix. pp. 304-306.\n\n[304] Ibid. pp. 428, 429.\n\n[305] Niccolini was mistaken if he thought that this tribunal was,\naccording to ecclesiastical notions, infallible.\n\n[306] Op. ix. p. 311.\n\n[307] See Niccolini to Cioli, 6th November. (Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia,\u201d\netc., p. 50.)\n\n[308] Gherardi\u2019s Collection of Documents, Doc. vii.\n\n[309] The cup of papal wrath had by this time been emptied on Ciampoli\u2019s\nhead. He had been deprived of his important office as Secretary of the\nPapal Briefs, and in order to remove him from Rome he was made Governor\nof Montalto, and entered on his post at the end of November. (See the\nletters of Castelli to Galileo. Op. ix. pp. 306, 313-316.)\n\n[310] For these documents, from which the above narrative is taken, see\nOp. ix. pp. 312, 313 and 429, 430.\n\n[311] Vat. MS. fol. 401 ro.\n\n[312] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, and Vat. MS. fol. 402 vo.\n\n[313] Op. ix. pp. 430, 431.\n\n[314] Ibid. pp. 318, 319.\n\n[315] Vat. MS. fol. 406 ro.\n\n[316] Ibid. pp. 407 ro.\n\n[317] Op. ix. p. 431.\n\n[318] Ibid. pp. 319, 320.\n\n[319] See Castelli\u2019s Letters to Galileo of 2nd and 16th Oct., 1632. (Op.\nix. pp. 295-298, and 299-301.)\n\n[320] See his letters. (Op. ix. pp. 306, 307, and 313-315.)\n\n[321] \u201c30th Dec. 1632, a Nativitate. Sanctissimus mandavit Inquisitori\nrescribi quod Sanctitas Sua et Sacra Congregatio nullatenus potest et\ndebet tolerare hujusmodi subterfugia et ad effectum verificandi an\nrevera in statu tali reperiatur quod non possit ad urbem absque vitae\npericulo accedere. Sanctissimus et Sacra Congregatio transmittet illuc\ncommissarium una cum medicum qui illum visitent ut certam et sinceram\nrelationem faciant de statu in quo reperitur, et si erit in statu tali\nut venire possit illum carceratum et ligatum cum ferris transmittat. Si\nvero causa sanitatas et ob periculum vitae transmissio erit differenda,\nstatim postquam convaluerit et cessante periculo carceratus et ligatus\nac cum ferris transmittat. Commissiarius autem et medici transmittantur\nejus sumptibus et expensis quid se in tali statu et temporibus constituit\net tempore oportuno ut ei fuerat preceptum venire et facere contempsit.\u201d\n(Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. x.; and Vat. MS. fol. 409 vo.)\n\n[322] Op. ix. pp. 322, 323. This last observation of the Grand Duke\u2019s,\nonly meaning that he reckoned on a speedy release for Galileo, afterwards\ngave Cioli occasion, as we shall see by-and-by, for a most mean act\ntowards Galileo.\n\n[323] It is incomprehensible how many of Galileo\u2019s biographers, even\nParchappe (p. 216) and H. Martin (p. 120), who had Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s work at\ncommand, fix the 15th as the date. And yet we have a letter of Galileo\u2019s\nto the Cardinal de Medici of the 15th Jan. (Op. vii. pp. 15, 16), asking\nif he had any commissions, in which he expressly mentions \u201cthe 20th\ninstant\u201d as the day of his departure.\n\n[324] \u201cFamosi et antiqui problematis de telluris motu vel quiete hactenus\noptata solutio: ad Em. Card. Richelium Ducem et Franci\u00e6 Parem. A. Jo.\nBapt. Morino apud Gallos et Bellajocensibus Francopolitano Doct. Med.\natque Paris. Mathematum professore. Terra stat in \u00e6ternum; Sol oritur et\noccidit. Eccles. Cap. I. Parisiis apud tuctorem juxta Pontem novum 1631,\nin 40.\u201d\n\n[325] \u201cLiberti Fromondi in Acad. Lovaniensi S. Theolog. Doctoris et\nProfessoris ordinarii. Ant.-Aristarchus, sive orbis terr\u00e6 immobilis.\nLiber unicus, in quo decretum S. Congreg. S. R. E. Cardinalium anno\n1616, adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur. Antverpi\u00e6 ex\nofficina Plantiniana 1631, in 40.\u201d\n\n[326] The letter to the Grand Duchess Christine.\n\n[327] Op. vii. pp. 16-20.\n\n[328] The Inquisitor informed the Holy Office, two days later, that\nGalileo had left Florence on the 20th. (Vat. MS. fol. 411 ro.; and\nGherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xii.)\n\n[329] Comp. Niccolini\u2019s letter to Galileo of 5th Feb., 1633. (Op. ix. p.\n327.)\n\n[330] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 14th Feb. (Op. ix. p. 432.)\n\n[331] See Niccolini\u2019s despatches to Cioli of 16th and 19th Feb. (Op. ix.\npp. 432, 433.)\n\n[332] See Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.\n\n[333] See Galileo\u2019s letter to Cioli of 19th Feb. (Op. vii. pp. 20-22.)\n\n[334] Ibid.\n\n[335] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letter to Geri Bocchineri of 25th Feb. (Op. vii. p.\n23.)\n\n[336] Op. vii. pp. 20-22.\n\n[337] See Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.\n\n[338] Op. vii. p. 22.\n\n[339] Op. ix. 434.\n\n[340] In the account of this conversation we have followed Niccolini\u2019s\ndespatch to Cioli of 27th Feb. (Op. ix. pp. 434-436.)\n\n[341] Comp. pp. 171, 172.\n\n[342] Op. ix. pp. 434-436.\n\n[343] Ibid. pp. 330-332.\n\n[344] Op. vii. p. 27; and ix. p. 436; also Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia,\u201d\netc., p. 57.\n\n[345] Op. ix. pp. 436-438.\n\n[346] Op. ix. p. 438; and vii. p. 228.\n\n[347] See Geri Bocchineri\u2019s Letters to Galileo and Cioli, both of 26th\nMarch, 1633: the former, Wolynski, \u201cLettere inedite,\u201d etc., p. 89; the\nlatter, Op. ix. p. 336.\n\n[348] Op. ix. p. 441.\n\n[349] Op. ix. p. 338.\n\n[350] See Galileo\u2019s letters to G. Bocchineri of 5th and 12th, and to\nCioli of 12th and 19th March. (Op. vii. pp. 24-28.)\n\n[351] Op. ix. pp. 438, 439.\n\n[352] Vat. MS. fol. 413 vo. 419 ro.\n\n[353] We have before stated that Copernicus did not at all consider his\ndoctrine a hypothesis, but was convinced of its actual truth. It was\nOsiander\u2019s politic introduction which had given rise to the error which\nwas then generally held.\n\n[354] Prof. Berti has first published this interesting letter in full in\nhis \u201cCopernico e le vicende Sistema Copernicano in Italia,\u201d pp. 121-125.\n\n[355] Vat. MS. fol. 423 ro.\n\n[356] No explanation is to be found anywhere of this mysterious\nnotification. The protocols of the trial show that none took place before\nthe Inquisitor. These \u201cparticulars,\u201d therefore, as they are not mentioned\nagain in the course of the trial, and play no part in it, may have been\nchiefly of a private nature.\n\n[357] These are the precise words of this ominous passage in the\nannotation of 26th February, 1616, which appear to have been considered\nabsolutely decisive by the Inquisitor.\n\n[358] Op. vii. p. 29. The rest of the letter is about family affairs.\n\n[359] Comp. Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 16th April. (Op. ix. pp.\n440, 441.) During our stay in Rome in the spring of 1877, Leone Vincenzo\nSallua, the Father Commissary-General of the Holy Office, was kind\nenough to show us the apartments occupied by Galileo in the Palace of\nthe Inquisition. The rooms are all large, light, and cheerful, and on\none side you enjoy the prospect of the majestic dome of St. Peter\u2019s,\nand on the other of the beautiful gardens of the Vatican. It is worthy\nof note that all the rooms assigned to Galileo and his servant are\nentirely shut off by a single door, so that but one key was required\nto make the inmates of these handsome apartments prisoners. With all\nits consideration for Galileo\u2019s person, the Inquisition never forgot\na certain prudence which had perhaps become a second nature to it. We\nprefix a little ground plan of the rooms, made by ourselves on the spot.\n\n[360] See despatch of 23rd April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)\n\n[361] See Op. ix. pp. 334, 339, 345, 346, 354, 355. Pieralisi tries to\npalliate even this act, but without much success. (Comp. pp. 134, 135.)\n\n[362] Thanks to the kindness of Prof. Riccardi, of Modena, in whose\nvaluable library there is, among other treasures, a copy of Galileo\u2019s\n\u201cDialogues\u201d of 1632, I was enabled to compare Inchofer\u2019s quotations with\na copy of the very edition which was in the hands of the consultators of\nthe Holy Office. I am able to state that Inchofer quotes them verbatim,\nor makes faithful extracts without altering the sense. The last quotation\nonly, 25, is a little confused. (Vat. MS. fol. 439 vo.)\n\n[363] Pasqualigus seldom cites verbatim, but makes short quotations; and\nin comparing them with Galileo\u2019s works, I have found the sense given\ncorrectly.\n\n[364] See all these opinions and the arguments, Vat. MS. fol. 429 ro. 447\nro.\n\n[365] There is a passage in a letter of Galileo\u2019s to Geri Bocchineri\nof 25th February, 1633, in which he says: \u201cThe cessation of all bodily\nexercise which, as you know I am accustomed to take for the benefit of\nmy health, and of which I have now been deprived for nearly forty days,\nbegins to tell upon me, and particularly to interfere with digestion,\nso that the mucus accumulates; and for three days violent pains in the\nlimbs have occasioned great suffering, and deprived me of sleep. I hope\nstrict diet will get rid of them.\u201d (Op. vii. p. 23.) Since this time two\nmonths had elapsed without Galileo\u2019s having been in the open air. Even\nthe Inquisitors saw, as we shall find, that a change must be made in the\nregulations, if they did not wish to endanger his life.\n\n[366] Op. vii. p. 30.\n\n[367] Pages 197, 198.\n\n[368] Niccolini\u2019s.\n\n[369] Vat. MS. fol. 419 ro. 420 vo.\n\n[370] Vat. MS. fol. 420 vo. 421 ro.\n\n[371] Vat. MS. fol. 421 vo.\n\n[372] Op. ix. pp. 441, 442.\n\n[373] Wolynski, \u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana,\u201d etc., p. 61.\n\n[374] See Niccolini to Cioli, 15th May, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 442.)\n\n[375] Galileo\u2019s letters between 23rd April and 23rd July, just the most\ninteresting time, are entirely wanting, which can scarcely be altogether\naccidental.\n\n[376] Op. ix. p. 353.\n\n[377] See the protocol of the hearing of 10th May, 1633. (Vat. MS. fol.\n422 ro.)\n\n[378] At his first hearing Galileo had only been able to show a copy of\nthis certificate, but now produced the original.\n\n[379] Vat. MS. fol. 425 vo.\n\n[380] Comp. Marini, pp. 98-100.\n\n[381] Op. ix. p. 357.\n\n[382] See their letters (Op. ix. pp. 355-364; and Suppl. pp. 350, 351).\n\n[383] See his letters to Galileo (Op. Suppl. pp. 248-250).\n\n[384] Op. ix. p. 359.\n\n[385] Ibid. p. 365.\n\n[386] See Niccolini\u2019s despatches to Cioli of 29th May. (Op. ix. p. 443.)\n\n[387] Op. ix. pp. 442, 443.\n\n[388]\n\n                                           \u201cFeria V. Die XVI. Junii 1633.\n\nGalilaei de Galileis Florentini in hoc S. Off. carcerati et ob ejus\nadversam valetudinem ac senectutem cum praecepto de non discedendo\nde domo electae habitationis in urbe, ac de se repraesentando toties\nquoties sub poenis arbitrio Sacrae Congregationis habilitati proposita\ncausa relato processu et auditis notis, S.\u1d50\u1d58\u02e2 decrevit ipsum Galilaeum\ninterrogandum esse super intentione et comminata ei tortura, et si\nsustinuerit, previa abjuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.\nOff. condemnandum ad carcerem arbitrio Sac. Congregationis, Injunctum ei\nne de cetero scripto vel verbo tractet ampluis gnovis modo de mobilitate\nterr\u00e6, nec de stabilitate solis et e contra sub poena relapsus. Librum\nvero ab eo conscriptum cuititutus est Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo\n(publice cremandum fore (_sic_) ma cassato) prohibendum fore. Praeterea\nut haec omnibus innotescant exemplaria Sententiae Decretumque perinde\ntransmitti jussit ad omnes nuntios apostolicos, et ad omnes haereticae\npravitatis Inquisitores, ac praecipue ad Inquisitorem Florentiae qui eam\nsententiam in ejus plena Congregatione, Consultoribus accersitis, etiam\net coram plerisque Mathematicae Artis Professoribus publice legatur.\u201d\n(Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xiii.; and Vat. MS. fol. 451 vo.)\n\nIt was then apparently at first determined publicly to burn Galileo\u2019s\nbook, and it was not till after the decree had been committed to writing\nthat it was altered. At whose instigation this was done, whether at that\nof the Pope, or in consequence of the remonstrances of some more lenient\nmembers of the Congregation, such as the Cardinals Barberini, Borgia, and\nZacchia, cannot be decided.\n\n[389] Op. ix. pp. 443, 444, from which the above account is taken.\n\n[390] See Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444,\n445.)\n\n[391] Et cu nihil aliud posset haberi in executione decreti habita eius\nsubscriptione remissus fuit ad locum suum. (Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.)\n\n[392] \u201cCio\u00e8 al palazzo del Ministro di Toscana,\u201d says Marini, p. 62.\n\n[393] The passage in Niccolini\u2019s despatch is as follows: \u201cIl Signor\nGalilei fu chiamato lunedi (20) sera al S. Uffizio, ove si trasferi\nmartedi (21) mattina conforme all\u2019 ordine, per sentire qual che potessero\ndesiderare da lui, ed essendo ritenuto, fu condotto mercoledi (22) alla\nMinerva avanti alli Sig. Cardinali e Prelati della Congregazione, dove\nnon solamente gli fu letta la sentenza, ma fatto anche abiurare la sua\nopinione, ... la qual condannazione gli ful subito permutata da S. B. in\nuna relegazione o confine al giardino della Trinita de\u2019 Monti, dore io lo\ncondussi venerdi (24) sera....\u201d (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)\n\n[394] Galileo\u2019s letter to Castelli of 21st December, 1613.\n\n[395] Appendix VI.\n\n[396] It is very remarkable that Jagemann, in his book on Galileo, which\nappeared in 1784 (New Ed. 1787, pp. 86, 95), doubts the fact of such a\nspecial prohibition. Of course he is acquainted only with the sentence\npublished by Riccioli, and surmises that he invented the passage in which\nthe special prohibition is mentioned, \u201cin order to justify the harsh\nproceedings of the Court of Rome under Urban VIII.\u201d So that ninety years\nago, without anything to go by but the wording of the sentence, Jagemann\nsuspected that this strict prohibition was never issued to Galileo, and\nsays,\u2014\u201cNeither does this decree agree with the information given above on\nall points,\u201d _i.e._, in letters of Galileo and Guiccardini of 1616.\n\n[397] Compare the excellent essay: \u201cLa Condemnation de Galil\u00e9e. Lapsus\ndes \u00e9crivains qui l\u2019opposent a la doctrine de l\u2019infallibilit\u00e9 du Pape,\u201d\nvon Abb\u00e9 Bouix. Also Pieralisi, pp. 121-131; and Gilbert\u2019s \u201cLa Proc\u00e9s\nde Galil\u00e9e,\u201d pp. 19-30. We may remark here, that according to these\nprinciples the doctrine of Copernicus was not made heretical by the\nsentence of the Inquisition, because the decree never received the Pope\u2019s\nofficial ratification. To confirm this statement we subjoin some remarks\nby theological authorities. Gassendi remarks in his great work, \u201cDe motu\nimpresso a motore translato\u201d (Epist. ii. t. iii. p. 519), published nine\nyears after the condemnation of Galileo, on the absence of the papal\nratification in the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, and that therefore\n_the negation of the Copernican theory was not an article of faith_.\nAs a good priest he recognises the high authority of a decision of the\nCongregation, and subjects his personal opinions to it. Father Riccioli,\nin his comprehensive work, \u201cAlmagestum novum,\u201d published nine years after\nGassendi\u2019s, reproduces Gassendi\u2019s statement word for word (t. i., pars.\n2, p. 489), and entirely concurs in it, even in the book which was meant\nto refute the Copernican theory at all points (pp. 495, 496, and 500).\nFather Fabri, a French Jesuit, afterwards Grand Penitentiary at Rome,\nsays in a dissertation published there in 1661 against the \u201cSystema\nSaturnium,\u201d of Huyghens (p. 49), that as no valid evidence can be adduced\nfor the truth of the new system, the authorities of the Church are quite\nright in interpreting the passages of Holy Scripture relating to the\nsystem of the universe literally; \u201cbut,\u201d he adds, \u201cif ever any conclusive\nreasons are discovered (which I do not expect), _I do not doubt that\nthe Church will say that they are to be taken figuratively_,\u201d a remark\nwhich no priest would have made about a doctrine pronounced heretical by\ninfallible authority. Caramuel, a Spanish Benedictine, who also discussed\nthe future of the Copernican theory, defines the position still more\nclearly than Fabri. In his \u201cTheologia fundamentalis,\u201d published at Lyons\nin 1676 (t. i., pp. 104-110), after defending the decree and sentence of\nthe Congregation, he discusses the attitude which the Church will take\nin case the system should prove indisputably true. In the first place\nhe believes this will never happen, and if it does, _it could never be\nsaid that the Church of Rome had been in error, as the doctrine of the\ndouble motion of the earth had never been condemned by an \u0152cumenical\nCouncil, nor by the Pope speaking ex cathedra, but only by the tribunal\nof cardinals_.\n\nIt is interesting to find that Descartes, Galileo\u2019s contemporary, put\nthe same construction on the matter. He wrote on 10th January, 1634,\nto Father Mersenne: \u201c_As I do not see that this censure has been\nconfirmed either by a Council or the Pope, but proceeds solely from the\ncongregation of the cardinals_, I do not give up hope that it will not\nhappen to the Copernican theory as it did to that about the antipodes,\nwhich was formerly condemned in the same way.\u201d (Panth\u00e9on litt\u00e9raire,\n\u0152uvres philosophiques de Descartes, p. 545.)\n\n[398] Page 141.\n\n[399] Page 60.\n\n[400] Abb\u00e9 Bouix, p. 229.\n\n[401] _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Math. und Physik._ 9th series. Part 3, pp. 194,\n195.\n\n[402] \u201cI Cardinale Inquisitori componenti la Congregazione, in cui nome\nla sentenza \u00e8 fatta, erano in numero di dieci. Nell\u2019 ultima Congregazione\nse ne trovarono presenti solo sette; quindi sette solo sono sottoscritti.\nDa cio non pu\u00f2 in nessuna maniera desumersi che i tre mancanti fossero di\nparere contrario.\u201d (\u201cProcesso originale,\u201d etc., p. 149, note 1.)\n\n[403] \u201cUrbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei,\u201d pp. 218-224.\n\n[404] Appendix VI.\n\n[405] Vol. vii. of the \u201cHistorisch-politischen Bl\u00e4tter f\u00fcr das\nCatholische Deutschland.\u201d Munich, 1841.\n\n[406] Ibid. p. 578.\n\n[407] The reproach which the apologists of the Inquisition are fond of\nbringing against Galileo, that he knew nothing about the specific gravity\nof the air, is incorrect, as appears from his letter to Baliani of 12th\nMarch, 1613 (published for the first time in 1864 by Signor Giuseppe\nSacchi, director of the library at Brera, where the autograph letter is\nto be seen), in which Galileo describes a method he had invented for\ndetermining the specific gravity of the air.\n\n[408] See the essay before mentioned, p. 583.\n\n[409] Ibid. pp. 580, 581.\n\n[410] Ibid. pp. 581, 582.\n\n[411] It carefully refutes the assertion made by Father Olivieri, that\nthe Holy Office had prohibited the Copernican doctrine from being\ndemonstrated as true, and condemned its famous advocate, Galileo, because\nit could not then be satisfactorily proved scientifically, and Galileo\nhad supported it with arguments scientifically incorrect. If we can\nbelieve the ex-general of the Dominicans, the Inquisition in 1616 and\n1633 was only the careful guardian of science!\n\n[412] _Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, Beilage_, No. 93, 2nd Aug, 1876.\n\n[413] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xv.\n\n[414] Compare p. 228, note 3.\n\n[415] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli, 3rd July, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 445.)\n\n[416] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.\n\n[417] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 3rd July.\n\n[418] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro. and 454 vo.\n\n[419] Ibid. fol. 453 vo.\n\n[420] Op. ix. p. 447.\n\n[421] Fabroni, \u201cVit\u00e6 Italorum.\u201d Pisa, 1778, vol. i. p. 144.\n\n[422] Heis, \u201cDas Unhistorische des dem Galilei in dem Munde gelegten: \u2018E\npur si muove.\u2019\u201d Munich, 1868.\n\n[423] \u201cDer Galileischen Process auf Grund der neuesten Actenpublicationen\nhistorisch und juristisch gepr\u00fctf.\u201d Von Prof. H. Grisar, S. J.\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Kathol. Theologie._ 2nd series. Innsbr\u00fcck, 1878.\n\n[424] Ferry, author of the article \u201cGalil\u00e9e\u201d in \u201cDictionnaire de\nConversation,\u201d Paris, 1859, undoubtedly believes the story. But the\nman who makes Galileo be born at Florence, study at Venice, and become\nProfessor at Padua directly afterwards, thinks that Galileo did nothing\nmore for science after his condemnation, and, that (in 1859) his works\nwere still on the Index, can hardly be reckoned among historians.\n\n[425] Louis Combes\u2019s \u201cGal. et L\u2019Inquisition Romaine,\u201d Paris, 1876, is a\npamphlet of no scientific value whatever, distinguished by astounding\nignorance of the Galileo literature. The author complains that the\noriginal documents relating to the trial are buried among the secret\npapal archives, and that nothing more is known of them than what Mgr.\nMarini has thought fit to communicate! The publication, then, of the most\nimportant documents of the Vat. MS., by Epinois, 1867, seems to have\nescaped the notice of M. Louis Combes!\n\n[426] Nelli, vol. ii. p. 562, note 2.\n\n[427] Page 69, note 2.\n\n[428] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 182; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 537.\n\n[429] See Appendix: History of the Vat. MS.\n\n[430] See Dr. Emil Wohlwill\u2019s \u201cIst Galileo gefoltert worden.\u201d Leipzig,\n1877.\n\n[431] \u201cElogio del Galilei.\u201d Livorno, 1775.\n\n[432] In Fabroni, \u201cVit\u00e6 Italorum,\u201d i.\n\n[433] \u201cNotizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fosiche in Toscana.\u201d i.\nFirenze, 1780.\n\n[434] \u201cLettere inedite di uomini illustri.\u201d Firenze, 1773-75.\n\n[435] _Journal des Savans_: July, Aug., Sep., Oct., 1858.\n\n[436] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli, 25th April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)\n\n[437] Niccolini to Cioli, 3rd May. (Op. ix. p. 442.)\n\n[438] Niccolini to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)\n\n[439] Niccolini to Cioli, 10th July. (Ibid. p. 447.)\n\n[440] Even Wohlwill allows, p. 29, that the opinion that \u201cCatholic\nanswer\u201d means answer under torture is not tenable.\n\n[441] \u201cIl Reo, che solamente condotto al luogo della tortura \u00f2 quivi\nspogliato, \u00f2 pur anco legato senza per\u00f2 esser alzato, confessa dicesi\nhaver confessato ne\u2019 tormenti, e nell\u2019 esamina rigorosa.\u201d (\u201cSacro\nArsenale overo Prattica dell\u2019 Officio della Santa Inquisitione.\u201d Bologna,\n1865, Mesini\u2019s ed. p. 412.)\n\n[442] Page 25.\n\n[443] \u201cGradus torturae olim adhiberi soliti fuerunt quinque, qui certo\nordine fuerunt inflicte, quos describit Julius Clarus \u2018in pract crim.\u2019\n\u00a7 Fin. qu. 64, versic. \u2018Nunc de gradibus,\u2019 ubi ita ait, \u2018Scias igitur,\nquod quinque sunt gradus torturae; scilicet Primo, minae de torquendo.\nSecundo: conductio ad locum tormentorum. Tertio, spoliato et ligatura.\nQuarto, elevation in eculeo. Quinto, squassatio.\u201d (Philippi a Limborch\nS.S. Theologiae inter Remonstrantes Professoris, Historia Inquisitionis.\nAmstelodami apud Henricum, Westenium, 1692, p. 322.)\n\n[444] Prof. P. Grisar also remarks in his critique of Wohlwill\u2019s last\nwork (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Kath. Theol._ ii. Jahrgang, p. 188), that in the\nlanguage of the old writers on criminal law, the _territio verbalis_ was\noften included in the expression torture, and appeals to Julius Clarus,\nSentent. crimin. lib. 5, \u00a7 Fin. qu. 84, nr 31; Francof. 1706, p. 318;\nSigism. Scaccia, de judiciis, lib. 2. c. 8. nr 276; Francof. 1669, p. 269.\n\n[445] \u201cSacro Arsenale,\u201d p. 155.\n\n[446] Ibid. pp. 157, 161, 165.\n\n[447] Ibid. p. 157; Salleles, \u201cDe materiis tribunalium S. Inquisitionis,\u201d\nreg. 361, nos. 110, 117.\n\n[448] Ibid. p. 410; Limborch, p. 325.\n\n[449] In his brochure, \u201cIst Galilei gefoltert worden.\u201d\n\n[450] \u201cIl Processo di Galileo Galilei e la Moderna Critica Tedesca,\u201d III.\n_Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc. ii., 1878.\n\n[451] Page 214.\n\n[452] \u201cSacro Arsenale,\u201d pp. 62, 64.\n\n[453] The passage in the decree is: \u201cS\u1d50\u1d58\u02e2. decrevit ipsum (Galileo)\ninterrogandum esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura et si\nsustenuerit, previa abiuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.O.\ncondemnandum ad carcerem,\u201d etc. (Vat. MS. Fol. 451 vo.) Wohlwill says\nthat the first part of this decree has had about as many interpretations\nas authors who have quoted it. This may in no small degree be due to the\nfact that it was not known whether the original reading was _et_ or _ac_\nsustinuerit. As it is now decided in favour of _et_, perhaps an agreement\nmay be come to, and the more so as several students of Galileo\u2019s trial\nhave adopted a translation which agrees as to the meaning, to which\nwe ourselves, now that the _et_ is unquestionable, adhere. H. Martin,\nPro. Reusch, Dr. Scartazzini, Pro. P. Grisar, Epinois in his latest\nwork, and the present writer, translate: \u201cHis Holiness ordained that\nhe (Galileo) was to be examined as to his intention, to be threatened\nwith torture, and if he kept firm (to his previous depositions) after\n_abjuration de vehementi_, he was to be sentenced to imprisonment by the\nwhole Congregation of the Holy Office,\u201d etc. Whatever may be thought of\nthe translation, one thing is certain, that by this decree the threat of\ntorture was ordained, but assuredly not its execution.\n\n[454] \u201cIl Processo di Gal. Gal.,\u201d etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc.\nii. p. 232, 1878.\n\n[455] Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.\n\n[456] \u201cIl Processo di Gal. Gal.,\u201d etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc.\nii., 16th January, 1878, p. 233.\n\n[457] Ibid. p. 247.\n\n[458] \u201cGalileo Galilei; dessen Leben,\u201d etc., Basle, 1858, p. 16.\n\n[459] Vat. MS. fol. 407.\n\n[460] \u201cFarinacci, de indiciis et tortura,\u201d a. 41.\n\n[461] Th. del Bene, \u201cDe officio S. Inquisitionis,\u201d vol. i. p. 574.\n\n[462] \u201cSacro Arsenale,\u201d pp. 171, 172.\n\n[463] Page 197.\n\n[464] Op. ix. p. 372.\n\n[465] Op. vii. pp. 31, 32.\n\n[466] Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th\nJuly. (Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.)\n\n[467] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli of 7th August. (Op. ix. p. 447.)\n\n[468] Op. ix. pp. 383, 384.\n\n[469] Vat. MS. fol. 476 vo. and 493 ro.; also Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc.\nxviii.\n\n[470] Page 68.\n\n[471] Op. ix. pp. 390-392.\n\n[472] Vat. MS. fol. 544.\n\n[473] Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363.\n\n[474] Henri Martin (pp. 386-388) gives an interesting list of works\npublished against the Copernican system between 1631 and 1638, up\ntherefore to the time of Newton.\n\n[475] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 127.\n\n[476] Op. ix. pp. 447, 448.\n\n[477] Comp. Niccolini\u2019s despatch to Cioli, 3rd Dec. (Op. ix. p. 448.)\n\n[478] Vat. MS. fol. 534 ro.\n\n[479] Vat. MS., fol. without paging after 534; also Gherardi\u2019s Documents,\nDoc. xx.\n\n[480] Op. ix. pp. 407, 408.\n\n[481] At the close of this year two documents were published which have\noften been used as historical sources for the story of Galileo\u2019s trial;\nnamely, (1) a narration by Francesco Buonamici of the famous trial; and\n(2) an assumed letter of Galileo\u2019s to his friend and correspondent,\nFather Vincenzo Renieri, intended to give a concise history of the\ntrial. The first has been pronounced by historical research to be quite\nworthless, even if not, as H. Martin (p. 185) thinks, a forgery; the\nsecond as decidedly apocryphal, so that neither are mentioned here.\n(Comp. Op. ix. pp. 449-452; vii. pp. 40-43; and the valuable treatise by\nG. Guasti: \u201cLe relazioni di Galileo con alcuni Pratesi a proposito del\nFalso Buonamici scopalto del Signor H. Martin.\u201d Archivo Storico Italiano.\nFirenze, 1873, vol. xvii.)\n\n[482] See Galileo\u2019s letter to Barberini, 17th December, 1633. (Vat. MS.\nfol. 541 ro.)\n\n[483] Op. x. pp. 2 and 11.\n\n[484] Vat. MS. fol. 547.\n\n[485] Vat. MS. fol. 549.\n\n[486] Vat. MS. fol. 550 vo.; and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxii.\n\n[487] Vat. MS. fol. 551 ro.\n\n[488] Op. vii. p. 44.\n\n[489] Op. vii. pp. 46-51.\n\n[490] Op. x. pp. 66-69; 71-74; vii. pp. 56, 57.\n\n[491] Op. vii. pp. 52-58; x. 41-134; Suppl. pp. 271-278.\n\n[492] Castelli\u2019s letter to Galileo, 2nd Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 64.)\n\n[493] Castelli\u2019s letter to Galileo, 9th Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 65.)\n\n[494] Comp. Peiresc\u2019s letters to Galileo, 26th Jan., 1634 (Op. x. pp.\n8-11), and to Card. Barberini, 5th Dec., 1635 (Op. x. p. 94).\n\n[495] Op. x. pp. 94-96. In Alb\u00e8ri the date of this letter is wrongly\ngiven as 1635; Pieralisi has found the original of it in the Barberiana,\nwith date 5th Dec., 1634. (Pieralisi, pp. 304-310.)\n\n[496] Op. x. pp. 96-98. In Alb\u00e8ri this letter is dated 1636 instead of\n1635.\n\n[497] Op. x. pp. 98, 99. Date wrongly given in Alb\u00e8ri as 13th instead of\n31st Jan. See Pieralisi, pp. 313-317.\n\n[498] These words were written in a truly prophetic spirit; for such a\nparallel was actually drawn by Voltaire in (vol. iv. p. 145) his \u201cEssai\nsur les m\u0153urs et l\u2019esprit des nations, et sur les principaux faits de\nl\u2019histoire, depuis Charlemagne jusqu\u00e0 Louis XIII.\u201d\n\n[499] Op. Suppl. pp. 361-363.\n\n[500] Op. x. pp. 25-33; vii. pp. 52, 53, and 128.\n\n[501] Op. x. pp. 29-33; vii. p. 140.\n\n[502] Op. vii. pp. 65, 66, and 67, 68; also Galileo\u2019s letter to\nBernegger, 15th July, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 69, 70.)\n\n[503] Page 222.\n\n[504] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letter to Giovanni Buonamici, 16th August, 1636.\n(Op. vii. pp. 139, 140.)\n\n[505] See Castelli\u2019s letter to Galileo of 2nd June, 1635, in which he\nsays that \u201che had at last been again permitted to kiss his Holiness\u2019s\ntoe.\u201d (Op. x. pp. 100.)\n\n[506] Comp. the letters of Castelli and the Count de Noailles to Galileo\nof 19th April and 6th May, 1636. (Op. x. pp. 149, 150, and 153.)\n\n[507] Op. x. pp. 159, 160.\n\n[508] Op. x. pp. 161 and 163.\n\n[509] See Castelli\u2019s letter to Galileo, 9th August. (Op. x. pp. 163, 164.)\n\n[510] Ibid.\n\n[511] Op. Suppl. p. 280.\n\n[512] Op. x. p. 172.\n\n[513] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letters to Micanzio at Venice of 21st and 28th June\n1636. (Op. vii. pp. 63-66.)\n\n[514] Op. x. pp. 88, 89, 104, 105, 116-118, 191, 192; vii. pp. 132, 154,\n155.\n\n[515] Op. x. pp. 157, 158, 165, 170, 171, 213; vii. 63, 64, 67, 68, 71,\n138, 253.\n\n[516] Op. x. pp. 66-69, 108-111, 127-130.\n\n[517] Pieroni to Galileo, 9th July, 1637. (Op. x. pp. 222-226.)\n\n[518] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 138, 139, 152, 153; x. pp. 167 and 184.\n\n[519] Comp. Op. vi. pp. 238-276, 338-346.\n\n[520] Op. vii. pp. 73-93, and 136, 137.\n\n[521] Op. iii. pp. 176-183.\n\n[522] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letter to Diodati of 4th July, 1637. (Op. vii. p.\n180.)\n\n[523] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 163-174, 190-204; x. pp. 215-218, 228-248;\nSuppl. pp. 282-284.\n\n[524] Op. vii. p. 193.\n\n[525] Op. x. pp. 231, 232.\n\n[526] ... \u201cHere I found and called upon the celebrated Galileo, now\nbecome old and a prisoner of the Inquisition,\u201d says Milton. Unfortunately\nwe know nothing more of this interesting meeting. (Comp. Reumont, p. 405.)\n\n[527] Op. vii. p. 207. See on Galileo\u2019s total blindness, \u201cSull\u2019epoca vera\ne la durata della cecit\u00e0 del Galileo,\u201d Nota del Angelo Secchi: (Estratta\ndal Giornale Arcadico, Tomo liv nuova serie); and \u201cSull\u2019 nella epoca\ndella completa cecit\u00e0 del Galileo,\u201d Risposta di Paolo Volpicelli al\nchiaris e R. P. A. Secchi, Roma, 1868.\n\n[528] Op. x. p. 232.\n\n[529] Op. x. pp. 248, 249.\n\n[530] Comp. p. 275, note 1.\n\n[531] Galileo\u2019s letter to Guerrini, an official at the Tuscan Court, 19th\nDecember. (Op. vii. pp. 204, 205.)\n\n[532] Guerrini to Galileo, 20th December. (Op. x. pp. 249, 250.)\n\n[533] Op. x. pp. 254, 255.\n\n[534] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxiii.\n\n[535] This passage directly contradicts the remark on this subject in\nthe report of Fra Clemente, the Inquisitor, of 1st April, 1634; his\nsuccessor, Fra Fanano, seems to have been more favourable to Galileo.\n\n[536] Op. x. pp. 280, 281.\n\n[537] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxiv.\n\n[538] Op. x. p. 286.\n\n[539] Fanano\u2019s letter to Cardinal F. Barberini of 10th March, 1638. (Op.\nx. p. 287.)\n\n[540] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxv.\n\n[541] Letter of the Vicar of the Holy Office at Florence to Galileo, of\n28th March, 1638. (Op. x. p. 292.)\n\n[542] Op. vii. pp. 211-216.\n\n[543] See letters from Hortensius and Realius to Galileo of 26th Jan. and\n3rd Mar. 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 95-99, 100-102); letter from Const. Huyghens\nto Diodati, 13th April, 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 111-113).\n\n[544] Op. vii. pp. 163-174.\n\n[545] Op. vii. pp. 181-189.\n\n[546] Vat. MS. fol. 554 ro.\n\n[547] Vat. MS; fol. 555 vo.; and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxvi.\n\n[548] On all this see Galileo\u2019s letter to Diodati of 7th Aug., 1638. (Op.\nvii. pp. 214-216.)\n\n[549] Comp. Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679, and Venturi, vol. ii. p. 285.\n\n[550] Vat. MS. fol. 553 ro.; and Op. x. 304, 305, where it is dated 23rd\ninstead of 25th July.\n\n[551] Vat. MS. fol. 556 vo.; and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxvii.\n\n[552] Op. vii. p. 215.\n\n[553] Op. vii. pp. 216-218.\n\n[554] Op. xv. p. 401; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 838.\n\n[555] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 371.\n\n[556] Comp. Castelli\u2019s letters to Galileo of 29th May and 30 July, 1638.\n(Op. x. pp. 300, 310-313.)\n\n[557] Cioli\u2019s despatch to Niccolini of 9th Sept., 1638. (Op. x. pp. 313,\n314.)\n\n[558] Niccolini\u2019s despatches to Cioli of 15th and 25th Sept. (Wolynski,\n\u201cLa Diplomazia Toscana,\u201d etc., pp. 68, 69.)\n\n[559] Fanano\u2019s letter to Card. Barberini of 4th Oct. (Op. x. p. 314.)\n\n[560] See Castelli\u2019s letters to Card. F. Barberini of 2nd, 9th, and 16th\nOct., in Pieralisi, pp. 291-296; and another of 23rd Oct., 1638, on an\nunnumbered page between fols. 552 and 553 of the Vat. MS. p. 175.\n\n[561] See Card. Barberini\u2019s letters to Castelli of 16th and 30th Oct.\n(Pieralisi, pp. 294, 295, and 298.)\n\n[562] Vat. MS. fol. 557 vo.\n\n[563] \u201cDiscorsi e Dimostrazione Matematiche intorno a due Scienze\nattenenti alla Meccanica e ai Movimenti Locali. Con una Appendice del\nCentro di gravita di alcuni Solidi.\u201d\n\n[564] See Galileo\u2019s letter to the Count de Noailles of 6th March, 1638,\nand his answer of 20th July. (Op. vii. pp. 209-211, and x. pp. 308-310.)\n\n[565] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 44, 46, 57, 70.\n\n[566] Op. vii. pp. 218-226; x. pp. 316, 317, 320, 321.\n\n[567] \u201cDalla Villa Arc\u00e8tri, mio continuato carcere ed esilio dalla\ncitt\u00e0.\u201d (Letter from Galileo to Cassiano dal Pozzo in Rome, of 20th Jan.,\n1641, Op. vii. p. 351)\n\n[568] Op. vii. pp. 364, 365.\n\n[569] Pieralisi thinks (\u201cUrbano VIII. and Galileo Galilei,\u201d p. 264) that\nit was left to Galileo\u2019s option during the last few years to reside\neither at Arcetri or Florence, and that his preference for his villa led\nhim to choose the former; a statement for which Pieralisi has no proof to\noffer, and which is strongly opposed to what we have mentioned above.\n\n[570] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Docs. xxviii. and xxix.\n\n[571] Castelli\u2019s letters to Galileo of 29th Jan., 12th Feb., 1639. (Op.\nx. pp. 325, 326, and 328, 329.)\n\n[572] Op. x. pp. 340-348, 356, 357, 363-365, 367, 368, 385-387, 392-394,\n396, 397, 407, 408; Suppl. pp. 287-290.\n\n[573] Op. x. pp. 280 and 308.\n\n[574] Comp. his letters to Castelli of 8th and 19th Aug., 1st and 3rd\nSep., 3rd and 18th Dec., 1639. (Op. vii. pp. 232-236, 238, 239, and 242,\n243.)\n\n[575] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 360.\n\n[576] Op. vii. pp. 238, 239; xiii. pp. 267-332; xv. pp. 358-360.\n\n[577] See his letters to Galileo in 1639 and 1640. (Op. x. pp. 336, 339,\n340, 350, 351, 362, 363, 382, 383, 402, 419, 420; also xv. (Viviani), pp.\n356, 357.)\n\n[578] Op. vii. pp. 240, 241.\n\n[579] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 243-254. In 1648 Renieri was intending to bring\nout Galileo\u2019s calculations about the satellites of Jupiter, and their\napplication to navigation, which he had completed by long years of\nlabour, when his death occurred after a short illness. The papers were\nthen lost, but were afterwards discovered by Alb\u00e8ri, who arranged them\nand incorporated them in the \u201cOpere di Galileo Galilei,\u201d v.\n\n[580] Comp. Galileo\u2019s letter to Daniele Spinola of 19th Man, 1640. (Op.\nvii. pp. 256-258.)\n\n[581] Letter from Prince Leopold de\u2019 Medici to Galileo, 11th Mar., 1640.\n(Op. vii. p. 254.)\n\n[582] Op. vii. pp. 261-310; iii. pp. 190-237.\n\n[583] See this correspondence. (Op. vii. pp. 317-333, 336-350, 352-358.)\nLiceti published a large book in 1642, in reply to Galileo\u2019s letter to\nPrince Leopold de\u2019 Medici. The latter, in which Galileo had made some\nalterations, was, with his consent, printed with Liceti\u2019s reply.\n\n[584] Op. vii p. 360.\n\n[585] Op. vii. pp. 361-363.\n\n[586] Page 419.\n\n[587] This is precisely the same argument, only in other words, brought\nforward by Simplicius at the end of the \u201cDialogues on the Two Chief\nSystems.\u201d (Comp. p. 160.)\n\n[588] This passage calls the passage in \u201cIl Saggiatore\u201d to mind, where\nGalileo speaks of Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Tycho.\n\n[589] See \u201cAllgemeine Weltgeschichte,\u201d by Cesare Cantu. Freely rendered\nfor Catholic Germany, from the 7th edition, by Dr. J. A. M. Br\u00fchl, p. 540.\n\n[590] Comp. Renieri\u2019s letter to Galileo of 6th March, 1641. (Op. x. pp.\n408, 409.)\n\n[591] See his letter of 20th August, 1659, to Prince Leopold de\u2019 Medici.\n(Op. xiv. pp. 339-356.)\n\n[592] Seven years after Galileo\u2019s death, Vincenzo was occupied in\nconstructing the first pendulum clock after these drawings and models,\nwhen he suddenly fell ill and died. For all this see Alb\u00e8ri\u2019s excellent\nessay: \u201cDell\u2019orologio a pendolo di Galileo Galilei e di due recenti\ndivinazioni del meccanismo da lui imaginato.\u201d (Op. Suppl. pp. 333-358;\nNelli, vol. ii. pp. 688-738.)\n\n[593] Comp. Torricelli\u2019s letters to Galileo of 15th March, 27th April,\n1st and 29th June, 17th August, and 28th September, 1641. (Op. x. pp.\n412, 413, 417, 418, 420, 421, 423-426, 432, 433.) Also Galileo\u2019s letter\nto Torricelli of 27th September, 1641. (Op. vii. pp. 365-367.)\n\n[594] See Rinuccini\u2019s letter to Prince Leopold de\u2019 Medici, 15th November,\n1641. (Op. x. 436, 437.)\n\n[595] For this and the preceding, see Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 360, 361;\nand Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 839, 840.\n\n[596] Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxx.\n\n[597] Niccolini\u2019s despatch to the Tuscan Secretary of State of 25th\nJanuary, 1642. (Op. xv. pp. 403, 404.)\n\n[598] Despatch of the Tuscan Secretary Condi to Niccolini of 29th\nJanuary, 1642 (Op. xv. p. 404.)\n\n[599] Op. xv. p. 405.\n\n[600] See for more on the subject, Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 850-867.\n\n[601] Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 874-876.\n\n[602] Letter of the Inquisitor Fra Paolo Ambr. of 8th June, 1734, to the\nCollege of Cardinals at Rome. (See Vat. MS. fol. 558 ro.)\n\n[603] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo.\n\n[604] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo., and Gherardi\u2019s Documents, Doc. xxxii.\n\n[605] Canto iv., stanza liv.\n\n[606] See the document about the exhumation. (Op. xv. pp. 407-409.)\n\n[607] For instance, Dr. Carl Sch\u00f6ffer, in his _brochure_: \u201cDie Bewegungen\nder Himmelsk\u00f6rper. Neue and unbewegliche Beweise, dass unsere Erde im\nMittelpunkte des Weltalls steht, und die Sonne, Mond und Sterne sich um\ndieselbe bewegen.\u201d Brunswick, 1854. (\u201cThe Motions of the Heavenly Bodies.\nNew and indisputable proofs that our Earth is the centre of the Universe,\nand that Sun, Moon, and Stars, revolve round it\u201d).\n\n[608] Habito verbo cum Sanctissimo, omittatur decretum, quo prohibentur\nomnes libri docentes immobilitatem solis, et mobilitatem terr\u00e6.\n(Olivieri, p. 94, or \u201cHist.-polit. Bl\u00e4tter,\u201d p. 585.)\n\n[609] \u201cOpere di Galileo Galilei divise in quattro Tomi, in questa nuova\nedizione accresciute di molte cose inedite.\u201d In Padova, 1744. \u201cNella\nstamperia del Seminario appresso Gio. Manfr\u00e8,\u201d Tomi iv. in 4\u1d52.\n\n[610] Comp. Olivieri, p. 96, or \u201cHist.-polit. Bl\u00e4tter,\u201d p. 587, and Op.\nxv. Bibliografia Galileiana, pp. xxvi., xxvii.\n\n[611] \u201cTrait\u00e9 d\u2019astronomie\u201d Paris, 1792, p. 421.\n\n[612] \u201cSe possa difendersi ed insegnore, non come semplice ipotesi ma\ncome verissima, e come tesi, la mobilit\u00e0 della terra e la stabilit\u00e0\ndel sole da chi ha fatta la professione di fede di Pio IV. quaestione\nteologico-morale.\u201d\n\n[613] \u201cDichiarono permessa in Roma la stampa e la publicazione operum\ntractantium de mobilitate terrae et immobilitate solis, juxta communem\nmodernorum astronomorum opinionem.\u201d (Olivieri, p. 97, or \u201cHist.-polit.\nBl\u00e4tter,\u201d p. 588.)\n\n[614] Somewhat abridged, as are also the Description and Estimate of the\nVat. MS.\u2014[TR.]\n\n[615] See for this and what immediately follows, \u201cLe Manuscrit Original\ndu Proc\u00e8s de Galil\u00e9e,\u201d par L. Sandret. _Revue des Questions historiques_,\n1 Oct., 1877, pp. 551-559.\n\n[616] Marini, p. 144.\n\n[617] Ibid. pp. 144, 145.\n\n[618] See Sandret\u2019s Essays before cited, p. 553.\n\n[619] Ibid. pp. 553, 554.\n\n[620] Sandret, p. 554.\n\n[621] Marini, pp. 145, 146.\n\n[622] Marini, p. 146, 147; Sandret, pp. 554.\n\n[623] Marini, p. 147; Sandret, p. 555.\n\n[624] Marini, p. 147.\n\n[625] Marini, p. 147.\n\n[626] Ibid. p. 148.\n\n[627] Ibid. p. 148.\n\n[628] Ibid. p. 151.\n\n[629] Sandret, p. 556, note 1.\n\n[630] Denina was at Paris from 1805 till his death in 1813, and may\ntherefore have seen the Acts, which were in Paris from 1811, as well as\nthe translation which was begun.\n\n[631] Sandret, pp. 556, 557.\n\n[632] _Revue des questions historiques_, Paris, July, 1867.\n\n[633] ... \u201ce avemmo fra le mani il desiderato volume nella stanza\ndel padre Theiner test\u00e8 rapito dolorosamente ai vivi.\u201d (\u201cIl Processo\nOriginale,\u201d etc., p. x.)\n\n[634] \u201cEgli \u00e8 adunque per la prima volta che i due processi Galeleiani\nsono publicati nella loro integrit\u00e0.\u201d Page xii.\n\n[635] See \u201cCorrezioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei proposte\ndall\u2019 autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazioni sopra il Processo Originale\ndi Galileo Galilei publicato da Domenico Berti.\u201d Roma, 30 Settembre,\n1876, pp. 9-16.\n\n[636] \u201cQuando si havra a terminare qualche causa al S. Off. appartenente\nconverra, che prima ai formi il caso in cui brevemente si ristringano\nineriti della causa e tutti i punti substantiale del processo, etc....\nPoscia mandatalo a ciascuno de Sig Consultori entrera con esso loro\nopportunamente nella Congregatione,\u201d etc. (\u201cSacro Arsenale,\u201d etc.\nBologna, 1665. Masini\u2019s ed., pp. 345, 346).\n\n[637] \u201cIl Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,\u201d etc. Rome, 1876, p. 138,\nnote 1.\n\n[638] \u201cCorrezioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Gal. Galilei,\u201d etc. Rome, 1876,\npp. 44-46.\n\n[639] \u201cIl Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,\u201d etc., p. v.\n\n[640] The Denunciation of Lorini. The signature, however, obviously once\nexisted, but being on the edge of the paper has been effaced in the\ncourse of time.\n\n[641] \u201cIst Galilei gefoltert worden.\u201d Von Emil Wohlwill. Leipzig, 1877.\n\n[642] \u201cIst Galilei gefoltert worden.\u201d Gegenbetrachtungen von K. v.\nGebler. Die Gegenwart.\n\n[643] Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro.\n\n[644] This decree is given in a printed copy in the volume containing the\nVat. MS. We give it on a reduced scale.\n\n[645] Misprint for _Dubliniensi_.\n\n[646] Abridged. [TR.]\n\n[647] C\u00e6sar Carena: \u201cDe officio Sanctissime Inquisitionis et modo\nprocedendi in causis fidei.\u201d Cremona, 1641, p. 416.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n    Accad\u00e9mia dei Lincei, 36, 106, 136.\n      Dissolution of, 138.\n\n    Alciato, Cardinal, 176.\n\n    Anagram on Ring of Saturn, 24.\n      On Crescent form of Venus, 33.\n\n    Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70.\n\n    Aristotle, 6, 10.\n\n    Astronomical and Philosophical Scales, the, 102.\n\n\n    Barberini, Antonio, 132.\n      Cardinal, 35, 192, 199, 241, 242.\n      Maffeo, 44.\n      As Urban VIII., 108-113.\n\n    Bellarmine, Cardinal, 35, 61, 62, 77, 78.\n      His Certificate to Galileo, 88, 205, 219.\n\n    Boccabella, 191.\n\n    Bocchineri, Geri, Galileo\u2019s Letters to, 209, 212.\n      Letter to Niccolini, 218.\n\n    Bonciani, 55, 56.\n\n    Borgia, Caspar, 241, 242.\n\n    Boscaglia, 45.\n\n    Bruno Giordano, 216.\n\n\n    Caccini, 51-53, 57, 58, 73, 74, 202.\n\n    Campanella, Thomas, 133, 164, 171, 180.\n\n    Capra, Balthazar, 12, 17.\n\n    Castelli, 33, 43-46, 55, 132-134, 138, 185, 186, 210, 282, 296.\n\n    Cesi, Prince, 41, 52, 53, 62, 63, 114, 132, 136.\n      Death of, 138.\n\n    Cioli, 140, 141, 144, 169, 193, 194, 217.\n\n    Clavius, 22, 33, 35.\n\n    Colombo, Lodovico delle, 43.\n\n    Comets of 1618, 101.\n      Galileo\u2019s opinion on, 101.\n\n    Conti, Cardinal, 40.\n\n    Copernicus, 13.\n      His \u201cRevolutionibus Orbium C\u0153lestium,\u201d 14, 75.\n      Osiander\u2019s Introduction to, 15.\n\n    Copernican System, 12-14, 37, 40.\n      Refutations of, 270, 271.\n      Galileo\u2019s last Discussion of, 303.\n\n    Corressio, Giorgio, 43.\n\n    Cosmo II., de\u2019 Medici, 20, 21, 30, 93.\n      Death of, 105.\n\n    Cremonini, 36, 37.\n\n\n    Decree of 5th March, 1616, 84. Appendix, 345.\n\n    \u201cDe Motu Gravium,\u201d 9.\n\n    Dialogues on the Two Systems, 127-131.\n      Imprimatur for, 135-150, 156.\n      Introduction to, 147, 148.\n\n    Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze, 284, 297.\n\n    \u201cDianoja Astronomica,\u201d 39.\n\n    Dini, 59-64.\n\n    Diodati, Elia, Galileo\u2019s Letters to, 188, 276, 294.\n\n    Dominis, Marc\u2019 Antonio de, 216.\n\n\n    Ferdinand II., de\u2019 Medici, 145.\n      Letter to the Pope, 164, 165.\n      Good Offices for Galileo, 196-198.\n      Visits him at Arcetri, 273.\n      At Florence, 295.\n\n    Firenzuola, Maccolani da, 201, 217, 218, 248.\n      Letter to Card. Barberini, 213-215.\n\n    Foscarini on the Copernican System, 61, 63.\n\n\n    GALILEO GALILEI.\n      Birth at Pisa, 3.\n      Early years, 4.\n      Goes to University of Pisa, 5.\n      Studies Medicine, 5.\n      Discovery of Isochronism of Pendulum, 6.\n      First study of Mathematics, 7.\n      Professor at Pisa, 9.\n      Resigns, 11.\n      Professor at Padua, 11, 16, 19.\n      Writes Treatises, 11.\n      Inventions, 12.\n      Makes a Telescope, 17.\n      Exhibits it at Venice, 18.\n      Telescopic Discoveries, 19, 20.\n      Magini\u2019s attack, 22, 23.\n      Letter to Kepler, 26.\n      Galileo\u2019s Pupils, 27.\n      Letter to Vinta, 29.\n      Removal to Florence, 31.\n      First Visit to Rome, 35, 36.\n      First Notice by Inquisition, 36.\n      Treatise on Floating Bodies, 42.\n      Letter to Castelli, 46-50.\n      Denounced to Inquisition, 53.\n      Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70.\n      Visit to Rome in 1616, 70-75.\n      Admonished to renounce the Copernican System, 77.\n      Assumed special Prohibition to treat of it, 77-84.\n      Lingers at Rome, 91-97.\n      Goes to Bellosguardo, 98.\n      Work on Tides, 99, 100.\n      His opinion of Comets, 101.\n      Grassi\u2019s attack, 102.\n      \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d 106, 107, 111-113.\n      Visit to Rome in 1624, 114, 115.\n      Attempts to get Decree of 1616 repealed, 115-117.\n      Galileo\u2019s Children, 118.\n      Reply to Ingoli, 120.\n      Dialogues on Two Systems, 127-135.\n      Negotiations about the Imprimatur, 139-150.\n      Publication of the Dialogues, 151, 152.\n      Accusations, 157, 174.\n      Summons to Rome, 175.\n      Letter to Antonio Barberini, 178-180.\n      Threat to bring him in chains to Rome, 186.\n      Arrival at Rome, 191.\n      The Trial, 201-229.\n      Confession, 214-216.\n      Defence, 219, 220.\n      Sentence, 230-234.\n      Recantation, 243, 244.\n      Sent to Trinita de\u2019 Monti, 247.\n      Goes to Siena, 248.\n      Current Myths, 249-263.\n      His Eyes not put out, 250.\n      \u201cE pur si muove,\u201d 250, 251.\n      The Hair Shirt, 251.\n      Imprisonment, 252.\n      Torture Refuted, 253-263.\n      Life at Siena, 267-273.\n      Goes to Arcetri, 272, 273.\n      His daughters, 273.\n      Anonymous denunciation, 264.\n      Petition to go to Florence refused, 274, 275.\n      Death of his daughter, 275.\n      Letter to Diodati, 276.\n      His works translated into Latin, 280, 281.\n      Labours at Arcetri, 284, 285.\n      Method of taking Longitudes, 285, 286.\n      Becomes blind, 287.\n      Goes to Florence, 290.\n      Strict Surveillance, 290, 291.\n      Return to Arcetri, 298.\n      Last Years, 299-315.\n      Letter to Rinuccini, 304, 305.\n      Last illness and death, 307.\n      Persecutions after death, 308.\n      Private Funeral, 309.\n      Remains removed to Santa Croce, 310.\n      His Works on the Index till 1835, 315.\n\n    Galilei, Julia, 3.\n\n    Galilei, Vincenzo, 3, 4, 11.\n\n    Galilei, Vincenzo, son of Galileo, 191, 306.\n\n    Gherardi, Silvestro, 82, 83, 90.\n\n    Govi Gilberto, his work on Galileo, 246.\n\n    Grassi, 121, 122, 123.\n      His Lecture on Comets, 102.\n\n    Grazia, Vincenzo di, 43.\n\n    Gregory XV., 105.\n      Death of, 107.\n\n    Griemberger, 35, 59.\n\n    Guiccardini, 91, 92, 93, 95.\n\n    Guiducci, 121, 122.\n      His Treatise on Comets, 102.\n\n\n    Henry IV. of France, 20.\n\n\n    \u201cIl Saggiatore,\u201d 106, 107, 111, 113.\n\n    Ingoli on the Copernican System, 120.\n\n    Inquisition first notices Galileo, 36.\n\n\n    Jesuits, the, and Galileo, 153-155, 277.\n\n\n    Kepler, 13, 21, 23, 24, 120.\n\n    Kuppler, Jacob, 117.\n\n\n    \u201cLa Bilancetta,\u201d 8.\n\n    Landini, 157, 163, 166.\n\n    Lembo, 35.\n\n    Leopold of Austria, Archduke, 99, 101.\n\n    L\u2019Epinois, Henri de, 81. Appendix, 325, 326, 328.\n\n    Libri, Julius, 25.\n\n    Liceti, Fortunio, 301, 302.\n\n    Longitudes at Sea, method of taking, 285, 286, 292, 295, 301.\n\n    Lorini, 41, 53-55, 202.\n\n    \u201cLothario Sarsi Sigensano,\u201d 102.\n\n\n    Magalotti, Count, 152, 155, 157, 163, 169.\n\n    Magini, 22, 23.\n\n    Malcotio, 35.\n\n    Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome, 176.\n\n    Maraffi, 51, 52.\n\n    Marini Marino, 80, 81.\n\n    Marsili, 151.\n\n    Medicean Stars, 20.\n\n    Medici, Julian de\u2019, 24, 33.\n      John de\u2019, 10, 39.\n      Cosmo II. de\u2019, _see_ Cosmo.\n      Ferdinand II. de\u2019, _see_ Ferdinand.\n\n    Mellini, 55, 56.\n\n    Michael Angelo, 3.\n      The younger, 35, 181.\n\n    Microscope, the, 117, 118.\n\n    Monte, Cardinal del, 9, 11, 36, 96.\n\n    Myths about Galileo refuted, 249-263.\n\n\n    Newton 244, 311.\n\n    Niccolini, 136, 140, 142, 145, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199,\n        200, 209, 217, 218, 225, 248.\n      Intercession for Galileo, 166-168.\n      Attempts to avert the Trial, 175, 176, 182, 183.\n      Asks for Galileo\u2019s Pardon, 272.\n      Accusations against, 261, 262.\n\n    Noailles, Count de, 278, 282, 283.\n\n    Note of 25th February, 1616, 77.\n      Of 26th February, 1616, 78.\n\n\n    Olivieri Benedetto\u2019s work on Galileo, 246.\n\n    Opinion of the Holy Office on Galileo\u2019s Propositions, 76.\n\n    Orsini, 92, 99.\n\n    Osiander, Andreas, 15.\n\n\n    Padua, University of, 11, 16, 19.\n\n    Palmerini, 43.\n\n    Paul III., 15.\n\n    Paul V., 35, 94, 95, 104, 239.\n      Death of, 105.\n\n    Peiresc, Fabri de, 278.\n      Letter from Galileo to, 279.\n\n    Pendulum Clocks, 306.\n\n    Picchena, 72, 73, 74, 93, 94, 96.\n      Letter to, 86, 87.\n\n    Piccolomini, Ascanio, 248, 267, 268, 274.\n\n    Pieralisi, 161, 162, 213, 242.\n\n    Pisa, Experiments from Leaning Tower of, 10.\n      University of, 5.\n\n    Pius VII., 314.\n\n    Plan of Galileo\u2019s rooms in Palace of Inquisition, 209.\n\n    Prohibition, Special, to Treat of Copernican System, 78, 89, 90, 113.\n      Discovery of, 163, 171, 172.\n\n    Protocol of 3rd March, 1616, 82.\n\n\n    Querenghi, 71, 75.\n\n\n    Recantation, 243, 244.\n      Publication of, 268.\n      Letter ordering it, 269.\n\n    Riccardi, 117, 132, 135, 139, 143, 145, 146, 148, 157, 171, 172, 268.\n\n    Ricci, Ostilio, 7.\n\n    Ring of Saturn, 24.\n\n    Rinuccini\u2019s Inquiries of Galileo, 303.\n      Galileo\u2019s reply to, 304, 305.\n\n\n    \u201cSacro Arsenale,\u201d 255, 258.\n\n    Sarpi, Paolo, 32.\n\n    Sagredo, Francesco, 32.\n\n    Salviati, 44.\n\n    Scartazzini, Dr., 259-262.\n\n    Scheiner, 43.\n      His \u201cRosa Ursina,\u201d 158.\n\n    Sentence on Galileo, 230-234.\n      Analysis of, 234-242.\n\n    Serristori, 192.\n\n    Settele\u2019s Astronomy, 313.\n\n    \u201cSidereus Nuncius,\u201d 17, 21, 24.\n\n    \u201cSimplicius,\u201d did he personate Urban VIII.? 159-162.\n\n    Sincero, Carlo, 201.\n\n    Sizy, 39.\n\n    Solar Spots, 34.\n      Work on, 44, 58.\n\n    Special Commission on Galileo\u2019s cause, 164.\n      Its Memorial to the Pope, 172-174.\n\n    Stelluti\u2019s reply to Lothario Sarsi Sigensano, 106.\n\n    Stephani, 141, 142, 145.\n\n\n    Telescope, the, 16-25.\n      Inventor of, 18.\n\n    Thermoscope, the, 12.\n\n    Trial of Galileo, 201-229.\n\n    Torricelli, 306.\n\n    Torture, question of, 253-263.\n\n\n    Urban VIII., 107, 183, 225, 239, 248.\n      Character of, 108, 109.\n      Friendship for Galileo, 109-111.\n      Favours to him, 118, 119.\n      Change of tone, 159.\n\n\n    Vatican MS., History of, Appendix, 319.\n      Description of, 330.\n      Estimate of, 334.\n\n    Venice, Republic of, 31, 32.\n      Exhibition of Telescope at, 18.\n\n    Venus, Crescent form of, 32, 33.\n\n    Vinta, Belisario, 24, 34.\n\n    Viviani, 300, 310.\n\n\n    Wedderburn, 23.\n\n    Welser, 22, 43.\n\n    Wohlwill, Emil, 81, 88, 90, 257, 259.\n\n\n    Zacchia, Cardinal, 241, 242.\n\n    Zu\u00f1iga, Diego di, 41, 84, 312.\n\n\n\n\nRECENT BIOGRAPHIES.\n\n\n_2 Vols., large post 8vo, price 24s._\n\nNICCOLO MACHIAVELLI AND HIS TIMES.\n\nBy PROFESSOR VILLARI, Author of \u201cLife of Savonarola,\u201d etc.\n\n_TRANSLATED BY LINDA VILLARI._\n\n    \u201cThe whole work promises to be one of the most permanently\n    valuable contributions to the history of the Renaissance\n    in Italy, and English students may be congratulated on the\n    appearance of the translation by the hand of Madame Villari,\n    herself an English author.\u201d\u2014_Academy._\n\n    \u201cProfessor Villari prefaces his Life of Machiavelli with\n    an elaborate historical introduction.... As a sketch of\n    the Renaissance it is admirable. It is a masterpiece of\n    condensation; the arrangement of the mass of materials leaves\n    little to desire, and its style is singularly lucid.\u201d\u2014_Pall\n    Mall Gazette._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 14s._\n\nWILLIAM HARVEY:\n\n_A HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD._\n\nBy the late R. WILLIS, M.D., Author of \u201cServetus and Calvin.\u201d\n\nWITH PORTRAIT OF HARVEY, AFTER FAITHORNE.\n\n    \u201cHis (Dr. Willis\u2019s) book will doubtless find numerous\n    readers, and we trust that some at least may be led by it\n    to study the much praised and little read works of William\n    Harvey.\u201d\u2014_Saturday Review._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 16s._\n\nSERVETUS AND CALVIN:\n\n_A STUDY OF AN IMPORTANT EPOCH IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION._\n\nBy the late R. WILLIS, M.D.\n\n    \u201cDr. Willis has collected in this monograph a good store of\n    interesting matter which is not accessible to most readers\n    without considerable trouble, and has come so near making\n    it a good book that one would be glad to escape the duty of\n    criticism.\u201d\u2014_Pall Mall Gazette._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Second Edition, crown 8vo, price 8s. 6d._\n\nLIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES HINTON.\n\nEdited by ELLICE HOPKINS.\n\nWITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SIR W. W. GULL, BART.; AND PORTRAIT ENGRAVED ON\nSTEEL BY C. H. JEENS.\n\n    \u201c\u2018The Life of James Hinton,\u2019 the first aural surgeon of\n    his time, presents a striking study of character, and will\n    be instructive in its simpler outlines to readers who are\n    unable to follow the deeper and somewhat mystic course of\n    philosophical thought traced in his \u2018Letters.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Saturday\n    Review._\n\n    \u201cMiss Hopkins has executed a difficult task with great tact.\n    She shows a hearty appreciation of her subject, and her work is\n    well done.\u201d\u2014_Pall Mall Gazette._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nC. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.\n\n\n\n\nRECENT PUBLICATIONS.\n\n\n_2 vols., Second Edition, post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._\n\nTHE HISTORY OF CREATION.\n\nBy PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL.\n\n_TRANSLATION REVISED BY PROFESSOR E. RAY LANKESTER, M.A., F.R.S._\n\nWITH COLOURED PLATES AND GENEALOGICAL TREES OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF BOTH\nPLANTS AND ANIMALS.\n\n    \u201cThe Author has discharged a most difficult task with\n    conscientious skill and marvellous ability.\u201d\u2014_Science Gossip._\n\n    \u201cA rich mine of facts for all biological students.\u201d\u2014_Examiner._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_2 vols., large post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF MAN.\n\n_A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF HUMAN ONTOGENY AND\nPHYLOGENY._\n\nBy PROF. ERNST HAECKEL, Author of \u201cThe History of Creation,\u201d etc.\n\nWITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Crown 8vo, cloth._\n\nFREEDOM IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING.\n\n_A REPLY TO PROFESSOR VIRCHOW ON THE FREEDOM OF SCIENCE IN THE MODERN\nSTATE._\n\nBy PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL.\n\nAuthorised Translation, with Introduction by Professor HUXLEY, F.R.S.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Square 8vo, cloth, price 15s._\n\nMANUAL OF THE GEOLOGY OF IRELAND.\n\nBy G. HENRY KINAHAN, M.R.I.A., Etc., of Her Majesty\u2019s Geological Survey.\n\n_With 8 Plates, 26 Woodcuts, and a Map of Ireland, Geologically Coloured._\n\n    \u201cHis volume is, unquestionably, a distinct gain to our\n    geological literature\u2014the work of a man who possesses great\n    knowledge of his subject, and is capable of imparting his\n    knowledge with clearness and force.\u201d\u2014_Academy._\n\n    \u201cWhether considered upon its scientific or upon its literary\n    merits, the work must be pronounced admirably done.\u201d\u2014_Land and\n    Water._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._\n\nFLOWERS AND THEIR UNBIDDEN GUESTS.\n\nBy DR. A. KERNER, Prof. of Botany in the University of Innsbruck.\n\n_TRANSLATION EDITED BY W. OGLE, M.D._\n\nAnd a Prefatory Letter by CHARLES DARWIN, F.R.S.\n\nWITH ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n    \u201cIn the description accompanying the admirable plates at the\n    end of his book, Dr. Kerner explains succinctly and clearly\n    the contrivances of nature in the instances named, and in\n    innumerable others scarcely less marked or interesting, for\n    compassing an end so essential to the perpetuation of vegetable\n    life.\u201d\u2014_Saturday Review._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._\n\nETNA: A HISTORY OF THE MOUNTAIN AND ITS ERUPTIONS.\n\nBy G. F. RODWELL, F.R.A.S., F.C.S.\n\nWITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n    \u201cMr. Rodwell\u2019s \u2018Etna\u2019 is a pleasantly written and well\n    illustrated volume, sufficiently technical to be useful to the\n    scientific student, yet for the most part sufficiently popular\n    to be read with relish by the most unscientific.\u201d\u2014_Academy._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nC. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.","title":"Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia: From Authentic Sources","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":127709}