Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia Karl von Gebler 997 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galileo Galilei and the Roman
Curia
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia

Author: Karl von Gebler

Translator: Mrs. G. Sturge

Release date: September 1, 2019 [eBook #60215]
Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60215

Credits: Produced by ellinora and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO
GALILEI AND THE ROMAN CURIA ***

GALILEO GALILEI.

2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 32s.

T
HE RENAISSANCE OF ART IN FRANCE. By Mrs.
Mark Pattison. With Nineteen Steel Engravings.
2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 24s.

T HE CIVILIZATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE
RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. By Jacob Burckhardt.
Authorized Translation by S. G. C. Middlemore.
“The whole of the first part of Dr Burckhardt’s work deals with what may be
called the Political Preparation for the Renaissance. It is impossible here to do
more than express a high opinion of the compact way in which the facts are put
before the reader.... The second volume of Dr. Burckhardt’s work is, we think,
more full and complete in itself, more rich in original thought, than the first. His
account of the causes which prevented the rise of a great Italian drama is very clear
and satisfying.”—Saturday Review.

LONDON: C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER
SQUARE.

GALILEO GALILEI
AND THE ROMAN CURIA.

FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
BY
KARL VON GEBLER.

TRANSLATED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY
MRS. GEORGE STURGE.

LONDON:
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1879.

LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR.
Madam,—
It is the desire of every author, every prosecutor of research, that the
products of his labours, the results of his studies, should be widely
circulated. This desire arises, especially in the case of one who has devoted
himself to research, not only from a certain egotism which clings to us all,
but from the wish that the laborious researches of years, often believed to
refute old and generally-received errors, should become the common
property of as many as possible.
The author of the present work is no exception to these general rules; and
it therefore gives him great pleasure, and fills him with gratitude, that you,
Madam, should have taken the trouble to translate the small results of his
studies into the language of Newton, and thus have rendered them more
accessible to the English nation.
But little more than two years have elapsed since the book first appeared
in Germany, but this period has been a most important one for researches
into the literature relating to Galileo.
In the year 1869 Professor Domenico Berti obtained permission to
inspect and turn to account the Acts of Galileo’s Trial carefully preserved in
the Vatican, and in 1876 he published a portion of these important
documents, which essentially tended to complete the very partial
publication of them by Henri de L’Epinois, in 1867. In 1877 M. de
L’Epinois and the present writer were permitted to resuscitate the famous
volume, which again lay buried among the secret papal archives; that is, to
inspect it at leisure and to publish the contents in full. It was, however, not
only of the greatest importance to become acquainted with the Vatican MS.
as a whole, and by an exact publication of it to make it the common
property of historical research; it was at least of equal moment to make a
most careful examination of the material form and external appearance of
the Acts. For the threefold system of paging had led some historians to
make the boldest conjectures, and respecting one document in particular,—

the famous note of 26th February, 1616,—there was an apparently well-
founded suspicion that there had been a later falsification of the papers.
While, on the one hand, the knowledge gained of the entire contents of
the Vatican MS., for the purpose of my own publication of it,[1] only
confirmed, in many respects, my previous opinions on the memorable trial;
on the other hand, a minute and repeated examination of the material
evidence afforded by the suspicious document, which, up to that time, had
been considered by myself and many other authors to be a forgery of a later
date, convinced me, contrary to all expectation, that it indisputably
originated in 1616.
This newly acquired experience, and the appearance of many valuable
critical writings on the trial of Galileo since the year 1876, rendered
therefore a partial revision and correction of the German edition of this
work, for the English and an Italian translation, absolutely necessary. All
the needful emendations have accordingly been made, with constant
reference to the literature relating to the subject published between the
spring of 1876 and the spring of 1878. I have also consulted several older
works which had escaped my attention when the book was first written.
May the work then, in its to some extent new form, make its way in the
British Isles, and meet with as friendly a reception there as the German
edition has met with in Austria and Germany.
To you, Madam, I offer my warm thanks for the care with which you
have executed the difficult and laborious task of translation.
Accept, Madam, the assurance of my sincere esteem.
KARL VON GEBLER.[2]
Meran, 1st April, 1878.

NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
The Vatican Manuscript alluded to in the foregoing letter, and constantly
referred to in the text, was published by the author in the autumn of 1877,
under the title of “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der
Vaticanischen Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard. This,
with some introductory chapters, was intended to supersede the Appendix to
the original work, and to form a second volume, when a new German
edition should be called for. It did not, however, appear to me that any
purpose would be served by reprinting all the Latin and Italian documents
of the Vatican MS. in this country, as students who wish to consult them can
easily procure them as published in the original languages in Germany, and
I hope for a wider circle of readers than that composed exclusively of
students. I therefore proposed to Herr von Gebler to give the History,
Description, and Estimate of the Vat. MS., etc., in an Appendix, together
with a few of the more important documents; to this, with some
suggestions, as for instance, that some of the shorter documents should be
given as notes to the text, he fully agreed, with the remark that I must know
best what would suit my countrymen. The Appendix, therefore, differs
somewhat both from the original Appendix and from the introductory
portions of the new volume, for these also were revised for the Translation.
The translations from Latin and Italian documents have been made from
the originals by a competent scholar, and all the more important letters and
extracts from letters of Galileo have been compared with the Italian. The
Table of Contents, headings to and titles of the chapters, and Index, none of
which exist in the original, have been added by myself.
JANE STURGE.
Sydenham, November, 1878.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
Abridged from the “Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung” of 6th December,
1878.
The author of this work died at Gratz on the 7th of September, 1878. In
devoting a few lines to his memory we have not a long and distinguished
career to describe, for a brief span of life was all that was granted him, but
to the last moment he sought to turn it to the best account.
The present work has enjoyed a wide circulation in Germany, but few of
its readers could have known anything of the author but his name. The
protracted studies which form the basis of it, the skilful handling of
documentary material which seemed to betray the practised historian, must
have suggested a man of ripe years, whose life had been passed in study, as
the author; no one certainly would have sought him among the young
officers of a cavalry regiment, whose tastes generally lie in any direction
rather than that of historical research.
Karl von Gebler was the son of Field-marshal Wilhelm von Gebler, and
was born at Vienna in 1850. Although early destined for the military career,
he laid the foundations of a superior education in the grammar schools.
Having passed through the gymnasium, in 1869 he joined the 7th regiment
of the line as a private, and before long attained the rank of lieutenant in the
4th regiment of Dragoons. Being an excellent draftsman and skilled in
military surveying, he was often employed on the general’s staff in drawing
maps. In addition to his extensive knowledge of military affairs, he had
many of the accomplishments befitting his calling; he was an excellent shot
and a bold rider. But the duties of a cavalry officer were soon too limited for
his active mind and intellectual tastes, and he sought also to win his spurs
on the fields of literature. He occupied his leisure in translating the work of
a French staff officer, “Success in War,” to which he made some additions.
He also published “The True Portrait of a Royal Hero of the 18th Century,”
in a newspaper; and finally, “Historic Sayings.”
A night ride, undertaken in the performance of his official duties, from
which he returned at daybreak to exercise at the riding school, brought on

severe hemorrhage and inflammation of the lungs. The two physicians who
attended him gave him up; in a consultation at his bedside, prudently held
in Latin, they gave him twenty-four hours to live. One of them having taken
leave, the other returned to the patient, who, with quiet humour, greeted him
with the classic words, “Morituri te salutant!” The worthy doctor found, to
his horror, that the patient had understood all that had passed, and had no
easy task to persuade him that his case was not so bad after all. He had,
however, in consequence of some local circumstances, already ordered the
coffin.
Gebler’s constitution surmounted the danger; by the spring he was able to
join his parents at Gratz. But his health had sustained so severe a shock that
he was compelled to abandon the military career. His parents removed to
Gries, near Botzen, for the sake of a milder climate on his account. Here he
revived wonderfully; he seemed to have taken a new lease of life, and
devoted himself altogether to literary pursuits. The critical studies before
mentioned of the assumed historic sayings of great men, and among them of
Galileo’s famous dictum, “E pur si muove,” brought him into closer
acquaintance with this hero of science. He accumulated so large a material
for a biographical sketch of the great Italian, that the limits of an essay
seemed too narrow, and he resolved to undertake a more comprehensive
work on the subject, which he thought would fill up a gap in German
literature. In the autumn of 1875 the work, which had occupied him four
years, was completed. It was not a little gratifying to the young author that
one of the first publishers in Germany, Cotta, of Stuttgard, undertook the
publication on very favourable terms, and brought it out in 1876. It met
with great approval, and brought him into association with many eminent
literary men in Italy and Germany. Galileo’s own country was foremost in
recognition of his services. The academies of Padua and Pisa, and the
Accadémia dei Lincei sent him special acknowledgments, and King Victor
Emmanuel rewarded him with the order of the Crown of Italy.
Before this work was finished he had removed with his father, having in
the meanwhile lost his mother, to Meran, and during the first year of his
residence there his health improved so much that he was able to take part in
social life, and to enlarge the sphere of his labours and influence. Society in
this little town owed much in many ways to the intellectual and amiable
young officer. Whenever a good and noble cause required support, his co-

operation might be reckoned on. In common with many other lovers of art
and antiquity, he took a lively interest in the preservation and restoration of
the Maultasch-Burg, which promises to be one of the chief sights of Meran.
Unhappily he did not live to see the completion of the work.
With increase of health his zest for work increased also, and he addressed
himself to a great historical task. The subject he selected was the Maid of
Orleans. The preliminary studies were difficult in a place destitute of all
aids to learning. His researches were not confined to the collection of all the
printed material; in 1876 he had planned to search out the documentary
sources wherever they were to be found, but before this he made close
studies in the field of psychology and mental pathology. The work of Ruf
on the subject, the learned chaplain of a lunatic asylum, attracted his
attention, and he entered into communication with the author. Ruf’s great
experience and philosophical acquirements were of great service to Gebler
in his preliminary studies on Joan of Arc. But the project was not to be
carried out. Just as he was about to write the second chapter, an essay of
Berti’s at Rome occasioned him to enter on fresh studies on Galileo.
Domenico Berti, who had examined the original Acts of Galileo’s trial,
though, as his work shows, very superficially, spoke contemptuously of the
German savans, comparing them with blind men judging of colours, as
none of them had seen the original Acts in the Vatican. This had special
reference to the document of 26th February, 1616, which the German
writers on the subject, and Gebler among them, declared to be a forgery.
Being a man of the strictest love of truth, this reproach induced him, in spite
of his health, which had again failed, in May, 1877, to go to Rome, where
he obtained access to the Vatican. For ten weeks, in spite of the oppressive
heat, he daily spent fourteen hours in the Papal Archives, studying and
copying with diplomatic precision the original Acts of Galileo’s trial. As the
result of his labours, he felt constrained to declare the document in question
to be genuine. Actuated only by the desire that truth should prevail, in the
second part of his work, written at Rome, he without hesitation withdrew
the opinion he had previously advocated as an error.
His first work had made a flattering commotion in the literary world, but
the additional publication called forth a still more animated discussion of
the whole question, which the readers of this journal will not have

forgotten. Gebler took part in it himself, and, then suffering from illness,
wrote his reply from a sick bed.
His sojourn in Rome had sadly pulled him down. On his return home, in
July, 1877, he had lost his voice and was greatly reduced. But in October of
the same year he once more roused himself for a journey to Italy. The object
of the previous one was to follow his hero in yellow and faded historic
papers, but this time the task he had set himself was to pursue the tracks of
Galileo in all the cities and places in any way connected with his memory.
The result of these travels was an article in the Deutsche Rundschau, No. 7,
1878, “On the Tracks of Galileo.” In this paper Gebler again dispels some
clouds in which Galileo’s previous biographers had enveloped him. We in
these less romantic days are quite willing to dispense with the shudder at
the stories of the dungeon, etc., and are glad to know that Galileo was
permitted to enjoy a degree of comfort during his detention not often
granted to those who come into collision with the world.
“On the Tracks of Galileo” was Gebler’s last literary work. His strength
of will and mental powers at length succumbed to his incurable malady. The
mineral waters of Gleichenberg, which he had been recommended to try,
did him more harm than good. He wrote thence to a friend, “I am in a
pitiable condition, and have given up all hope of improvement.”
Unfortunately he was right. He had overtasked his strength. His zeal for
science had hastened his end, and he may well be called one of her victims.
His last days were spent at Gratz, where his boyhood had been passed,
and he rests beside his only brother. Both were the pride and joy of their
father, now left alone.
In appearance Karl von Gebler was distinguished and attractive looking.
No one could escape the charm of the freshness and originality of his mind,
in spite of constant ill health. The refined young student, with the manners
of a man of the world, was a phenomenon to his fellow-workers in the
learned world. We have heard some of them say that they could not
understand how Gebler could have acquired the historian’s craft, the
technical art of prosecuting research, without having had any special critical
schooling.
The writer of these lines will never forget the hours spent with this
amiable and, in spite of his success, truly modest young man in his snug

study. The walls lined with books, or adorned with weapons, betrayed at a
glance the character and tastes of the occupant, while a pendulum clock
dating from the time of Galileo recalled his work on the first observer of the
vibrations of the pendulum to mind. He always liked to wind up the
venerable timepiece himself, and took a pleasure in its sonorous tones.
When I once more entered the study after his death, the clock had run
down, the pendulum had ceased to vibrate, it told the hour no more.

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.
While Italy and France possess an ample literature relating to Galileo, his
oft-discussed fate and memorable achievements, very little has been written
in Germany on this hero of science; and it would almost seem as if
Copernicus and Kepler had cast the founder of mechanical physics into the
shade. German literature does not possess one exhaustive work on Galileo.
This is a great want, and to supply it would be a magnificent and
thankworthy enterprise. It could only, however, be carried out by a
comprehensive biography of the famous astronomer, which, together with a
complete narrative of his life, should comprise a detailed description and
estimate of his writings, inventions, and discoveries. We do not feel
ourselves either called upon or competent to undertake so difficult a task.
Our desire has been merely to fill up a portion of the gap in German
literature by this contribution to the Life of Galileo, with a hope that it may
be an incentive to some man of learning, whose studies qualify him for the
task, to give our nation a complete description of the life and works of this
great pioneer of the ideas of Copernicus.
We have also set ourselves another task; namely, to throw as much light
as possible, by means of authentic documents, on the attitude Galileo
assumed towards the Roman curia, and the history of the persecutions
which resulted from it. To this end, however, it appeared absolutely
necessary to give, at any rate in broad outline, a sketch of his aims and
achievements as a whole. For his conflict with the ecclesiastical power was
but the inevitable consequence of his subversive telescopic discoveries and
scientific reforms. It was necessary to make the intimate connection
between these causes and their historical results perfectly intelligible.
In the narration of historical events we have relied, as far as possible,
upon authentic sources only. Among these are the following:—
1. Galileo’s correspondence, and the correspondence relating to him
between third persons. (Albèri’s “Opere di Galileo Galilei.” Vols. ii., iii., vi.,
vii., viii., ix., x., xv., and Suppl., in all 1,564 letters.)

2. The constant reports of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, to
his Government at Florence, during and after Galileo’s trial. (Thirty-one
despatches, from August 15th, 1632, to December 3rd, 1633.)
3. The Acts of the Trial, from the MS. originals in the Vatican.
4. The collection of documents published, in 1870, by Professor Silvestro
Gherardi. Thirty-two extracts from the original protocols of the sittings and
decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office.[3]
5. Some important documents published by the Jesuit Father Riccioli, in
his “Almagestum novum, Bononiæ, 1651.”[4]
We have also been careful to acquaint ourselves with the numerous
French and Italian Lives of Galileo, from the oldest, that of his
contemporary, Gherardini, to the most recent and complete, that of Henri
Martin, 1869; when admissible, we have cautiously used them, constantly
comparing them with authentic sources. As the part of the story of Galileo
of which we have treated is that which has been most frequently discussed
in literature, and from the most widely differing points of view, it could not
fail to be of great interest to us to collect and examine, as far as it lay in our
power, the views, opinions, and criticisms to be found in various treatises
on the subject. We offer our warm thanks to all the possessors of private,
and custodians of public libraries, who have most liberally and obligingly
aided us in our project.
One more remark remains to be made. Party interests and passions have,
to a great extent, and with but few exceptions, guided the pens of those who
have written on this chapter of Galileo’s life. The one side has lauded him
as an admirable martyr of science, and ascribed more cruelty to the
Inquisition than it really inflicted on him; the other has thought proper to
enter the lists as defender of the Inquisition, and to wash it white at
Galileo’s expense. Historical truth contradicts both.
Whatever may be the judgment passed on the present work, to one
acknowledgment we think we may, with a good conscience, lay claim: that,
standing in the service of truth alone, we have anxiously endeavoured to
pursue none other than her sublime interests.
KARL VON GEBLER.
Meran, November, 1875.

CONTENTS.
PAGE

PART I.
GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES,
AND FIRST CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN CURIA.

CHAPTER I.
Early Years and First Discoveries.
Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on Music.—
Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the Convent
of Vallombrosa.—Begins to study Medicine.—Goes to the
University of Pisa.—Discovery of the Synchronism of the
Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic
Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of
Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at
Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter
to Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus
orbium Cœlestium” 3

CHAPTER II.
The Telescope and its Revelations.
Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New
Star.—The Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to
Venice to exhibit it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s
Moons.—Request of Henry IV.—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The
Storm it raised.—Magini’s attack on Galileo.—The Ring of
Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition of the Aristotelian School.
—Letter to Kepler 16

CHAPTER III.
Removal To Florence.
Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic
Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This
change the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—
Phases of Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to
Rome.—Triumphant Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del
Monte to Cosmo II.—The Inquisition.—Introduction of
Theology into the Scientific Controversy.—“Dianoja
Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence 27

CHAPTER IV.
Astronomy and Theology.
Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about the
Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s Work on the
subject at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess
Christine.—The Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated
Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini
denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop
Bonciani’s attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of
the Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—
Absurd accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in
Galileo’s favour 42

CHAPTER V.
Hopes and Fears.
Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s
Work.—Blindness of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the
Grand Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to
Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.—
Caccini begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican System
at Rome.—His mistake in so doing 59

CHAPTER VI.
The Inquisition and the Copernican System, and the Assumed
Prohibition to Galileo.
Adverse “Opinion” of the Inquisition on Galileo’s Propositions.—
Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute Prohibition
to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.—Discrepancy between
Notes of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s Documents.—
Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts the
Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s
Documents.—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican
System.—Attitude of the Church.—Was the Absolute
Prohibition ever issued to Galileo?—Testimony of Bellarmine
in his favour.—Conclusions 76

CHAPTER VII.
Evil Report and Good Report.
Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect his Recall.
—Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the Decree repealed.
—Intrigues against him.—Audience of Pope Paul V.—His
friendly assurances.—His Character.—Galileo’s return to
Florence 91

CHAPTER VIII.
The Controversy on Comets.
Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work of
Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke
Leopold of Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The
three Comets of 1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—
Grassi’s Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s Treatise on them,
inspired by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical and
Philosophical Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His Death.
—Death of Cosmo II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore”
finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” on it.—Death of Gregory XV.
—Urban VIII. 98

CHAPTER IX.
Maffeo Barberini as Urban VIII.
His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when
Cardinal.—Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication
of “Il Saggiatore” with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of
the Work.—The Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the
assumed Prohibition 108

CHAPTER X.
Papal Favour.
Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his Accession.
—Favourable reception.—Scientific discussions with the Pope.
—Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th March.—Nicolo
Riccardi.—The Microscope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—
Urban’s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.—Galileo’s reply
to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s hypocrisy.—Spinola’s
harangue against the Copernican System.—Lothario Sarsi’s
reply to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his “Dialogues” 114

PART II.
PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO
PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND
CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.

CHAPTER I.
The “Dialogues” on the Two Systems.
Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their popular style.—Significance of
the name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the
Copernican System.—Attitude of Rome towards Science.—
Thomas Campanella.—Urban VIII.’s duplicity.—Galileo takes
his MS. to Rome.—Riccardi’s corrections.—He gives the
Imprimatur on certain conditions.—Galileo returns to Florence
to complete the Work 127

CHAPTER II.
The Imprimatur for the “Dialogues.”
Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei Lincei.—
Galileo advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and delays.
—His impatience.—Authorship of the Introduction.—The
Imprimatur granted for Florence.—Absurd accusation from the
style of the Type of the Introduction 138

CHAPTER III.
The “Dialogues” and the Jesuits.
Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s friends and
the learned world.—The hostile party.—The Jesuits as leaders
of learning.—Deprived of their monopoly by Galileo.—They
become his bitter foes.—Having the Imprimatur for Rome and
Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly safe.—The three
dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did “Simplicius” personate the Pope?
—Conclusive arguments against it.—Effect of the accusation.
—Urban’s motives in instituting the Trial 151

CHAPTER IV.
Discovery of the Absolute Prohibition of 1616.
Symptoms of the coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—
Parade of forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for
Galileo.—Provisional Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—
Niccolini’s Interview with the Pope and unfavourable
reception.—Report of it to Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—Real
object of the Special Commission to find a pretext for the Trial.
—Its discovery in the assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report of
the Commission, and charges against Galileo 163

CHAPTER V.
The Summons to Rome.

Niccolini’s attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s Parable.—The
Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His grief and
consternation.—His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed
order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s fruitless efforts to save
him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to travel.—
Castelli’s hopeful view of the case.—Threat to bring him to
Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to go.—
His powerlessness to protect his servant.—Galileo’s mistake in
leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati 175

CHAPTER VI.
Galileo’s Arrival at Rome.
Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan
Embassy.—No notice at first taken of his coming.—Visits of
Serristori.—Galileo’s hopefulness.—His Letter to Bocchineri.
—Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the Grand
Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that he must
appear before the Holy Office.—His dejection at the news.—
Niccolini’s advice not to defend himself 191

CHAPTER VII.
The Trial before the Inquisition.
The first hearing.—Galileo’s submissive attitude.—The events of
February, 1616.—Galileo denies knowledge of a special
Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s certificate.—Either the
Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s ignorance was feigned.
—His conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The
Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—“Opinions” of Oregius,
Inchofer and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the
Palace of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter
to Geri Bocchineri.—Change of tone at second hearing hitherto
an enigma.—Now explained by letter from Firenzuola to
Cardinal Fr. Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness
and Subserviency 201

CHAPTER VIII.
The Trial Continued.
Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His hopefulness.—Third
hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement of it with
previous events.—Confident hopes of his friends.—Niccolini’s
fears.—Decision to examine Galileo under threat of Torture.—
Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Informed that the Trial was
over, that Galileo would soon be Sentenced, and would be
Imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to “locum
suum.”—No evidence that he suffered Torture, or was placed in
a prison cell 217

CHAPTER IX.
The Sentence and Recantation.
The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican System had
not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible” authority.—The
special Prohibition assumed as fact.—The Sentence illegal
according to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office exceeded its
powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—The Sentence not
unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred and thirty-
one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to show that
Galileo had really altered his opinion.—After the Sentence,
Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’ Monti.
—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to Siena 230

CHAPTER X.
Current Myths.
Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si 249
Muove.”—The Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only
detained twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—
Refuted in 18th Century.—Torture based on the words “examen
rigorosum.”—This shown to be untenable.—Assertion that the
Acts have been falsified refuted.—False Imputation on

Niccolini.—Conclusive Evidence against Torture.—Galileo not
truly a “Martyr of Science”

PART III.
GALILEO’S LAST YEARS.

CHAPTER I.
Galileo at Siena and Arcetri.
Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany to ask for
his release.—Postponed on the advice of Niccolini.—
Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican System.—
Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors of Italy.—
Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate against the
publication of any new Work of Galileo’s, or new Edition.—
Curious Arguments in favour of the old System.—Niccolini
asks for Galileo’s release.—Refusal, but permission given to go
to Arcetri.—Anonymous accusations.—Death of his Daughter.
—Request for permission to go to Florence.—Harsh refusal
and threat.—Letter to Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention
of the Count de Noailles on Galileo’s behalf.—Prediction that
he will be compared to Socrates.—Letter to Peiresc.—
Publication of Galileo’s Works in Holland.—Continued efforts
of Noailles.—Urban’s fair speeches 267

CHAPTER II.
Failing Health and Loss of Sight.
Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle 284
nuove Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method
of taking Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered to
Holland.—Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the
Moon.—Visit from Milton.—Becomes blind.—Letter to
Diodati.—On a hint from Castelli, petitions for his Liberty.—
The Inquisitor to visit him and report to Rome.—Permitted to
live at Florence under restrictions.—The States-General
appoint a Delegate to see him on the Longitude question.—The

Inquisitor sends word of it to Rome.—Galileo not to receive a
Heretic.—Presents from the States-General refused from fear
of Rome.—Letter to Diodati.—Galileo supposed to be near his
end.—Request that Castelli might come to him.—Permitted
under restrictions.—The new “Dialoghi” appear at Leyden,
1638.—They founded Mechanical Physics.—Attract much
notice.—Improvement of health.—In 1639 goes to Arcetri
again, probably not voluntarily

CHAPTER III.
Last Years and Death.
Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious Resignation.
—Continues his scientific Researches.—His pupil Viviani.—
Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations about Longitudes.—
Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with him.—Last
discussion of the Copernican System in reply to Rinuccini.—
Sketch of its contents.—Pendulum Clocks.—Priority of the
discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from Castelli.—Torricelli
joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his Deathbed.—Death,
8th Jan., 1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian Burial.—
Monument objected to by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. fears to
offend him.—Buried quietly.—No Inscription till thirty-two
years later.—First Public Monument erected by Viviani in
1693.—Viviani directs his heirs to erect one in Santa Croce.—
Erected in 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican
System.—In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the clause in Decree
forbidding books which teach the new System to be expunged.
—In 1820 permission given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s
work and others not expunged from the Index till 1835 299

APPENDIX.
I. History of the Vatican Manuscript 319
II. Description of the Vatican Manuscript 330
III. Estimate of the Vatican Manuscript 334
IV. Gherardi’s Collection of Documents 341

V. Decree of 5th March, 1616 345
VI. Remarks on the Sentence and Recantation 347

WORKS CONSULTED.[5]
Albèri (Eugenio): “Le opere di Galileo Galilei.” Prima edizione completa
condotta sugli autentici manoscritti Palatini. Firenze, 1842-1856.
*“Sul Processo di Galileo. Due Lettere in risposta al giornale
S’opinione.” Firenze, 1864.
Anonym: “Der heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei und das astronomische
System des Copernicus.” Historisch-politische Blätter für das
katholische Deutschland; herausgegeben von G. Phillips und G.
Görres. Siebenter Band. München, 1841.
“Galileo Galilei. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung für die
Entwickelung der Naturwissenschaft.” Die Fortschritte der
Naturwissenschaft in biographischen Bildern. Drittes Heft. Berlin,
1856.
“Galileo Galilei.” Die Grenzboten. XXIV. Jahrgang. I. Semester.
Nr. 24. 1865.
*Arduini (Carlo): “La Primogenita di Galileo Galilei rivelata dalle sue
lettere.” Florence, 1864.
Barbier (Antoine Alexandre): “Examen critique et complément des
dictionnaires historiques les plus répandus.” Paris, 1820. Article
Galilée.
*Berti (Prof. Domenico): “La venuta di Galileo Galilei a Padova. Studii.
Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, dal
Novembre 1870 all’ ottobre 1871.” Tomo decimosesto, seria terza,
dispensa quinta, ottava, nono e decima. Venezia, 1870, 1871.
*“Copernico e le vicende del Sistema Copernicano in Italia nella
seconda metà del secolo XVI. e nella prima del secolo XVII.”
Roma, 1876.
“Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei, pubblicato per la prima
volta.” Roma, 1876.

“La Critica moderna e il Processo contro Galileo Galilei.” (Nuova
Antologia, Gennajo, 1877 Firenze.)
Bouix (L’Abbé): “La condamnation de Galilée. Lapsus des écrivains, qui
l’opposent à la doctrine de l’infaillibilité du Pape.”—Revue des
Sciences ecclésiastiques. Arras-Paris, février et mars, 1866.
Cantor (Professor Dr. Moritz): “Galileo Galilei.” Zeitschrift für
Mathematik und Physik. 9. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. Leipzig, 1864.
“Recensionen über die 1870 erschienenen Schriften Wohlwill’s
und Gherardi’s über den Galilei’schen Process.” Zeitschrift für
Mathematik und Physik. 16. Jahrgang. 1. Heft. 1871.
Caspar (Dr. R.): “Galileo Galilei. Zusammenstellung der Forschungen und
Entdeckungen Galilei’s auf dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft, als
Beitrag zur Geschichte der neueren Physik.” Stuttgart, 1854.
Chasles (Prof. Philarète): “Galileo Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses
contemporains d’après les documents originaux.” Paris, 1862.
*Combes (Louis): “Galilée et L’Inquisition Romaine.” Paris, 1876.
Delambre (Jean Baptiste Joseph): “Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne.”
Paris, 1821.
Eckert (Professor Dr.): “Galileo Galilei, dessen Leben und Verdienste um
die Wissenschaften.” Als Einladung zur Promotionsfeier des
Pädagogiums. Basel, 1858.
Epinois (Henri de L’): “Galilée, son procès, sa condamnation d’après des
documents inédits.” Extrait de la Revue des questions historiques.
Paris, 1867.
*“Les Pièces du Procès de Galilée, précédées d’un avant-propos.”
Rome, Paris, 1877 v. Palmé société Générale de Librairie
Catholique.
*“La Question de Galilée, les faits et leurs conséquences.” Paris
Palmé, 1878.
Figuier (Louis): “Galilée.” Vies des savants illustres du dix-septième siècle.
Paris, 1869.

Friedlein (Rector): “Zum Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.”
Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik. 17. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. 1872.
Gherardi (Prof. Silvestro): “Il Processo Galileo riveduto sopra documenti
di nuova fonte.” Rivista Europea. Anno 1. Vol. III. Firenze, 1870.[6]
“Sulla Dissertazione del dott. Emilio Wohlwill. Il processo di
Galileo Galilei.” Estratto della Rivista Europea. Firenze, 1872.
*Gilbert (Prof. Ph.): “Le Procès de Galilée d’après les Documents
contemporains.” Extrait de la Revue Catholique tomes I., II.
Louvains, 1869.
Govi (Gilberto): “Intorno a certi manuscritti apocrifi di Galileo.” Torino,
1869. Estr. dagli Atti della Accadémia delle Scienze di Torino Vol.
V. Adunanza del 21 Nov. 1869.
“Intorno a tre lettere di Galileo Galilei tratte dall’ archivio dei
Gonzaga.” Bollettino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze
matematiche e fisiche pubblicato da B. Boncompagni. Tomo III.
Roma, 1870.
Govi (Gilberto): “Il S. Offizio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un
opuscolo postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento.” Torino,
1872.
*Grisar (Prof. H. S. J.): “Der Galilei’sche Process auf der neuesten
Actenpublicationen historisch und juristisch geprüft.” Zeitschrift für
Kath. Theol. II. Jahrgang, pp. 65-128. Innsbruck.
Jagemann: “Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Galileo Galilei.”
Neue Auflage. Leipzig, 1787.
Libri: “Galileo Galilei, sein Leben und seine Werke.” Aus dem
Französischen mit Anmerkungen von F. W. Carové. Siegen und
Wiesbaden, 1842.
Marini (Mgr. Marino): “Galileo e l’inquisizione.” Memorie storico-critiche.
Roma, 1850.
Martin (Henri Th.): “Galilée, les droits de la science et la méthode des
sciences physiques.” Paris, 1868.

Nelli (Gio. Batista Clemente de): “Vita e commercio letterario di Galileo
Galilei.” Losanna (Firenze), 1793.
Olivieri (P. Maurizio-Benedetto Ex. generale dei domenicani e
Commissario della S. Rom. ed Univer. Inquisizione): “Di Copernico
e di Galileo scritto postumo ora per la prima volta messo in luce
sull’ autografo per cura d’un religioso dello stesso istituto.”
Bologna, 1872.
Parchappe (Dr. Max): “Galilée, sa vie, ses découvertes et ses travaux.”
Paris, 1866.
*Pieralisi (Sante, Sacerdote e Bibliotecario della Barberiniana): “Urbano
VIII. e Galileo Galilei: Memorie Storiche.” Roma, 1875. Tipografia
poliglotta della L. P. di Propaganda Fide.
*“Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. Galileo Galilei proposte dall’
autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazione sopra il processo originale di
Galileo Galilei pubblicato da Domenico Berti.” Settembre, 1876.
Reitlinger (Prof. Edmund): “Galileo Galilei.” Freie Blicke.
Populärwissenschaftliche Aufsätze. Berlin, 1875.
Reumont (Alfred von): “Galilei und Rom.” Beiträge zur italienischen
Geschichte. 1 Bd. Berlin, 1853.
Reusch (Professor Dr. F. H.): “Der Galilei’sche Procesz.” Ein Vortrag.
Historische Zeitschrift; herausgegeben von Prof. Heinrich von
Sybel. 17. Jahrgang. 1875. 3. Heft.
Rezzi (M. Domenica): “Sulla invenzione del microscopio, giuntavi una
notizia delle Considerazioni al Tasso attribuite a Galileo Galilei.”
Roma, 1852.
*Riccardi (Prof. Cav. Pietro): “Di alcune recenti memorie sul processo e
sulla condanna del Galilei. Nota e Documenti aggiunti alla
bibliografia Galileiana.” Modena, 1873.
Riccioli (P. Jo. Bapt.): “Almagestum novum.” Bonioniae, 1651.
Rosini (M. Giovanni): “Per l’inaugurazione solenne della statua di Galileo.”
Orazione. Pisa, 1839 (2 Oct).
Rossi (Prof. Giuseppe): “Del Metodo Galileiano.” Bologna, 1877.

*Scartazzini (Dr. T. A.): “Der Process des Galileo Galilei.” Unsere Zeit.
Jahrgang 13. Heft 7 and 18.
*“Il processo di Galileo Galilei e la moderna critica tedesca.”
Revista Europea, Vol. IV. Part V., Vol. V. Parts I and II., 1 and 16
Jan. 1878.
*Schneemann (P. S. J.): “Galileo Galilei und der Römische Stuhl.” Stimmen
aus Maria Laach. Kath. Blättern. Nos. 2, 3, 4, Feb. Mar. April, 1878.
Snell (Dr. Carl): “Ueber Galilei als Begründer der mechanischen Physik
und über die Methode derselben.” Jena, 1864.
Targioni Tozzetti: “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche in
Toscana.” Firenze, 1780. (Contains in Vol. ii.: “Vita di Galileo
scritta da Nic. Gherardini.”)
Venturi (Cav. Giambattista): “Memorie e lettere inedite finora o disperse di
Galileo Galilei.” Modena, 1818-1821.
Viviani: “Raconto istorico della vita di Galileo Galilei.” (Enthalten im XV.
Bande der Opere di Galileo Galilei. Prima edizione completa.
Firenze, 1856.)
Vosen (Dr. Christian Hermann): “Galileo Galilei und die Römische
Berurtheilung des Copernicanischen Systems.” Broschürenverein
Nr. 5. Frankfurt am M. 1865.
Wohlwill (Dr. Emil): “Der Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei. Eine
Prüfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der
Römischen Inquisition.” Berlin, 1870.
*“Ist Galilei gefoltert worden? Eine kritische Studie.” Leipzig,
1877.
“Zum Inquisitionsprocesz des Galileo Galilei.” Zeitschrift für
Mathematik und Physik. 17. Jahrgang. 2. Heft. 1872.
*Wolynski (Dott. Arturio): “Lettere inedite a Galileo Galilei.” Firenze,
1872.
*“Relazione di Galileo Galilei colla Polonia esposte secondo i
documenti per la maggior parte non pubblicati.” Firenze, 1873.

“La Diplomazia Toscana e Galileo Galilei.” Firenze, 1874.

PART I.
GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT
DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN
CURIA.

CHAPTER I.
EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES.

Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on Music.—Galileo destined
to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins
to study Medicine.—Goes to the University of Pisa.—Discovery of the
Isochronism of the Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His
Hydrostatic Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of
Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at Padua.—
Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter to Kepler.—The
Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium.”

The same memorable day is marked by the setting of one of the most
brilliant stars in the firmament of art and the rising of another in the sphere
of science, which was to enlighten the world with beams of equal
splendour. On the 18th February, 1564, Michael Angelo Buonarotti closed
his eyes at Rome, and Galileo Galilei first saw the light at Pisa.
He was the son of the Florentine nobleman, Vincenzo Galilei, and of
Julia, one of the ancient family of the Ammanati of Pescia, and was born in
wedlock, as the documents of the church clearly attest.[7] His earliest years
were spent at Pisa, but his parents soon returned to Florence, which was
their settled home. Here he received his early education. His father had
distinguished himself by his writings on the theory of music, particularly
the mathematical part of it.[8] They were not merely above mediocrity, but
aimed at innovation, and if they did not achieve reform, it was to be
attributed to the conservative spirit then reigning in Italy, which asserted
itself in every department of life, and especially in the spheres of art and
science.
Galileo’s father had no property. His income was but scanty, and the fates
had endowed him with a numerous family instead of with fortune.[9] Under
these untoward circumstances he at first destined the little Galileo, as is
related by Gherardini, his earliest biographer, to a career by no means
distinguished, though advantageous in a material point of view, and one that
conferred much of their wealth on the Florentines, so that it was held in
high esteem—he was to be a cloth dealer. But the young noble first received
the education befitting his station, that is, a very mediocre teacher instructed
him in the Humanities.[10] Fortunately for the clever young scholar, he was
handed over to the pious brethren of the convent of Vallombrosa for further
education. Here he at once made rapid progress. He acquired great facility

in the classics. His thorough study of the masterpieces of antiquity was of
the greatest advantage to him. He doubtless thereby laid the foundation of
the admirable style to which he afterwards, in some measure, owed his
brilliant successes.
Galileo had a great variety of talent. Besides ardent pursuit of the solid
branches of learning, he had considerable skill in drawing and music, in
which he afterwards attained so much perfection that his judgment was
highly esteemed, even by great artists.[11] He played the lute himself with
the skill of a master. He also highly appreciated poetry. His later essays on
Dante, Orlando Furioso, and Gerusalemme Liberata, as well as the fragment
of a play, bear witness to his lively interest in belles lettres. But from his
earliest youth he showed the greatest preference for mechanics. He made
little machines with an ingenuity and skill which evinced a really unusual
talent for such things.[12]
With these abilities his father must soon have arrived at the conclusion
that his son was born for something better than for distributing wool among
the people, and resolved to devote him to science; only it was necessary that
the branch of it to which he turned his attention should offer a prospect of
profit. Medicine was decided on as the most likely to be lucrative, although
it may not seem the one most suited to his abilities.
On 5th November, 1581, Galileo, then just seventeen, entered the
University of Pisa.[13] Even here the young medical student’s independent
ideas and aims made way for themselves. At that time any original ideas
and philosophical views not derived from the dogmas of Aristotle were
unheard of. All the theories of natural science and philosophy had hitherto
been referred to theology. It had been held to be the Alpha and Omega of all
human knowledge. But now the period was far advanced in which it was
felt to be necessary to cast off the narrow garments fashioned by religion,
though at first the will to do so exceeded the power. A stir and ferment
agitated men’s minds. A period of storm and stress had begun for the study
of nature and the philosophical speculation so closely connected with it.
Men did not as yet possess energy and ability for direct advance, so they
turned with real fanaticism to ancient learning, which, being independent,
and not based on religious notions, afforded them satisfaction. Under these
circumstances recurrence to the past was real progress.

Unconditional surrender to the ideas of others, entire adoption of
opinions, some of which were not too well verified, might suit mediocrity,
but it could not suffice for the powerful mind of Galileo, who was striving
to find out the truth for himself. The genius of the young student rebelled
fiercely against rigid adherence to an antiquated standpoint. To the horror of
the followers of Aristotle, who were quite taken aback at such unheard-of
audacity, he resolutely attacked in public disputations many oracular dicta
of their great master hitherto unquestioned, and this even then made him
many enemies, and acquired for him the epithet of “the Wrangler.”[14]
Two circumstances occur during Galileo’s student years, which, in their
main features, are not without historical foundation, although in detail they
bear an anecdotal impress. One, which is characteristic of Galileo’s
observant eye, shows us the student of nineteen devoutly praying in the
Cathedral at Pisa; but he seems to have soon wearied of this occupation, for
he dreamily fixed his eye on the Maestro Possenti’s beautiful lamp, hanging
from an arch, which, in order to light it more readily, had been moved out
of its vertical position and then left to itself. The oscillations were at first
considerable, became gradually less and less, but notwithstanding the
varying distances, they were all performed in the same time, as the young
medical student discovered to a nicety by feeling his pulse. The isochronism
of the vibrations of the pendulum was discovered![15]
The other story refers to Galileo’s first mathematical studies. Gherardini
relates that he was scarcely acquainted with the elements of mathematics up
to his twentieth year, which, by the by, seems almost incredible. But while
he was diligently studying medicine at Pisa, the court of Tuscany came
there for some months. Among the suite was Ostilio Ricci, governor of the
pages, a distinguished mathematician and an old friend of the Galilei
family; Galileo, therefore, often visited him. One morning when he was
there, Ricci was teaching the pages. Galileo stood shyly at the door of the
schoolroom, listening attentively to the lesson; his interest grew greater and
greater; he followed the demonstration of the mathematical propositions
with bated breath. Strongly attracted by the science almost unknown to him
before, as well as by Ricci’s method of instruction, he often returned, but
always unobserved, and, Euclid in hand, drank deeply, from his
uncomfortable concealment, of the streams of fresh knowledge.
Mathematics also occupied the greater part of his time in the solitude of his

study. But all this did not satisfy his thirst for knowledge. He longed to be
himself taught by Ricci. At last he took courage, and, hesitatingly
confessing his sins of curiosity to the astonished tutor, he besought him to
unveil to him the further mysteries of mathematics, to which Ricci at once
consented.
When Galileo’s father learnt that his son was devoting himself to Euclid
at the expense of Hippocrates and Galen, he did his utmost to divert him
from this new, and as it seemed to him, unprofitable study. The science of
mathematics was not then held in much esteem, as it led to nothing
practical. Its use, as applied to the laws of nature, had scarcely begun to be
recognised. But the world-wide mission for which Galileo’s genius destined
him had been too imperiously marked out by fate for him to be held back by
the mere will of any man. Old Vincenzo had to learn the unconquerable
power of genius in young Galileo, and to submit to it. The son pursued the
studies marked out for him by nature more zealously than ever, and at
length obtained leave from his father to bid adieu to medicine and to devote
himself exclusively to mathematics and physics.[16]
The unexpected successes won by the young philosopher in a very short
time in the realm of science, soon showed that his course had now been
turned into the proper channel. Galileo’s father, who, almost crushed with
the burden of his family, could with difficulty bear the expense of his son’s
residence at the University, turned in his perplexity to the beneficence of the
reigning Grand Duke, Ferdinand de’ Medici, with the request that, in
consideration of the distinguished talents and scientific attainments of
Galileo, he would grant him one of the forty free places founded for poor
students at the University. But even then there were many who were
envious of Galileo in consequence of his unusual abilities and his rejection
of the traditional authority of Aristotle. They succeeded in inducing the
Grand Duke to refuse poor Vincenzo’s petition, in consequence of which
the young student had to leave the University, after four years’ residence,
without taking the doctor’s degree.[17]
In spite of these disappointments, Galileo was not deterred, on his return
home, from continuing his independent researches into natural phenomena.
The most important invention of those times, to which he was led by the
works of Archimedes, too little regarded during the Middle Ages, was his
hydrostatic scales, about the construction and use of which he wrote a

treatise, called “La Bilancetta.” This, though afterwards circulated in
manuscript copies among his followers and pupils, was not printed until
after his death, in 1655.
Galileo now began to be everywhere spoken of in Italy. The discovery of
the movement of the pendulum as a measurement of time, the importance of
which was increasingly recognised, combined with his novel and
intellectual treatment of physics, by which the phenomena of nature were
submitted, as far as possible, to direct proof instead of to the a priori
reasoning of the Aristotelians, excited much attention in all scientific
circles. Distinguished men of learning, like Clavius at Rome, with whom he
had become acquainted on his first visit there in 1587,[18] Michael Coignet
at Antwerp, Riccoboni, the Marquis Guidubaldo del Monte, etc., entered
into correspondence with him.[19] Intercourse with the latter, a distinguished
mathematician, who took the warmest interest in Galileo’s fate, became of
the utmost importance to him. It was not merely that to his encouragement
he owed the origin of his excellent treatise on the doctrine of centres of
gravity, which materially contributed to establish his fame, and even gained
for him from Del Monte the name of an “Archimedes of his time,” but he
first helped him to secure a settled and honourable position in life. By his
opportune recommendation in 1589, the professorship of mathematics at the
University of Pisa, just become vacant, was conferred on Galileo, with an
income of sixty scudi.[20] It is indicative of the standing of the sciences in
those days that, while the professor of medicine had a salary of two
thousand scudi, the professor of mathematics had not quite thirty
kreuzers[21] a day. Even for the sixteenth century it was very poor pay.
Moreover, in accordance with the usage at the Italian Universities, he was
only installed for three years; but in Galileo’s needy circumstances, even
this little help was very desirable, and his office enabled him to earn a
considerable additional income by giving private lessons.
During the time of his professorship at Pisa he made his grand researches
into the laws of gravitation, now known under the name of “Galileo’s
Laws,” and wrote as the result of them his great treatise “De Motu
Gravium.” It then had but a limited circulation in copies, and did not appear
in print until two hundred years after his death, in Albèri’s “Opere complete
di Galileo Galilei.” Aristotle, nearly two thousand years before, had raised
the statement to the rank of a proposition, that the rate at which a body falls

depends on its weight. Up to Galileo’s time this doctrine had been generally
accepted as true, on the mere word of the old hero of science, although
individual physicists, like Varchi in 1544, and Benedetti in 1563, had
disputed it, maintaining that bodies of similar density and different weight
fall from the same height in an equal space of time. They sought to prove
the correctness of this statement by the most acute reasoning, but the idea of
experiment did not occur to any one. Galileo, well aware that the
touchstone of experiment would discover the vulnerable spot in Aristotelian
infallibility, climbed the leaning tower of Pisa, in order thence to prove by
experiment, to the discomfiture of the Peripatetic school, the truth of the
axiom that the velocity with which a body falls does not depend on its
weight but on its density.[22]
It might have been thought that his opponents would strike sail after this
decisive argument. Aristotle, the master, would certainly have yielded to it
—but his disciples had attained no such humility. They followed the bold
experiments of the young professor with eyes askance and miserable
sophistries, and, being unable to meet him with his own weapons of
scientific research, they eagerly sought an opportunity of showing the
impious and dangerous innovator the door of the aula.
An unforeseen circumstance came all at once to their aid in these designs.
An illegitimate son of the half-brother of the reigning Grand Duke,—the
relationship was somewhat farfetched, but none the less ominous for
Galileo—John de’ Medici, took an innocent pleasure in inventing machines,
and considered himself a very skilful artificer. This ingenious semi-prince
had constructed a monster machine for cleaning the harbour of Leghorn,
and proposed that it should be brought into use. But Galileo, who had been
commissioned to examine the marvel, declared it to be useless, and,
unfortunately, experiment fully confirmed the verdict. Ominous head-
shakings were seen among the suite of the deeply mortified inventor. They
entered into alliance with the Peripatetic philosophers against their common
enemy. There were cabals at court. Galileo, perceiving that his position at
Pisa was untenable, voluntarily resigned his professorship before the three
years had expired, and migrated for the second time home to Florence.[23]
His situation was now worse than before, for about this time, 2nd July,
1591, his father died after a short illness, leaving his family in very narrow
circumstances. In this distress the Marquis del Monte again appeared as a

friend in need. Thanks to his warm recommendation to the Senate of the
Republic of Venice, in the autumn of 1592 the professorship of mathematics
at the University of Padua, which had become vacant, was bestowed on
Galileo for six years.[24] On 7th December, 1592, he entered on his office
with a brilliant opening address, which won the greatest admiration, not
only for its profound scientific knowledge, but for its entrancing eloquence.
[25]
His lectures soon acquired further fame, and the number of his admirers
and the audience who eagerly listened to his, in many respects, novel
demonstrations, daily increased.
During his residence at Padua, Galileo displayed an extraordinary and
versatile activity. He constructed various machines for the service of the
republic, and wrote a number of excellent treatises, intended chiefly for his
pupils.[26] Among the larger works may be mentioned his writings on the
laws of motion, on fortification, gnomonics (the making of sun-dials),
mechanics, and on the celestial globe, which attained a wide circulation
even in copies, and were some of them printed long afterwards—the one on
fortification not until the present century;[27] others, including the one on
gnomonics, are unfortunately lost. On the wide field of inventions two may
be specially mentioned, one of which was not fully developed until much
later. The first was his proportional circle, which, though it had no special
importance as illustrative of any principle, had a wide circulation from its
various practical uses. Ten years later, in 1606, Galileo published an
excellent didactic work on this subject, dedicated to Cosmo de’ Medici, and
in 1607 a polemical one against Balthasar Capra, of Milan, who, in a
treatise published in 1607, which was nothing but a plagiarism of Galileo’s
work disfigured by blunders, gave himself out as the inventor of the
instrument. Galileo’s reply, in which he first exhibited the polemical
dexterity afterwards so much dreaded, excited great attention even in lay
circles from its masterly satire.[28] The other invention was a contrivance by
which heat could be more exactly indicated. Over zealous biographers have
therefore hastened to claim for their hero the invention of the thermometer,
which, however, is not correct, as the instrument, which was not intended to
measure the temperature, could not be logically called a thermometer, but a
thermoscope, heat indicator. Undoubtedly it prepared the way by which
improvers of the thermoscope arrived at the thermometer.[29]

Before proceeding further with Galileo’s researches and discoveries, so
far as they fall within our province, it seems important to acquaint ourselves
with his views about the Copernican system. From a letter of his to
Mazzoni, of 30th May, 1597,[30] it is clear that he considered the opinions
of Pythagoras and Copernicus on the position and motion of the earth to be
far more correct than those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In another letter of 4th
August of the same year to Kepler, he thanks him for his work, which he
had sent him, on the Mysteries of the Universe,[31] and writes as follows
about the Copernican system:—

“I count myself happy, in the search after truth, to have so
great an ally as yourself, and one who is so great a friend of
the truth itself. It is really pitiful that there are so few who
seek truth, and who do not pursue a perverse method of
philosophising. But this is not the place to mourn over the
miseries of our times, but to congratulate you on your
splendid discoveries in confirmation of truth. I shall read
your book to the end, sure of finding much that is excellent
in it. I shall do so with the more pleasure, because I have
been for many years an adherent of the Copernican system,
and it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances
of nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly
accepted hypothesis. I have collected many arguments for
the purpose of refuting the latter; but I do not venture to
bring them to the light of publicity, for fear of sharing the
fate of our master, Copernicus, who, although he has earned
immortal fame with some, yet with very many (so great is
the number of fools) has become an object of ridicule and
scorn. I should certainly venture to publish my speculations
if there were more people like you. But this not being the
case, I refrain from such an undertaking.”[32]

In an answer from Grätz, of 13th October of the same year, Kepler
urgently begs him to publish his researches into the Copernican system,
advising him to bring them out in Germany if he does not receive
permission to do so in Italy.[33] In spite of this pressing request of his

eminent friend, however, Galileo was not to be induced to bring his
convictions to the light yet, a hesitation which may not appear very
commendable. But if we consider the existing state of science, which
condemned the Copernican system as an unheard of and fantastic
hypothesis, and the religious incubus which weighed down all knowledge
of nature irrespective of religious belief, and if, besides all this, we
remember the entire revolution in the sphere both of religion and science
involved in the reception of the Copernican system, we shall be more ready
to admit that Galileo had good reason to be cautious. The Copernican cause
could not be served by mere partisanship, but only by independent fresh
researches to prove its correctness, indeed its irrefragability. Nothing but
the fulfilment of these conditions formed a justification, either in a
scientific or moral point of view, for taking part in overturning the previous
views of the universe.
Before the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question it, our
earth was held to be the centre of the universe, and about it all the rest of
the heavenly bodies revolved. There was but one “world,” and that was our
earth; the whole firmament, infinity, was the fitting frame to the picture,
upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position which was truly
sublime. It was an elevating thought that you were on the centre, the only
fixed point amidst countless revolving orbs! The narrations in the Bible, and
the character of the Christian religion as a whole, fitted this conception
exceedingly well; or, more properly speaking, were made to fit it. The
creation of man, his fall, the flood, and our second venerable ancestor,
Noah, with his ark in which the continuation of races was provided for, the
foundation of the Christian religion, the work of redemption;—all this could
only lay claim to universal importance so long as the earth was the centre of
the universe, the only world. Then all at once a learned man makes the
annihilating assertion that our world was not the centre of the universe, but
revolved itself, was but an insignificant part of the vast, immeasurable
system of worlds. What had become of the favoured status of the earth?
And this indefinite number of bodies, equally favoured by nature, were they
also the abodes of men? The bare possibility of a number of inhabited
worlds could but imperil the first principles of Christian philosophy.
The system of the great Copernicus, however, thanks to the anonymous
preface to his famous work, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” had

not, up to this time, assumed to be a correct theory, but only a hypothesis,
which need not be considered even probable, as it was only intended to
facilitate astronomical calculations. We know now that this was a gigantic
mistake, that the immortal astronomer had aimed at rectifying the Ptolemaic
confusion, and was fully convinced of the correctness of his system; we
know that this unprincipled Introduction is by no means to be attributed to
Copernicus, but to Andreas Osiander, who took part in publishing this book,
which formed so great an epoch in science, and whose anxious soul thereby
desired to appease the anticipated wrath of the theologians and
philosophers. And we know further that the founder of our present system
of the universe, although he handled the first finished copy of his
imperishable work when he was dying, was unable to look into it, being
already struck by paralysis, and thus never knew of Osiander’s weak-
minded Introduction, which had prudently not been submitted to him.[34]
A few days after receiving a copy of the great work of his genius,
Copernicus died, on 24th May, 1543; and his system, for which he had been
labouring and striving all his life, was, in consequence of Osiander’s
sacrilegious act, reduced to a simple hypothesis intended to simplify
astronomical calculations! As such it did not in the least endanger the faith
of the Church. Even Pope Paul III., to whom Copernicus had dedicated his
work, received it “with pleasure.” In 1566 a second edition appeared at
Basle, and still it did not excite any opposition from the Church. It was not
till 1616, when it had met with wide acceptance among the learned, when
its correctness had been confirmed by fresh facts, and it had begun to be
looked upon as true, that the Roman curia felt moved to condemn the work
of Copernicus until it had been corrected (donec corrigantur).
Having thus rapidly glanced at the opposition between the Copernican
system and the Ptolemaic, which forms the prelude to Galileo’s subsequent
relations with Rome, we are at liberty to fulfil the task we have set
ourselves, namely, to portray “Galileo and the Roman Curia.”

CHAPTER II.
THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS.

Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New Star.—The
Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice to exhibit it.—
Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request of Henry IV.
—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s attack on
Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition of the
Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler.

The first six years of Galileo’s professorship at Padua had passed away,
but the senate were eager to retain so bright a light for their University, and
prolonged the appointment of the professor, whose renown was now great,
for another six years, with a considerable increase of salary.[35]
As we have seen, he had for a long time renounced the prevailing views
about the universe; but up to this time he had discussed only physical
mathematical questions with the Peripatetic school, the subject of
astronomy had not been mooted. But the sudden appearance of a new star in
the constellation of Serpentarius, in October, 1604, which, after exhibiting
various colours for a year and a half, as suddenly disappeared, induced him
openly to attack one of the Aristotelian doctrines hitherto held most sacred,
that of the unchangeableness of the heavens. Galileo demonstrated, in three
lectures to a numerous audience, that this star was neither a mere meteor,
nor yet a heavenly body which had before existed but had only now been
observed, but a body which had recently appeared and had again vanished.
[36]
The subject, though not immediately connected with the Copernican
question, was an important step taken on the dangerous and rarely trodden
path of knowledge of nature, uninfluenced by dogmatism or petrified
professorial wisdom. This inviolability of the vault of heaven was also
conditioned by the prevailing views of the universe. What wonder then that
most of the professors who had grown grey in the Aristotelian doctrine
(Cremonio for instance, Coressio, Lodovico delle Colombo, and Balthasar
Capra) were incensed at these opinions of Galileo, so opposed to all their
scientific prepossessions, and vehemently controverted them.
The spark, however, which was to set fire to the abundant inflammable
material, and to turn the scientific and religious world, in which doubt had
before been glimmering, into a veritable volcano, the spark which kindled
Galileo’s genius and made him for a long time the centre of that period of
storm and stress, was the discovery of the telescope.

We will not claim for Galileo, as many of his biographers have
erroneously done, priority in the construction of the telescope. We rely far
more on Galileo’s own statements than on those of his eulogists, who aim at
effect. Galileo relates with perfect simplicity at the beginning of the
“Sidereus Nuncius,” published at Venice in 1610, that he had heard about
ten months ago that an instrument had been made by a Dutchman, by means
of which distant objects were brought nearer and could be seen very plainly.
The confirmation of the report by one of his former pupils, a French
nobleman, Jean Badovere of Paris, had induced him to reflect upon the
means by which such an effect could be produced. By the laws of refraction
he soon attained his end. With two glasses fixed at the ends of a leaden
tube, both having one side flat and the other side of the one being concave
and of the other convex, his primitive telescope, which made objects appear
three times nearer and nine times larger, was constructed. But now, having
“spared neither expense nor labour,” he had got so far as to construct an
instrument which magnified an object nearly a thousand times, and brought
it more than thirty times nearer.[37] Although, therefore, it is clear from this
that the first idea of the telescope does not belong to Galileo, it is equally
clear that he found out how to construct it from his own reflection and
experiments. Undoubtedly also the merit of having made great
improvements in it belongs to him, which is shown by the fact that at that
time, and long afterwards, his telescopes were the most sought after, and
that he received numerous orders for them from learned men, princes and
governments in distant lands, Holland, the birthplace of the telescope, not
excepted.[38] But the idea which first gave to the instrument its scientific
importance, the application of it to astronomical observations, belongs not
to the original inventor but to the genius of Galileo. This alone would have
made his name immortal.[39]
A few days after he had constructed his instrument, imperfect as it
doubtless was, he hastened with it to Venice, having received an invitation,
to exhibit it to the doge and senate, for he at once recognised its importance,
if not to the full extent. We will now let Galileo speak for himself in a letter
which he wrote from Venice to his brother-in-law, Benedetto Landucci:—

“You must know then that about two months ago a report
was spread here that in Flanders a spy-glass had been

presented to Prince Maurice, so ingeniously constructed that
it made the most distant objects appear quite near, so that a
man could be seen quite plainly at a distance of two miglia.
This result seemed to me so extraordinary that it set me
thinking; and as it appeared to me that it depended upon the
theory of perspective, I reflected on the manner of
constructing it, in which I was at length so entirely
successful that I made a spy-glass which far surpasses the
report of the Flanders one. As the news had reached Venice
that I had made such an instrument, six days ago I was
summoned before their highnesses the signoria, and
exhibited it to them, to the astonishment of the whole senate.
Many noblemen and senators, although of a great age,
mounted the steps of the highest church towers at Venice, in
order to see sails and shipping that were so far off that it was
two hours before they were seen steering full sail into the
harbour without my spy-glass, for the effect of my
instrument is such that it makes an object fifty miglia off
appear as large and near as if it were only five.”[40]

Galileo further relates in the same letter that he had presented one of his
instruments to the senate, in return for which his professorship at Padua had
been conferred on him for life, with an increase of salary to one thousand
florins.[41]
On his return to Padua he became eagerly engrossed in telescopic
observation of the heavens. The astonishing and sublime discoveries which
were disclosed to him must in any case have possessed the deepest interest
for the philosopher who was continually seeking to solve nature’s problems,
and were all the more so, since they contributed materially to confirm the
Copernican theory.
His observations were first directed to the moon, and he discovered that
its surface was mountainous, which showed at all events that the earth’s
satellite was something like the earth itself, and therefore by no means
restored it to the aristocratic position in the universe from which it had been
displaced by Copernicus. The milky way, as seen through the telescope,
revealed an immense number of small stars. In Orion, instead of the seven

heavenly bodies already known, five hundred new stars were seen; the
number of the Pleiades, which had been fixed at seven, rose to thirty-six;
the planets showed themselves as disks, while the fixed stars appeared as
before, as mere bright specks in the firmament.
But the indefatigable observer’s far most important discovery, in its
bearing on the Copernican theory, was that of the moons of Jupiter, in
January 1610. As they exhibited motions precisely similar to those which
Copernicus had assumed for the whole solar system, they strongly fortified
his theory. It was placed beyond all doubt that our planet was not the centre
of all the heavenly bodies, since Jupiter’s moons revolved round him. The
latter was brought, so to speak, by the discovery of his attendants, into
relations with the earth which, considering the prevailing views, were
humiliating enough, and the more so since Jupiter had four satellites while
the earth had only one. There remained, however, the consoling assurance
that he and they revolved round our abode!
In honour of the reigning house of his native country, and as an
acknowledgment of favours received from it (for since the accession of
Cosmo II.[42] Galileo had been in high favour), he called Jupiter’s moons
“Medicean stars.” The urgent solicitude of the French court to gain, by
Galileo’s aid, a permanent place on the chart of the heavens, is very
amusing. Thus, on 20th April, 1610, he received a pressing request, “in case
he discovered any other fine star, to call it after the great star of France,
Henry IV., then reigning, the most brilliant in the whole universe, and to
give it his proper name of Henry rather than that of the family name of
Bourbon.” Galileo communicated this flattering request, as he seems to
have considered it, with much satisfaction to the secretary of the Tuscan
court, Vincenzo Giugni, in a letter from Padua, on 25th June, 1610,[43] as an
evidence of the great importance attached to his telescopic discoveries. He
added that he did not expect to find any more planets, as he had already
made many very close observations.
Galileo published by degrees all the discoveries he had made at Padua, of
which we have only noticed the most important, in the work before
mentioned, the “Sidereus Nuncius”; it was dedicated to the Grand Duke,
Cosmo II., and the first edition appeared at Venice, in March, 1610.

Although the unexpected discoveries which Galileo had made with his
telescope had confirmed his opinion that the system of Copernicus was the
only one consistent with the facts of nature, had indeed made it his absolute
conviction, he had not yet ventured to defend it in his works. He contented
himself with stating bare facts, without showing their relation to the ideas of
Copernicus, leaving this to the learning and insight of the reader. Moreover,
the logical inferences from Jupiter’s moons must surely stare every
thoughtful man in the face, and so indeed they did in a way very
unwelcome to the scientific conservatives.
The storm raised by Galileo’s latest announcements was tremendous.
People heard with amazement the extraordinary things which the new
invention had brought to light, and paid a just tribute of admiration to the
man to whose labours it was due. But these discoveries were so directly
opposed to the traditional natural philosophy, still regarded as the highest
wisdom, that the “Sidereus Nuncius” had met with many opponents. It must
however be borne in mind that at the time of its first publication very few of
the learned were in a position to convince themselves with their own eyes
of the correctness of the appearances seen with the telescope, simply
because they had not the instrument at hand. From this cause, even Kepler
did not see the satellites of Jupiter till 30th August, 1610. But men so free
from jealousy and prejudice as Kepler (who, on reading the “Sidereus
Nuncius,” at once recognised the truth of the discoveries, and said with
enthusiasm that “Galileo had in this book given evidence of the divinity of
his genius”[44]), have at all times been rare.
At first, therefore, the majority of the learned world shook their heads
incredulously about the phenomena announced by the “Nuncius,” especially
in Italy, where envy lent its aid to bring an armed opposition into the field.
Little did it at first avail that Kepler, renowned as the first astronomer in
Germany, was on the side of the “Sidereus Nuncius”; for in May of the
same year he had a reprint of the work issued at Prague, with an
introduction in which he expressed his entire conviction of the truth of the
telescopic discoveries made known by it, and answered all objections.[45] In
vain. These new discoveries were too revolutionary to be believed. Even
upright and estimable scientific men, like Welser in Augsburg, and Clavius
at Rome, did not give credit to Galileo’s statements until they learnt better
by their own observations. The latter, who was the first mathematician in

Rome in his day, even said “he laughed at the pretended satellites of Jupiter;
you must construct a telescope which would first make them and then show
them.” Let Galileo hold his own opinions, and he (Clavius) would hold his.
[46]

But the leader of an unworthy agitation in Italy against Galileo was a
man who assumed this attitude from very different motives from the sacred
service of science. This was the well-known Professor Magini, astronomer
at the university of Bologna, who, next to Galileo, enjoyed the highest
reputation for learning in Italy. He could not brook that his famous
countryman should all at once obtain the highest fame with seven-league
boots, leaving a pigmy like himself far behind, by means of the discoveries
made known in his “Sidereus Nuncius.” He must not only be refuted, the
refutation must be circulated as widely as possible. But the most repulsive
feature in Magini’s conduct towards Galileo is his double-facedness. He
never openly ventured with any work into the arena himself, but incited
others all the more from behind concealment.[47] Even if we do not, with
Martin Hasdal and Alexander Sertini, accuse him of being exactly the
instigator of the famous libel “Peregrinatio contra Nuncium Sidereum,”
published by his assistant, Martin Horky, against Galileo in 1610, which
excited the indignation of all the right-minded learned world, we cannot
acquit him of complicity with him, and of having had a hand, more or less,
in that pamphlet. The suspicion is strongly confirmed by the ostentation
with which Magini, when told of the publication of the “Peregrinatio,”
drove the author, with disgust and ridicule, out of his house, and took
occasion to assert on all hands that he had nothing whatever to do with the
shameful act of his famulus, an assertion in strange contradiction with the
excuse afterwards made by Horky to Kepler.[48] By Kepler’s advice Galileo
did not do him the honour of answering. The task was undertaken by
Wedderburn, a Scotchman, formerly a pupil of Galileo’s, and Antonio
Roffeni, professor of philosophy at the university of Bologna; the former at
Padua during the same year, the latter at Bologna in 1611.[49]
Meanwhile, in July, 1610, Galileo had observed a new appearance in the
heavens by means of his telescope, the ring of Saturn. In consequence,
however, of the imperfection of the instrument, it did not appear like a ring,
but Saturn looked like a triple star. Galileo, who on the one hand did not
wish to make the new discovery public until he had sufficiently observed it,

yet feared on the other that some one might claim priority, at once
communicated it in a letter from Padua, 30th July, 1610,[50] to his
influential friend Belisario Vinta, chief secretary of state to Cosmo II., but
urgently begged him to keep it a secret. But even this did not seem
sufficient to secure his right to the first observation of Saturn, so he
announced it to his friends in the following absurd anagram:—
SMAJSMRMJLMEPOETALEVNJPVNENVGTTAVJRAS.
Kepler puzzled for a long time over this enigma, and at last only made
out the barbaric line, “Salve umbistineum geminatum Martia proles,” which
he incorrectly applied to the planet Mars. At length, after repeated requests,
and after Julian de’ Medici, Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, had
been charged by the Emperor to ask for a solution, he complied with the
illustrious wish, and in a letter to Julian of 13th November, 1610,[51] gave
the following startling explanation:—
Altissimum Planetam tergeminum observavi.
The learned and semi-learned world of Italy had not yet had time to
become reconciled to the surprising discoveries announced in the “Sidereus
Nuncius” of March in the same year, when the asserted triple nature of
Saturn contravened the prevailing idea that there was nothing new to be
discovered in the heavens. The recognition of Galileo’s telescopic
discoveries made way very slowly. From the first he spared no pains in
popularising them. He did this repeatedly in public lectures, and with so
much success that he could write to Vinta: “even the most exalted
personages, who have been most vehement in attacking my doctrines, at
length gave up the game for lost, and acknowledged, coram populo, that
they were not only convinced but ready to defend them against those
philosophers and mathematicians who ventured to attack them.”[52]
But it was only at the University of Padua that Galileo could report such
rapid progress; and until the Maginis, Clavios, and others were convinced
by their own eyes, and confirmed to their own party the truth of Galileo’s
disclosures, he had to sustain a hard struggle with incredulity, malice, and
peripatetic fanaticism. Some rabid Aristotelians went so far as to say that
Galileo’s telescope was so constructed as to show things that did not exist!
Nor did it mend the matter much when he offered 10,000 scudi to any one

who should construct so cunning an instrument.[53] Others resolutely
refused even to look through the telescope, giving it as their firm conviction
that they would not be able to see appearances which Aristotle had not said
a word about in all his books! The answer that Aristotle was not acquainted
with the telescope, and could not have known anything of telescopic
appearances, rebounded without effect from the petrified infallibility of
Aristotelian wisdom. Nor must it be supposed that these short-sighted
conservatives only numbered a few would-be savans of the Peripatetic
school; on the contrary, celebrities like Cesare Cremonino da Cento, and
Julius Libri, denied Galileo’s discoveries a priori.[54] When Libri died in
December, 1610, without having been willing to look through a telescope,
and protesting against Galileo’s “absurdities,” Galileo wrote in a letter of
17th December that this rigid opponent of his “absurdities,” as he was never
willing to look at them from earth, might perhaps see them on his way to
heaven![55]
Some passages from a letter of Galileo’s to Kepler, of 19th August, 1610,
will best show how some of these men of science turned away with a
righteous awe from the inconvenient recognition of the truth. Galileo writes
among other things:—

“You are the first and almost the only person who, even
after but a cursory investigation, has, such is your openness
of mind and lofty genius, given entire credit to my
statements.... We will not trouble ourselves about the abuse
of the multitude, for against Jupiter even giants, to say
nothing of pigmies, fight in vain. Let Jupiter stand in the
heavens, and let the sycophants bark at him as they will.... In
Pisa, Florence, Bologna, Venice, and Padua many have seen
the planets; but all are silent on the subject and undecided,
for the greater number recognise neither Jupiter nor Mars
and scarcely the moon as planets. At Venice one man spoke
against me, boasting that he knew for certain that my
satellites of Jupiter, which he had several times observed,
were not planets because they were always to be seen with
Jupiter, and either all or some of them, now followed and
now preceded him. What is to be done? Shall we side with

Democritus or Heraclitus? I think, my Kepler, we will laugh
at the extraordinary stupidity of the multitude. What do you
say to the leading philosophers of the faculty here, to whom
I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to show
my studies, but who with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent
who has eaten his fill have never consented to look at
planets, nor moon, nor telescope? Verily, just as serpents
close their ears, so do these men close their eyes to the light
of truth. These are great matters; yet they do not occasion
me any surprise. People of this sort think that philosophy is
a kind of book like the Æneid or the Odyssey, and that the
truth is to be sought, not in the universe, not in nature, but (I
use their own words) by comparing texts! How you would
laugh if you heard what things the first philosopher of the
faculty at Pisa brought against me in the presence of the
Grand Duke, for he tried, now with logical arguments, now
with magical adjurations, to tear down and argue the new
planets out of heaven.”[56]

CHAPTER III.
REMOVAL TO FLORENCE.

Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic Duties.—
Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change the source of
his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of Venus and Mercury.
—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant Reception.—Letter
from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The Inquisition.—Introduction
of Theology into the Scientific Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—
Intrigues at Florence.

Galileo’s fame, especially through his telescopic discoveries, and partly
also through the exertions of his noisy opponents, had long extended
beyond the narrow bounds of Italy, and the eyes of all central Europe were
directed to the great astronomer. Numbers of pupils flocked to him from all
countries, so that no lecture room in Padua was large enough to hold them.
There were some distinguished personages among them, such as the
Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the princes
of Alsace, Mantua, etc., who mostly came to attend the lectures of the
versatile master on fortification. It is, however, another fable of over
zealous biographers to state that even Gustavus Adolphus, the hero of the
thirty years’ war, went to school for some months to Galileo.[57]
This close occupation, with lectures and private lessons of all kinds, took
him too much away from his own studies, and after twenty years’
professorship Galileo longed for a post in which he could prosecute his own
researches, and devote himself to the completion of his works, free from
academic duties. A letter from Padua, even in the spring of 1609,[58] shows
his longing for this salaried leisure. But he is aware that the republic can
never offer him such a post, “for it would not be suitable to receive a salary
from a free state, however generous and magnanimous, without serving the
public for it; because if you derive benefit from the public, you have the
public to please, and not a mere private person.” He also mentions that he
can only hope for such a favour from some absolute sovereign; but it must
not be supposed that he wishes for an income without doing anything for it;
he was in possession of various inventions, was almost daily making new
ones, and should make more if he had the necessary leisure. Galileo adds
that it has always been his intention “to offer them to his own sovereign and
natural lord before any other, that he may dispose of them and the inventor
according to his pleasure; and if it seemed good to his serene highness to
accept it, to present him not only with the jewel but with the casket also.”

This first attempt of Galileo’s, however, to gain a footing at the court of
Tuscany seems to have been unsuccessful. At any rate in the extant
correspondence of this period there is not a word more on the subject; and a
few months later, after the construction of the telescope, he thankfully
accepted the chair of mathematics at Padua offered to him for life by the
republic. But this invention and the consequent discoveries had meanwhile
acquired such vast importance, and had, as we have seen, raised such a
storm in the whole educated world, that it now appeared very desirable to
the court of Tuscany to attach to itself for ever the man on whom the eyes
of scientific Europe were fixed.
The first steps towards this end were taken when Galileo went to
Florence in the Easter recess of 1610 to show his telescopic discoveries to
Cosmo II., especially the stars which bore the name of the reigning house.
We afterwards find Galileo entering eagerly into the negotiations which
followed. In the letter to Vinta before mentioned, of May 7th, 1610, he
presses for a decision, for, he says, observing that day after day goes by, he
was determined to set a definite purpose before him in the ordering of the
life that may be left to him, and to devote all his powers to perfect the fruits
of his previous efforts and studies, from which he might look for some
fame. He then mentions the conditions on which he at present serves the
republic, perhaps in order that they might be guided by it at Florence; but
what he lays most stress on is that it is of the utmost moment to him that
leisure should be assured him for the completion of his labours, by his
being freed from the obligation to give public lectures; but it will always
confer on him the highest honour to give lectures to his sovereign, to whom
also he will dedicate all his writings.
The same letter is also of the highest interest as giving us an insight into
the scientific projects he was then cherishing. He communicates to the
Tuscan secretary of state the works the completion of which lies so near his
heart. He says:—

“The works which I have to finish are chiefly two books
de systemate, seu constitutione universi, a vast project full of
philosophy, astronomy, and geometry; three books de motu
locali, an entirely new science, for no other inquirer, ancient
or modern, has discovered any of the wonderful phenomena

which I show to be present in natural and induced motion; I
may therefore with perfect justice call it a new science
discovered by me from its first principles; three books on
mechanics, two relating to the demonstration of the
principles and fundamental propositions, one containing the
problems; although others have treated of the same subject,
what has been hitherto written upon it is neither as to extent
nor in other respects a fourth part of what I am writing. I
have also various smaller works in view on matters
connected with nature, such as de sono et voce, de visu et
coloribus, de maris æstu, de compositione continui, de
animalium motibus, and others. I am also thinking of writing
some books for the soldier, not only to cultivate his mind,
but to teach him by select instruction all those things
connected with mathematics which it would be an advantage
to him to know, as, for instance, castrametation, military
tactics, fortification, sieges, surveying, estimate of distances,
artillery, the use of various instruments, etc.”[59]

We regard with astonishment the wonderful versatility which we find
displayed in Galileo’s works. And amongst them are not only all the larger
ones announced in the above letter; his important telescopic discoveries and
his ceaselessly active mind led him far to surpass the bounds he had set
himself, for he was the first to infuse conscious life into the slumbering idea
of the Copernican system.
This memorable letter of Galileo’s soon brought the court of Tuscany to a
decision. Fourteen days later, 22nd May, Vinta wrote to him, as a
preliminary, that the Grand Duke seemed well disposed to recall him to his
native country and to grant all his wishes.[60] He promised to inform Galileo
as soon as it was all settled. On 5th June he wrote that Cosmo II. was
willing to nominate him as first philosopher and mathematician of the
University of Pisa, with an annual stipend of 1000 Florentine scudi, without
any obligation to live at Pisa or to give lectures. Vinta requested Galileo to
let him know whether he agreed to these conditions, in order that he might
have the necessary application drawn up in Galileo’s name, as well as the
decree and rescript; the time of their publication shall be left to Galileo, and

meanwhile all shall be kept secret.[61] Galileo wished particularly that
nothing should be known at Venice of these negotiations, which did not
place his gratitude to the republic which had shown him so much favour in
the best light, until all was decided and therefore irrevocable.
Having declared himself entirely satisfied with the proposed conditions,
in a letter to the secretary of state, the only alteration being that he should
like not only to be first mathematician at Pisa, but also first mathematician
and philosopher to the Grand Duke himself,[62] the decree summoning him
to the court of Tuscany in this twofold capacity was issued on 12th July,
1610.
Notwithstanding all the great advantages which this new post secured to
him, it was a very bad exchange for Galileo from the free republican soil to
the doubtful protection of a princely house which, although very well
disposed towards him, could never offer so decided an opposition to the
Roman curia as the republic of Venice. It was indeed the first step which
precipitated Galileo’s fate.[63] In the Venetian republic full liberty of
doctrine was really enjoyed, in religious Tuscany it was only nominal. In
Venice politics and science were secure from Jesuitical intrigues; for when
Pope Paul V. thought proper to place the contumacious republic under an
interdict in April, 1606, the Jesuit fathers had been compelled to quit the
soil of Venice “for ever.”[64] In Tuscany, on the contrary, where they felt
quite at home, their influence weighed heavily on everything affecting their
own interests, and especially therefore on politics and science. Had Galileo
never left the pure, wholesome air of the free city for the stifling Romish
atmosphere of a court, he would have escaped the subsequent persecutions
of Rome; for the republic which, not long before, had been undaunted by
the papal excommunication of their doge and senate, would assuredly never
have given up one of its university professors to the vengeance of the
Inquisition.
At the beginning of September, 1610, Galileo, to the no small displeasure
of the Paduans, left their university, at which eighteen years before he had
found willing reception and support when his longer tarriance at Pisa had
become impossible; deserted his noble friends, Fra Paolo Sarpi, Francesco
Sagredo, and others; and proceeded to the capital of the court of Tuscany on
the lovely banks of the Arno, where at first, it is true, much honour was

done him, but where afterwards envy, jealousy, narrowness, ill will, and
fanaticism combined together to his destruction. One of his most devoted
friends, Francesco Sagredo, foresaw it. When Galileo left Venice he was in
the East, in the service of the republic, and did not return till the spring of
1611, when he wrote a remarkable letter to his friend at Florence. After
having heartily expressed his regret at not finding Galileo on his return
home, he states his doubts about the step his friend had taken. He asks,
among other things, “where will he find the same liberty as in the Venetian
territory? And notwithstanding all the generous qualities of the young ruler,
which permitted the hope that Galileo’s merits will be justly valued, who
can promise with any confidence that, if not ruined, he may not be
persecuted and disquieted on the surging billows of court life, by the raging
storms of envy?” It is evident from another passage in the letter that
Galileo’s behaviour had made a bad impression at Venice, where they had
not long before raised his salary to a thousand florins, and conferred his
professorship on him for life; towards the end of the letter Sagredo lets fall
the ominous words that he “was convinced that as Galileo could not regain
what he had lost, he would take good care to hold fast what he had
gained.”[65]
Only a month after Galileo’s arrival at Florence he made a fresh
discovery in astronomy which eventually contributed to confirm the
Copernican theory, namely, the varying crescent form of the planet Venus.
With this the important objection to the new system seemed to be removed,
that Venus and Mercury did not exhibit the same phases of light as the
moon, which must be the case if the earth moved, for they would vary with
her position in the universe. Galileo communicated this appearance, which
entailed conclusions so important, and which he therefore wished to
investigate more thoroughly before making it known, to his friend and
correspondent Julian de’ Medici at Prague, in an alphabetical enigma, as in
the case of the singular appearance of Saturn. It was as follows:
“Hæc immatura a me jam frustra leguntur o y.”[66]
Having fully convinced himself by nearly three months’ observations that
Venus and Mars exhibited phases similar to those of the moon, he made it
known in two letters of 30th December[67] to Father Clavius, at Rome, and
to his former distinguished pupil Benedetto Castelli, abbot of the

congregation of Monte Cassino, in Brescia; and in a letter of 1st January,
1611, he sent the following solution of the anagram to Julian de’ Medici:—
“Cynthiæ figuras æmulatur mater amorum.”
In this letter he draws the important conclusions, first that none of the
planets shine by their own light, and secondly “that necessarily Venus and
Mercury revolve round the sun; a circumstance which was surmised of the
other planets by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, and their followers, but
which could not be proved by ocular demonstration, as it could now in the
case of Venus and Mercury. Kepler and the other Copernicans may now be
proud to have judged and philosophised correctly, and it may well excite
disgust that they were regarded by the generality of men of book learning as
having little understanding and as not much better than fools.”[68]
At this time Galileo was also eagerly occupied with a phenomenon which
was to be a further confirmation of the Copernican view of the universe, the
spots on the sun. By attentively observing their motions on the sun’s disk he
afterwards discovered the sun’s motion on its own axis, a fatal blow to the
Ptolemaic system. Although to science it may be quite indifferent whether
Galileo, or Fabricius, or the Jesuit father Scheiner first espied the spots on
the sun (for they all lay claim to the discovery), for us it has its importance,
because the bitter contention between Galileo and Scheiner on the subject
materially contributed to set the stone rolling which, in its fall, was no less
disastrous to the moral greatness of Galileo than to the erudition of Rome.
In consideration of the intense interest excited by Galileo’s “epoch-
making” discoveries, the Roman curia, which still held it to be one of its
most important duties to guard mankind as much as possible from
precocious knowledge, was of course eager to learn more about them, and
above all, of the conclusions which the discoverer drew from them. It must
also have appeared of great importance to Galileo to acquaint the Roman
savans and dignitaries of the Church with his scientific achievements, for
the authority and influence then exercised by them over the free progress of
science made their opinions of the utmost moment to him. They must, if
possible, be first made to see the premises with their own eyes, that they
might afterwards be able to comprehend and assent to the conclusions.
Galileo clearly saw this, as appears from a letter of 15th January, 1611, to
Vinta[69] (who was then with the court at Pisa), in which he urgently begs

permission for a visit to the papal residence. The request was not only
immediately granted, but the court placed a litter at his disposal, undertook
to defray all his expenses, and directed the Tuscan ambassador at Rome to
prepare quarters for him at the embassy and to entertain him during the
whole of his stay.[70] Meanwhile, however, Galileo was attacked by an
illness which delayed his journey for nearly two months. On 22nd March he
received a cordial letter of introduction[71] from Michel Angelo the younger
to Cardinal Barberini, afterwards Urban VIII., and on the next day he set
out provided with his most convincing arguments, namely several excellent
telescopes.
He was received with the greatest honour. His triumphs were really
extraordinary, so great that they were sure to secure for him numerous
personal enemies in addition to the opponents of his doctrines. He exhibited
the oft discussed appearances to cardinals and learned men through the
telescope, and, whenever he could, dispelled their doubts by the
incontrovertible evidence of their own eyes. People could not refuse to
believe this, and Galileo’s success in the papal city was complete. Of still
greater importance, however, was the opinion given on 24th April by four
scientific authorities of the Roman College, on the character “of the new
astronomical discoveries of an excellent astronomer,” at the request of
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This commission, consisting of the learned
fathers Clavius, Griemberger, Malcotio, and Lembo, confirmed what they
had long denied and ridiculed, convinced by the evidence of their own
senses of the truth of the facts maintained by Galileo.[72] By this opinion of
the papal experts his discoveries received, to a certain extent, the sanction
of the Church, and became acknowledged truths. The care with which the
mention of Galileo’s name is avoided both in the request and the opinion is
remarkable.
Attentions of all sorts were heaped upon the astronomer. Pope Paul V.
granted him a long audience and graciously assured him of his unalterable
good will, which however did not remain quite unaltered in the sequel. The
highest dignitaries of the Church testified their admiration; the Accadémia
dei Lincei (of the Lynxes), founded six years before by Prince Cesi, made
the renowned guest a member; when he took his departure at the beginning
of June he left behind him in the metropolis of catholicism as many sincere
friends and admirers as envious foes, the fate of all really great men.

A letter from Cardinal del Monte of 31st May, 1611, to Cosmo II., best
shows how successful Galileo’s visit to Rome was. He writes with real
enthusiasm:—

“Galileo has during his stay at Rome given great
satisfaction, and I think he must have felt it no less himself,
for he had the opportunity of showing his discoveries so
well that to all clever and learned men in this city they
seemed no less true and well founded than astonishing. Were
we still living under the ancient republic of Rome, I verily
believe there would have been a column on the Capitol
erected in his honour. It appeared to me to be my duty to
accompany his return with this letter, and to bear witness to
your Highness of the above, as I feel assured that it will be
agreeable to you, since your Highness entertains such
gracious good will towards your subjects, and to
distinguished men like Galileo.”[73]

But the watchful Inquisition had already directed its attention to the man
who had made such portentous discoveries in the heavens. How far this had
gone we unfortunately do not exactly know. The only well authenticated
indication we possess is the following notice in the protocols of the sittings
of the Holy Congregation: “Feria iii. die, 17 Maii, 1611. Videatur an in
Processu Doctoris Cæsaris Cremonini sit nominatus Galilaeus Philosophiæ
ac Mathematicæ Professor.”[74] This is the first time that the name of
Galileo occurs in the papers of the Congregation of the Holy Office, and it
was in the midst of the applause which greeted him in the eternal city.
Whether, and in what way, this official query was answered is not to be
found in the documents of the Inquisition. But it looks ominous that there
should be an inquiry about a connection between Galileo and Cremonini
who was undergoing a trial. The causes and course of the trial of Cremonini
by the Inquisition are not yet known. All that is known is that he was
Professor of the philosophy of Aristotle at the University of Padua; and it
appears from the letters of Sagredo to Galileo, that his lectures and writings
had given rise to suspicions of atheism. For the rest, Cremonini was all his
life one of Galileo’s most decided enemies.

The very triumphs of Galileo and his telescopic discoveries were the
causes, to a great extent, of those ceaseless and relentless persecutions
which were to restrict his labours and embitter his life. The Aristotelians
perceived with rage and terror the revolutionary discoveries of this
dangerous innovator were surely, if slowly, gaining ground. Every one of
them, with its inevitable logical consequences, pulled down some important
stone in the artistic structure of their views of nature; and unless some
measures were taken to arrest the demolition, it was clear that the venerable
edifice must fall and bury the inmates beneath the ruins. This must be
averted at any price, even at the price of knowledge of the acts of nature. If
Galileo’s reformed physics offered no point of attack, his astronomy did;
not indeed in the honourable contest of scientific discussion, but by
bringing theology into the field against science.
Galileo had never openly proclaimed his adoption of the earth’s double
motion, but the demonstration of his telescopic observations alone sufficed
to make it one of the burning questions of the day. What were the phases of
Venus and Mercury, the motions of the solar spots, and above all Jupiter and
his moons, this little world within our large one, as Galileo afterwards
called it himself,[75] but telling proofs of the truth of the Copernican theory?
The question of the two systems had been hitherto an exclusively scientific
one. How else could the famous philosopher and astronomer Nicholas of
Casa, who taught the double motion of the earth in the fifteenth century,
have gained a cardinal’s hat? How could the German, Widmanstadt, have
explained his theory, which was based upon the same principles, to Pope
Clement VII. in 1533? How could learned men like Celio Calganini,
Wurteis, and others, have given public lectures on the subject in Italy in the
second half of the sixteenth century? Neither Casa, however, nor
Widmanstadt, Calganini, Wurteis, nor even Copernicus, had ventured
openly to declare war with the school of Aristotle, nor to overthrow by the
crushing evidence of experiment the dogmas of natural science based upon
philosophy and a priori arguments alone. These learned men had been
tolerated because they fought with the same weapons as the followers of
Ptolemy, logic and philosophy. They did not possess the powerful lever of
direct evidence, because they were not acquainted with the telescope. But
Galileo, with his fatal system of demonstration by observation of nature,
was far too dangerous a foe. Peripateticism was no match for the home
thrusts of arguments obvious to the senses, and its defenders were well

aware that if they would not yield their position they must call in some
other ally than mere science. And they adopted the means best adapted for
putting a temporary drag on the wheels of truth, and for ruining Galileo; in
order to prop up the failing authority of Aristotle they called in the
inviolable authority of Holy Scripture!
This dragging of the Bible into what had previously been a purely
scientific controversy, a proceeding which proved so fatal to Galileo, must
not however, as has been done by several authors, be attributed solely to
party considerations or even personal motives. This is absolutely false.
Greatly as these factors were concerned in it, it must be admitted that at first
they were only incidentally mixed up with it. The multitude of the learned,
who still adhered entirely to the old system of the universe, and regarded
the theories of Copernicus (not yet based on ocular demonstration) as mere
fantasies, were really aghast at the telescopic discoveries of Galileo which
threatened to overturn all their previous beliefs. The learned, and still more
the semi-learned, world of Italy felt the ground tremble beneath their feet;
and it seemed to them as if the foundations of all physics, mathematics,
philosophy, and religion, were, with the authority of Aristotle, which had
reigned for two thousand years, being borne to the grave. This did not
present itself to them as progress but as sacrilege.
A young fanatic, the monk Sizy (the same who seven years later was
broken on the wheel for political crimes at Paris), was the first to transfer
what had been a purely scientific discussion to the slippery arena of
theology. At the beginning of 1611 he published at Venice a work called
“Dianoja Astronomica”[76] in answer to the “Sidereus Nuncius,” in which
he asserted that the existence of the moons of Jupiter was incompatible with
the doctrines of Holy Scripture. He appropriately dedicated his book to that
semi-prince of the blood, John de’ Medici, who was known to be the mortal
enemy of Galileo. The author, as we learn from his own work, was one of
those contemptible men who carefully abstained from even looking through
a telescope, although firmly convinced that the wonders announced by
Galileo were not to be seen. Galileo did not vouchsafe to defend himself
from this monkish attack any more than from Horky’s libel the year before.
He contented himself with writing on the back of the title page of the copy
still preserved in the National Library at Florence the following lines from
Ariosto:—

“Soggiunse il duca: Non sarebbe onesto
Che io volessi la battaglia torre,
Di quel che m’ offerisco manifesto,
Quando ti piaccia, innanci agli occhi torre.”[77]

But Galileo’s envious foes at once consorted with the, at all events,
honourable fanatics of the old school, and eagerly seized the opportunity of
pursuing their miserable designs “to the glory of God and imperilled
religion.” It was in Florence itself, in the palace of the Tuscan Archbishop
Marzimedici, who had once studied under Galileo at Pisa, that secret
consultations were held, presided over by this prelate, how the inconvenient
philosopher and his revolutionary system might best be ruined. They even
then went so far as to request a preacher to hurl at Galileo from the pulpit
the accusation, more dangerous than any other in the sixteenth century, that
he was attacking the Bible with his doctrines. But for this time these pious
gentlemen had gone to the wrong man, for the priest, seeing through the
foul purpose of the commission, declined it.
Galileo had not the slightest knowledge of the secret conspiracy which
was plotting against him, and was first roused from the security into which
he had been lulled by the brilliant success of his visit to Rome by a letter
from his friend there, Cigoli the painter, of 16th December, 1611.[78] But he
did not at first attach to these communications the importance they
deserved, and it was not until several months afterwards that he addressed
himself to Cardinal Conti, who was very friendly to him, to ask how far the
Holy Scriptures did really favour the Aristotelian views of the universe, and
whether the Copernican system contradicted them.
Conti answered him in a letter of 7th July, 1612,[79] that the statements of
Holy Scripture were rather against the Aristotelian principle of the
unchangeableness of the heavens than in favour of it, for all the fathers had
held the contrary opinion. But the case was different with the doctrine of the
earth’s revolution round the sun, as held by the Pythagoreans, Copernicus
and others. This certainly did not seem to agree with Holy Scripture, unless
it was assumed that it merely adopted the customary mode of expression.
But, added the cardinal, that was a method of interpretation to be employed
only in case of the greatest necessity. Diego di Zuñiga had indeed explained
in this way, conformably with the Copernican opinions, the passage in

which Joshua commanded the sun to stand still; but the explanation was not
generally admitted.
Father Lorini also, professor of ecclesiastical history at Florence,
afterwards a ringleader of the base intrigues against Galileo and an
informant against him, wrote to him 5th November, 1612,[80] to deny a
report that he had publicly preached against Galileo. He only confessed to
having given it as his opinion, in a conversation about the two systems, that
the View of this Ipernic, or whatever his name might be, appeared to be
contrary to Holy Scripture. Galileo wrote in a letter of 5th January, 1613,[81]
to Prince Cesi: “The good man is so well acquainted with the author of
these doctrines that he calls him Ipernic. You can see how and by whom
poor philosophy suffers.” It appears also from the same letter that Galileo
was now well aware of the intrigues being carried on against him in
Florence, for he says among other things: “I thank you and all my dear
friends very much for your anxiety for my protection against the malice
which is constantly seeking to pick quarrels even here, and the more so
since the enemy is so near at hand; but as they are but few in number, and
their ‘league,’ as they call it among themselves, is but of limited extent, I
laugh at it.”

CHAPTER IV.
ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY.

Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about the Solar Spots.
—Favourable reception of Galileo’s work on the subject at Rome.—
Discussion with the Grand Duchess Christine.—The Bible brought into
the controversy.—Ill-fated Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against
Galileo.—Lorini denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop
Bonciani’s attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the
Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd
accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s favour.

While the storm which was to burst over Galileo’s head was thus slowly
gathering, he was making important progress in the departments of physics
and mechanics.
His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important results.
[82]
In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic philosophers, and
refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating or partial immersion of
bodies in water depended chiefly on their form, for by his approved method
of studying the open book of nature he clearly showed the error of that
opinion. In this work Galileo laid the foundations of hydrostatics as mostly
held to this day. The old school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter
of course; but their polemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of
antiquated wisdom had in their impotence mostly to content themselves
with wretched sophisms as opposed to Galileo’s hard facts, and as a last
resort to insist on the authority of Aristotle.
The combatants who took the field with various writings to defend the
Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were the professors
Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle Colombo, in 1612,
and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered by Benedetto
Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the National Library at
Florence, was not published, out of pity for his opponent who, in the
meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune. Although professing to
be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to belong to the Greek Non-Uniat
church, which entailed the loss of his professorship at the University of
Pisa. Galileo intended himself to answer Palmerini, but while he was doing
so Palmerini died, and not wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply
aside. The lame objections of the other two received a brilliant refutation in
a work published in 1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in

the National Library at Florence, which is mostly in Galileo’s handwriting,
it is evident that he was the real author.[83]
During the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the
treatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy with
the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of mathematics at
Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of their discovery. In three
letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there in 1612) he had claimed for
himself, under the pseudonym of “Apelles,” the earliest observation of
these appearances, and explained them conformably to the traditional
opinions. He propounded the ingenious idea that these spots were a
multitude of little planets, passing over the sun’s disk as they revolved
round the earth. By this clever explanation he secured the applause of all
the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed himself the decided foe of Galileo.
Challenged to do so by Welser, Galileo replied in three letters addressed to
him, in which “Apelles” came off but poorly.[84] Galileo convincingly
refuted his opponent’s explanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his
own right to the priority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to
whom he had made it known in 1610. These letters, together with
Scheiner’s, were published in March, 1613, under the title “History and
Explanation of the Solar Spots,”[85] with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a
dedication to his illustrious friend Salviati, of the “Accadémia dei Lincei.”
The publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was
the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican system.
This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these essays. The
controversy on the two systems came more and more to the front. And yet,
notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem at first to have been
felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical circles. On the contrary, we
find the cardinals Maffeo Barberini[86] (afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and
Federigo Borromeo,[87] thanking Galileo in the most friendly terms for
sending them his work, and expressing their sincere admiration for the
researches described in it. And Battista Agucchia, then one of the first
officials at the court of Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory
XV., in a similar letter of thanks,[88] not only fully endorsed these opinions,
but expressed his firm belief that they would in time be universally
acknowledged, although now they had many opponents, partly from their

novelty and remarkable character, and partly from the envy and obstinacy
of those who had from the first maintained the contrary view.
The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less friendly
to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics at the papal residence.
Father Castelli, who in October of the same year was called to the chair of
mathematics at this university, reports in a letter of 6th November,[89] in
which he tells Galileo what reception he had met with from the heads of the
college, that the proveditor of the university, Mgr. d’Elci, had expressly
forbidden him at his first interview to treat in his lectures of the double
motion of the earth, or even to take occasion in any digression to mention it
as probable!
An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate cause of
turning the controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo.
One day in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were
guests at the Grand Duke’s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying.
The conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena of the
Medicean stars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia,
professor of physics at the university, was constrained with a heavy heart to
confirm, in answer to a question of the Grand Duke’s mother, Christine.
Castelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo’s splendid
discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master his
displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that all
Galileo’s telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth, only the
double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay impossible, as the Holy
Scriptures were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then over, and Castelli
took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace when he saw Christine’s
porter hastening after him and calling him back. He obeyed, and found the
whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke’s apartments. Christine
now began, after a few introductory remarks, to attack the Copernican
doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli at first made some humble
attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into the controversy; but as this was of
no avail he resolutely took the theological standpoint, and defended the
modern views of the universe so impressively and convincingly that nearly
all present, even the Grand Duke and his consort, took his side, and the
Duchess dowager alone made any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had

been the cause of the unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the
discussion.
Castelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but remarked
expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand
Duchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear his
replies.[90]
This then was the provocation to that famous letter of Galileo’s to his
friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological digressions
occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended for publication,
was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents, and to form the
groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been related it will be
seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo that it was he who first
introduced the theological question into the scientific controversy about the
two systems is entirely unwarranted. On the contrary, these explanations to
Castelli, of 21st December, bear telling testimony to the indignation which
Galileo felt in seeing the Scriptures involved in a purely scientific
discussion, and that the right of deciding the question should even be
accorded to them. He sharply defines the relation in which the Bible stands
to natural science, marking the limits which it can only pass at the expense
of the healthy understanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully
admits that the Scriptures cannot lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold
good of all their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad
contradictions, nay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always interpret
the Bible in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must
attribute to God hands, feet, and ears, human feelings such as anger,
repentance, hatred, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of
the future.
“As therefore,” continues Galileo, “the Holy Scriptures in many places
not only admit but actually require a different explanation from what seems
to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved for the
last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like nature, owe their
origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by the Holy Spirit, the
latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands; it was necessary, however,
in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate itself to the understanding of
the majority, to say many things which apparently differ from the precise
meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares

not whether her hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible to the
human understanding or not, and never deviates on that account from her
prescribed laws. It appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which
experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived
from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which
contain thousands of words admitting of various interpretations, for every
sentence of Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of
nature.”
Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself intelligible to
uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even its main doctrines
in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God which are unlike His
character and even opposed to it, who will maintain that in speaking
incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes to clothe its real meaning in
words literally true? Proceeding on the principle that the Bible and nature
are both irrefragable truths, Galileo goes on to draw the following
conclusions.
“Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the part
of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find out the real
meaning of its statements, in accordance with the conclusions regarding
nature which are quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or
from necessary demonstration. As therefore the Bible, although dictated by
the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of
an interpretation other than the literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot
maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it
would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of
Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions
concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the
evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds
to man’s understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be
known in the world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best
not to add, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation
and the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are in no
danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against them,
especially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who,
although quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are
obviously destitute of those faculties which are needed, I will not say for

the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations by
which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.
I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to
convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, and
which being far above man’s understanding cannot be made credible by any
learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit. But that the
same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and understanding,
does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us in any other way
with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire for ourselves by
means of those faculties, that it seems to me I am not bound to believe,
especially concerning those sciences about which the Holy Scriptures
contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and this is precisely
the case with astronomy, of which there is so little that the planets are not
even all enumerated.”
Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a
scientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his opponents, who, feeling
that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had
entrenched themselves behind an unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds to
discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were fond
of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern views
and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries with their own
weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally, and God really
arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua’s prayer, and thus
prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the impossibility, of the
Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican agrees with it very well.
According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes on, the sun has two motions,
the annual one from west to east, and the daily one from east to west. Being
diametrically opposed to each other, they cannot both be the sun’s own
motions. The annual motion is the one which belongs to it; the other
originates in the primum mobile, which carries the sun round the earth in
twenty-four hours and occasions day and night. If therefore God desired to
prolong the day (supposing the Ptolemaic system to be the right one) He
must have commanded, not the sun but the primum mobile, to stand still.
Now, as it is stated in the Bible that God arrested the sun in its course,
either the motions of the heavenly bodies must be different from what
Ptolemy maintained them to be, or the literal meaning must be departed

from, and we must conclude that the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God
commanded the sun to stand still, meant the primum mobile, but,
accommodating themselves to the comprehension of those who are scarcely
able to understand the rising and setting of the sun, said just the opposite of
what they would have said to scientifically educated people. Galileo also
says that it was highly improbable that God should have commanded the
sun alone to stand still, and have allowed the other stars to pursue their
course, as all nature would have been deranged by it without any occasion,
and his belief was that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the whole
system of the universe, at the expiration of which all the heavenly bodies,
undisturbed in their mutual relations, could have begun to revolve again in
perfect order: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like
irony.
At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the
passage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar
spots the revolution of the sun on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it is
also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature, the heart of
the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with certainty, is the
source of light to the planets revolving round it, but also lends them their
motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a revolution of the earth, at
any rate a diurnal motion on its own axis, it would certainly suffice merely
to stop the sun in his course, in order to bring the whole system to a
standstill, and thus to prolong the day without disordering nature.[91]
Castelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to the Grand
Duchess Christine’s objections, and took care to give it a wide circulation
by means of numerous copies. Galileo’s enemies, however, eagerly grasped
the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their hands by his friend.
They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which exactly adapted it to
their purpose. They turned Galileo’s emphatic opinion that the Scriptures
had no business in a scientific controversy into the reproach that he assailed
the universal authority of the Bible; by making Joshua’s miracle the subject
of his disquisitions he laid himself open to the cutting remark that the
statements of Holy Scripture must be protected from the arbitrary
interpretations of profane laymen.
Gherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely
unaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged about the system

that Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened to
bring the matter before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified by being
informed that the founder of that system was not any man then living in
Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before, and that his
work had been dedicated to Pope Paul III., and had been graciously
accepted by him.
Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in
Father Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right tool for setting on foot the
long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse of the pulpit,
for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And as the
favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared as
Galileo’s first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon against the
astronomer and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent, 1614, in the
church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his wit by selecting
as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter of Joshua and the first
chapter of Acts. He began with the words: Viri Galilæi quid statis
aspicientes in cœlum: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven?” Astronomy was thus happily introduced into the pulpit. The
furious preacher asserted that the doctrine taught by Galileo in Florence, of
the earth’s revolution round the sun, was quite irreconcilable with the
Catholic religion, since it glaringly contradicted several statements in Holy
Scripture, the literal meaning of which, as adopted by the fathers, was
opposed to it. And, as he further asserted that no one was permitted to
interpret the Bible in any other sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as
good as denounced the doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a
coarse attack on mathematicians in general, whose science he called an
invention of the devil; and with a wish that they should be banished from all
Christian states, since all heresies proceeded from them.
As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi
Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for his learning, who was all his
life an admirer of Galileo, told him in a letter of 10th January, 1615,[92] how
heartily he regretted this miserable exhibition. He said, among other things:
“I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which has taken place, and
the more so because the author of it is a brother of my order; for,
unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities (tutte le bestialità)
which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and do actually commit.” This

sentence has caused all Galileo’s biographers who mention this letter, with
the exception of Nelli,[93] to conclude that Maraffi was the general of the
order of Dominicans; yet a glance at the Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum,
etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif and Echard, would have shown them that
from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin Secco, of Pavia, was general, and was
succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.[94] Perhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore
the title of a preacher of the Dominican order, which fully explains his letter
to Galileo.[95]
Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the
insult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But
Prince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any steps
were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the affair and to
avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal Bellarmine, the
first authority of the sacred college, had told him (Cesi) that he held the
opinion to be heretical, and that the principle of the earth’s double motion
was undoubtedly contrary to Holy Scripture. In this complicated state of
affairs the prince recommended that several mathematicians should
complain of the public insults to the science of mathematics and its
disciples. But he gave another express warning to leave the Copernican
system entirely alone, or they might take occasion at Rome to consult
whether the further spread of this opinion was to be permitted or
condemned. Cesi added that in that case it would very likely be condemned,
as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there, and its opponents were
generally hated; besides, it was very easy to prohibit and suspend.[96]
Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently
allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus to all the later
persecutions of Galileo.
The questionable merit of having brought Galileo’s affairs before the
tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend of Caccini, and
brother of the same order. Galileo’s fatal letter to Castelli had fallen into his
hands; and when, later on, thanks to Caccini’s zeal, a great ferment began
about it in monkish circles at Florence, Lorini was moved to send a
denunciation of the letter and a copy of it secretly to the Holy Office at
Rome. The whole statement, which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini,
President of the Congregation of the Index, is couched in a most artful and

miserable style. The denunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention
Galileo by name (for he still had powerful friends even among the highest
dignitaries of the Church), only speaks of the “Galileists” in general, “who
maintain, agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and
the heavens stand still.” He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus,
in order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question. Lorini
goes on to say: “all the fathers of this (his own) devout convent of St. Mark
find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or presumptuous, as
when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture are indefinite; that in
discussions about natural phenomena the lowest place must be assigned to
them; that the commentators have often been mistaken in their
interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should not be mixed up with
anything but matters of religion; that in nature philosophical and
astronomical evidence is of more value than holy and Divine (which
passages your reverence[97] will find underlined by me in the said letter, of
which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when Joshua commanded the
sun to stand still, we must only understand that the command was addressed
to the primum mobile, as this itself is the sun.” In these statements Lorini
perceives great peril for the Church; he is indignant “that they (the
Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures after their own fashion, and
differently from the usual interpretation of the fathers, and should defend an
opinion which the Holy Scriptures appear to be entirely opposed to.... They
tread the entire philosophy of Aristotle, of which scholastic philosophy has
made so much use, under foot,” he exclaims: “in short, to show how clever
they are, they (the Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter
them abroad in our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its
own good spirit and the watchfulness of our august rulers.” He feels moved
to inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and that if
any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures. After this
ominous hint he hypocritically adds: “I, who hold that all those who call
themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians, but a little over
wise and self conceited in their opinions, declare that I am actuated by
nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred cause.” After this assurance
he begs that this letter of his, (“I do not say the enclosed letter,”) he hastens
to add in a parenthesis, “may be kept secret and considered merely a
friendly exchange of opinion between servant and master,” and not as a
legal deposition.[98] In conclusion, he expressly mentions the celebrated

sermon of Caccini, probably in order that he might be called as a witness
against Galileo, an object which, as we shall see, was attained.
In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called
upon at once to institute a secret inquiry about the astronomer. As Lorini
had only been able to show a copy of Galileo’s letter to Castelli in
confirmation of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be of great
importance to obtain possession of the original, written and signed by
Galileo. To attain this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the principle that
“the end sanctifies the means.” Cardinal Mellini, under date of 26th
February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to write to the
Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were to procure that
document “in a skilful manner.” On the very next day the order was
despatched.[99]
It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short
stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco Bonciani.
He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With this end in
view he began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken aback by such an
exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions, particularly that of the
revolution of the earth, adding that it would be to his salvation, while to
hold them would be to his ruin, for those opinions (to say nothing of their
folly) were dangerous, repulsive, and mischievous, for they were directly
opposed to Holy Scripture. The philosophical arguments with which the
archbishop tried to convert Castelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax
in the profound remark that as all things (creatura) had been created for the
use and benefit of man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a
star.[100] After giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the
same for Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the world
the folly of that opinion. But, in order to do it successfully, he must first
acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo’s arguments; and, therefore (and
now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently begs Castelli to let him see
Galileo’s apologetic letter.
Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli’s possession, for he had returned
it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive the trap that
was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo of the request
and warmly to second it.[101] But Galileo had suspicions, and delayed to

reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two letters to Rome, of
8th and 28th of March,[102] that Castelli was convinced that he only wanted
to see the letter out of curiosity, and as the common friend of both had
written to Galileo; still Galileo had not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks
“whether he shall be more open with Castelli?” But this time cunning did
not attain its end; at the repeated urgency of Castelli,[103] Galileo at last sent
him a mere copy without signature, and with the express reservation that he
was not to let it go out of his hands. From a letter of Castelli’s[104] to
Galileo we learn that in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the
archbishop in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically
concealed his annoyance at the failure of his intrigue, and put a good face
on it, for Castelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly
praised Galileo’s demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics present the
modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed.
So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo’s
criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for his
opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in the
document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they looked ill,
they were capable of being taken in a good sense, and were not of that
nature that they could be said to deviate from Catholic doctrine.[105]
Meanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of 19th March,
to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially well informed about
Galileo’s errors.[106] He appeared before the holy tribunal the very next day,
and eloquently poured forth his accusations; but, although upon oath, he did
not adhere very strictly to truth. For not only did he denounce the opinion of
Copernicus as quasi heretical, being opposed to all scholastic theology and
to the customary interpretation of many passages of Scripture, and assert
that these doctrines were to be found both in the letter to Castelli and in the
purely scientific treatise on the solar spots, but added the far more serious
charge that he had heard that Galileo maintained the three following
propositions: “God is not a self existent being, but an accident; God is
sentient because the Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to
be performed by the saints are not real miracles.” He further says that
Galileo is at any rate “suspicious in religious matters,” because he belongs
to “a certain Accadémia dei Lincei,” and corresponds with the godless Fra
Paolo Sarpi at Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd

deductions from real facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of
heresy out of an academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety,
and to place Galileo’s religion in doubt on account of his scientific
correspondence with magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc.,
was almost like madness.[107]
In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the
testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman,
Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the same
year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper but a bad
listener. Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple of the Dominicans
than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with Ximenes, in their convent
of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition concerning the nature of the
Godhead, but it originated entirely in scholasticism and had nothing to do
with Galileo. Caccini, listening behind a partition, caught something of the
conversation; and, thinking that Attavanti was a well instructed follower of
Galileo, and was merely repeating what he had taught him, explained the
fragments of the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these
stupid accusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and
Attavanti that neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo,
except that he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.
[108]

After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of
Caccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry into the
“History and Explanation of the Solar Spots.”[109] This, and the oft
discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which
Galileo’s enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological
error.

CHAPTER V.
HOPES AND FEARS.

Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s work.—Blindness
of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the Grand Duchess Christine.—
Effect produced by it.—Visit to Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was
cited to appear.—Caccini begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican
system at Rome.—His mistake in so doing.

Galileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the secret proceedings
of the Inquisition against him and his system. He had only discovered that
some Dominican monks wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli to
effect the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, and that they were
spreading all sorts of calumnies against him based upon it. Fearing that the
copy of it on which they relied might have been tampered with, he sent a
correct copy on 16th February, 1615, to his sincere friend Mgr. Dini at
Rome, with a request that he would forward it to the mathematician, Father
Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal Bellarmine. Galileo observed in
the accompanying letter that he had written the one to Castelli “currente
calamo,” that since then he had made many researches into the subject
therein discussed, and announced the speedy completion of a larger work,
in which he should carry out his reasoning far more in detail; as soon as it
was finished he would send it to Mgr. Dini. (This was his great Apology to
the Grand Duchess Christine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his
enemies were daily increasing in number, and, in order to injure him the
more, were spreading the strange report among the people that he was the
founder of the system of the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to
incidents like that with Bishop Gherardini.[110]
The philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited, received
in reply consolatory assurances from Mgr. Dini and others of his
ecclesiastical friends. But they earnestly advised him to treat the subject of
the Copernican system purely from the mathematical, physical point of
view, and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint came rather late
in the day, and could not now be of much use to Galileo, when his doctrines
were already attacked as heretical, although secretly at that time, and the
accusation was based on the purely scientific work on the solar spots. War
had been declared with the Copernican system in the name of the Bible.
Galileo’s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th March,[111]
plainly show how unwillingly he had been driven into the theological field

by his opponents. After he had in the second letter decidedly rejected Dini’s
suggestion that he should treat the Copernican system merely as a
hypothesis, he added that it had been his earnest desire to keep strictly to his
part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to defend his astronomical
system against religious scruples. He entirely agrees with those who say
that the task of bringing natural science into agreement with Holy Scripture
should be left to theologians, and shows that he has been compelled to
defend himself on this dangerous ground. He says besides that his letter to
Castelli was not originally intended to go any farther, and regrets that
Castelli had had copies made of it without his knowledge.
It is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when the secret
denunciation had been laid before the tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome,
all the letters and reports which Galileo received from Rome, even from
trustworthy friends, Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were calculated
to allay his anxious fears. None of those persons, although in influential
positions, and likely it would seem to have been better informed, knew, as
appears from their correspondence with Galileo, anything of the
proceedings which were being instituted at Rome against him and the
Copernican system. The Inquisition knew well enough how to keep its
secrets. On 28th February[112] Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently to Galileo
that, notwithstanding all the inquiries he had made, he could learn nothing
of any measures against him or the new doctrines; he sets down the whole
rumour to the incautious talk of some hot-headed fellow.
On 7th March[113] Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine had said
“he did not think that the work of Copernicus would be prohibited, and the
worst that would happen would be that some addition would be made to it,
stating that this theory was only accepted to explain phenomena,[114] or
some such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able to
discuss the subject whenever he had occasion.” Under the same date Prince
Cesi tells Galileo that a work had just been published by a Dominican
monk, which brilliantly defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it
agree with Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have appeared
more opportunely.[115]
But what seems the most strange are the express and repeated assurances
of the cardinals Barberini, Del Monte, and Bellarmine, to Galileo, through

Dini and Ciampoli, that so long as he did not go beyond the province of
physics and mathematics, nor enter into any theological interpretations of
Scripture, he had nothing to fear.[116] How could Cardinal Bellarmine, who
had not long before expressly stated to Prince Cesi that the new system was
not compatible with the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and who, as a member
of the Inquisition, must have been aware of the transactions which had been
going on about Galileo since 5th February, give these assurances so directly
opposed to the truth? And yet these three prelates afterwards gave many
proofs of good will towards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct
to be explained? It was simply that they were friendly to Galileo, but not to
his doctrines. They certainly desired to shield his person, and afterwards
honestly endeavoured to do so even under most difficult circumstances; but
the system he defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be
suppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared advisable to keep
it a secret from Galileo that the statement of Copernicus that the earth
moved was assailed from the theological standpoint, until the Holy Office
had issued the interdict against its circulation and defence. It was thus that
they prudently rounded the rocks which the dreaded dialectics of the clever
Tuscan had exposed to view.
And the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict of the Church
was to be pronounced on the Copernican theory, and the more eagerly the
secret inquiries about Galileo were being prosecuted, the more confident
became the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where this
ominous web was being woven. It seems as if all Galileo’s trusty adherents
had been struck with blindness, for we should not be justified in doubting
the sincerity of a Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who afterwards proved
by their actions their true friendship for the great astronomer. On 20th
March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on the 21st Ciampoli
communicates to Galileo the consoling observations of the cardinals Del
Monte and Bellarmine mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds to these
comforting assurances by telling him that Foscarini’s work was no doubt in
great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of the Holy Office to
take place next month, but only because it meddled with matters concerning
Holy Scripture. He goes on to say with real satisfaction that he can only
confirm his previous information, and that all this noise originated with four
or five persons who are hostile to Galileo; he and Dini had taken all
possible pains to find out this assumed agitation, but had discovered

absolutely nothing. He repeats this most decidedly in a letter of a week
later;[117] and in another of 16th May[118] he cannot at all understand what
has so disconcerted Galileo, and adds that it was no longer doubtful that the
Copernican doctrine would not be prohibited, and expresses his conviction
that it would be a great satisfaction to every one if Galileo would come to
Rome for a time, and the more so because he had heard that many of the
Jesuits were secretly of Galileo’s opinion, and were only keeping quiet for
the present.
A private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo, of June
20th, is equally sanguine. He tells him that Foscarini’s work, of which a
new and enlarged edition is to appear immediately, has had great success at
Rome, and that the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much
cast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that treatise nor the
doctrines in question are in any danger, if only a little prudence is exercised.
Cesi even thinks that the new edition, in which the author refutes all the
objections to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical authorities, convince
opponents, and put an end to the whole business. “Then,” continues the
prince confidently, “when every difficulty is removed and attack rendered
impossible, the doctrine will be so fully permitted and recognised, that
everybody who wishes to maintain it will be at liberty to do so, as in all
other purely physical and mathematical questions.”[119]
This is the last letter we have from Galileo’s friends of this period. From
this date to the time of his stay in Rome, in 1616, there are no letters to him
extant. This is the more to be regretted, as the gap occurs at a very
interesting juncture. Perhaps after the Copernican doctrines were
condemned Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence out of regard
for his friends, for it may have contained allusions to very delicate matters.
Meanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by Mgr. Dini,[120] he
had completed his great apologetic treatise, in the form of a letter to the
Grand Duchess Dowager, Christine. As it accurately defines the standpoint
which Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and sincere Catholic,
with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems necessary to give a sketch of
its contents.
Galileo begins with the motive of his Apology. Several years ago he had
made many discoveries in the heavens, the novelty of which, and the vast

consequences they involve, which are opposed to many of the principles of
the modern Aristotelian school, have incensed no small number of
professors against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in the heavens
with his own hands in order to overturn nature and science. Placing a
greater value on their own opinions than on truth, these men had taken upon
themselves to deny the existence of these discoveries, whereas if they had
only consented to observe them, they would have been convinced. Instead
of this, they assailed the new discoveries with empty arguments, and worst
mistake of all, interwove them with passages of Scripture which they did
not understand. But when the majority of the scientific world was
convinced with its own eyes, so that it was impossible any longer to doubt
the truth of these phenomena, their opponents tried to consign them to
oblivion by obstinate silence; and when that did not avail they took another
course. Galileo says that he should pay no more heed to these attacks than
to former ones, at which, confident of the final result, he had always
laughed, but they seek to cast an aspersion on him which he dreads more
than death. His opponents, knowing that he favoured the opinion of the
double motion of the earth, and thereby attacked the Ptolemaic and
Aristotelian principles, and perceiving since the universal recognition of his
observations that they could never combat him successfully on the field of
natural philosophy, are trying now to make a shield for their false
statements out of a fictitious piety and the authority of Holy Scripture. They
have therefore first tried to spread the opinion that the views he defends are
opposed to the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy of condemnation.
They then easily found some one to denounce them from the pulpit, and he
hurled his anathemas not only at the Copernican doctrines, but against
mathematicians in general. They also gave out that the modern views of the
system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical by the highest
authorities.
Galileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of these doctrines,
was not only a good Catholic, but a priest highly esteemed by the Roman
curia, both for his learning and piety. He had dedicated his famous work:
“De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” to Pope Paul III., and no one had
felt any scruples about his doctrines, although some ill-disposed persons
want to have the book pronounced heretical, without ever having read, to
say nothing of studied it. As an adherent of the Copernican theory, Galileo
now feels compelled, in order to justify himself, to discuss in detail these

arguments from Scripture brought forward by his opponents, and he hopes
to prove that he is animated by a greater zeal for true religion than his
adversaries; for he by no means demands that the book should not be
condemned, but that it should not be condemned without being understood
or even looked at. Before proceeding to discuss these arguments, he protests
that he will not only always be ready publicly to rectify the errors he may
from ignorance have fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that
it was not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with any one on
such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these remarks, to incite others to
deliberations useful to the Church. As to the decision about the Copernican
system, we must bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical authorities, and
should it be adverse to him, let his work be torn up and burnt, for he had
neither wish nor intention to promote results that were not catholic and
pious.
After this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes to the matter
itself,—the discussion of the principles of exegesis of Scripture with respect
to natural science. He employs the same arguments as in his letter to
Castelli, only more in detail, and cites several passages from St. Augustine
in support of his views, as to how far questions of natural philosophy
should be left to the understanding and to science. He also quotes a saying
of Cardinal Baronius: “The Holy Spirit intended to teach us how to go to
heaven, and not how the heavens go.” Galileo then illustrates by examples
how derogatory it will be to the dignity of Holy Scripture if every
unauthorised scribbler is permitted to adduce passages from it in support of
his views, which he often does not interpret rightly; and experience shows
the futility of this method of proof. He then turns to the claim of theologians
to enforce upon others in scientific discussions opinions which they hold to
agree with passages of Scripture, while maintaining that they are not bound
to explain the scientific phenomena which are opposed to their decisions. In
support of this they affirm that theology is the queen of all the sciences, and
need not condescend to accommodate herself to the teachings of other
sciences far beneath her: they must submit to her as their sovereign, and
modify their conclusions accordingly. This leads Galileo to some
considerations which he will here set forth, that he may learn the opinions
of others more expert on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions
he is always ready to bow.

He is in doubt whether some ambiguity has not crept in for want of more
precision in defining why theology is entitled to be called a queen. It must
either be because all that is taught by other sciences is comprised in and
explained by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology treats of
a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects of which
profane science treats. But even the theologians themselves will hardly
maintain that the title belongs to theology in the first sense; for no one can
say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine, are better treated of in
Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boccius, and Galen.
It appears then that the royal prerogative of theology must be derived from
some other source. Galileo here remarks:—

“If then theology occupies herself solely with the highest
problems, maintains her throne by reason of the supreme
authority conferred on her, and does not condescend to the
lower sciences as not affecting salvation, the professors of
theology should not assume authority on subjects which they
have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler
should demand, without being a physician or an architect,
that people should treat themselves, or erect buildings,
according to his directions, to the great peril of poor sick
people and obvious ruin of the edifices.”

Galileo then demonstrates the vast difference between doctrinal and exact
sciences, and says that in the latter opinions cannot be changed to order.
Supported by the authority of St. Augustine, he maintains that opinions on
natural science which have been proved to coincide with actual facts cannot
be set aside by passages of Scripture, but these must be explained so as not
to contradict the indisputable results of observation. Those, therefore, who
desire to condemn an opinion in physics must first show that it is incorrect.
But it must be made the subject of close investigation, and then a different
result will often be obtained from the one desired. Many learned men who
intended to refute the Copernican theory have been changed, by
examination, from opponents to enthusiastic defenders of it. In order to
banish it from the world, as many desired, it would not be enough to shut
the mouth of any one individual, it would be necessary to prohibit not only

the writings of Copernicus and his followers, but astronomy altogether. But
to suppress his work now, when new discoveries are daily confirming his
theory, after it has been quietly submitted to for so many years, appears to
Galileo like opposition to truth itself; and to permit the book and condemn
the doctrine would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it would
allow them the opportunity of convincing themselves of the truth of an
opinion which it was a sin to believe. To forbid astronomy altogether would
be like rejecting hundreds of passages of Scripture which teach us how the
glory of God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be studied in the
open book of nature.
Galileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican theory.
According to many, it ought to be pronounced erroneous because it is
opposed to the apparent meaning of many passages in the Bible, while the
opposite opinion is to be believed de fide. He sharply defines two kinds of
scientific questions: those on which all man’s researches can only lead to
probability and conjecture, as for instance, whether the stars are inhabited
or not; and those on which, by experience, observation, and inevitable
deduction, we either have attained certainty or may safely reckon on doing
so,—as whether the earth or the heavens move. In the first case, Galileo is
decidedly of opinion that it behoves us to be guided by the literal sense of
Scripture; in the second, he repeats what he has said before, that two truths
can never contradict each other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and
of the earth as standing still to accommodate itself to the understanding of
the people, and not to confuse them, otherwise they might refuse to believe
the dogmas which are absolutely de fide. For the same reason the fathers
have spoken about things not appertaining to salvation, more in accordance
with usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by quotations from St.
Jerome and St. Thomas.
Even the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation of any
passage of Scripture of scientific import should, in Galileo’s opinion, only
confer authority on it when the question has been discussed by many fathers
with knowledge of both sides. But this is not the case with the question of
the double motion of the earth, for it had not come up at all at that time, and
it could not occur to the holy fathers to dispute it, for the current opinion
was in entire agreement with the literal meaning of the Bible. It was not
enough to say that the fathers had all believed that the earth stood still, and

that therefore it was to be held de fide, for it was very possible that they
never investigated it, and only held it as generally current. If they had done
so and found it deserving of condemnation, they would have said so, but it
had never been discovered that they had. The writings of Diego di Zuñiga
show, on the contrary, that when some theologians began to consider the
Copernican theory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture.
Moreover, no argument could be drawn from an unanimous opinion of the
fathers, for some of them spoke of the sun as stationary, others of the
primum mobile.
Galileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise and well
informed theologians on the Copernican theory. Since no investigation of it
was instituted by the ancient fathers, it might be done now by theologians
fitted for it, who, after they had carefully examined all the scientific
arguments for and against, would establish on a firm footing what was
dictated to them by Divine inspiration. He once more lays great stress on
the need of first convincing one’s self of the actual facts of nature under the
guidance of science, and then proceeding to interpret texts of Scripture. He
is indignant with those who, from malice or blinded by party interest, say
that the Church should draw the sword without delay, since she possesses
the power. As if it was always desirable to do whatever was in our power!
He shows that the fathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and
exclaims to these wranglers: “Try first to refute the arguments of
Copernicus and his followers, and leave the task of condemning them to
those to whom it belongs; but do not hope to find among the fathers, who
were as discreet as they were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who
cannot err, those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal
interests and passions. It is doubtless true that concerning these and similar
statements which are not strictly de fide, his Holiness the Pope has absolute
authority to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power of any human
being to make them true or false, or other than they de facto are.”
This lengthy treatise concludes with a disquisition on the passage in the
book of Joshua, which he treats in the same way as in the letter to Castelli.
Notwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this apology[121] not to
give any handle to his enemies, it contained far too many liberal and merely
human principles not to do the author more harm than good in the eyes of
the orthodox party, both on religious and scientific questions. His opponents

saw this plainly enough, and agitated against him all the more vehemently
at Rome.
Ominous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious enough
before; but he could not any how learn anything definite about these
attacks, only so much eked out, that something was brewing against him,
and that it was intended to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought
he could best meet these intrigues by his personal appearance at Rome; he
wanted to learn what the accusations against him were, and to show that
there was nothing in them; he desired energetically to defend the new
system, to aid truth in asserting her rights. So, early in December, 1615,
provided with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke, he set
out for Rome.[122]
Some older authors, and recently Henri Martin,[123] have repeated as a
fact the report circulated at the time by Galileo’s enemies,[124] that this visit
to Rome was by no means so voluntary as he thought fit to give out. Martin
appeals in support of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi to Cardinal
Alexander d’Este, of 1st January, 1616,[125] in which he says that the
philosopher had been cited to appear at Rome, that he might explain how he
made his doctrines, which entirely contradict Holy Scripture, agree with it.
Martin also states that the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, in a despatch of
11th September, 1632, announced that a document had been discovered in
the books of the Holy Office, which showed that Galileo had been
summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise excellent
biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of probability which, however,
are not conclusive. Besides, these arguments, in the face of other facts, are
not valid. Even if Galileo’s contemporary letters from Rome, in which he
repeatedly expresses his satisfaction that he had come there,[126] are not
relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent carrying out of the
fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th April, 1633, bears clear witness
that Martin is in error. Being asked if he came at that time to Rome of his
own accord, or in consequence of a summons, he answered: “In the year
1616 I came to Rome of my own accord, without being summoned.”[127] It
was impossible that he should then have persisted in the assumed fiction,
for he could not have denied before the Inquisition a summons issued by
itself seventeen years before, since it would certainly have been entered in

their registers.[128] According to the statement of the Tuscan ambassador
mentioned above, such a document had been discovered one year
previously in the protocols of the Holy Office. But in the face of the
question put at the examination this does not seem very credible. Moreover,
in none of the documents now open to historical research relating to the
transactions of 1616, is there any such record to be found, nor anything to
indicate that this visit of Galileo’s to Rome did not originate with himself.
Neither does the flattering reception he met with at all agree with the
assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his correspondence with Picchena,
successor in office to Vinta, though very cautious, shows that
notwithstanding the comforting assurances he had received from his friends
at Rome, he found that a zealous agitation was going on, not only against
the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.[129] In another letter of 8th
January, 1616, he says he sees every day what a good idea it was to come
here, for he had found so many snares laid for him that it would have been
quite impossible not to be caught by one or other of them, and he would not
have been able to extricate himself for a long time, perhaps never, or only
with the greatest difficulty. He is confident that he shall now very soon
destroy the traps of his enemies, and be able to justify himself in a way that
will bring all their unworthy calumnies to light. They have spread the false
report that he was in disgrace at the grand ducal court in consequence of the
enormity of his offence, and that the proceedings against him had the Grand
Duke’s entire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him by
Cosmo II. proved precisely the contrary, the assertions of his enemies
would lose all credit, and he would be believed all the more, so that he
should be able to justify himself completely.[130]
Judging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later to the Tuscan
Secretary of State, Galileo had not found it so easy to defend himself as he
anticipated. Indeed it seems to have been a very complicated business. A
passage from the letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:—

“My business is far more difficult, and takes much longer
owing to outward circumstances, than the nature of it would
require; because I cannot communicate directly with those
persons with whom I have to negotiate, partly to avoid doing
injury to any of my friends, partly because they cannot

communicate anything to me without running the risk of
grave censure. And so I am compelled, with much pains and
caution, to seek out third persons, who, without even
knowing my object, may serve as mediators with the
principals, so that I may have the opportunity of setting
forth, incidentally as it were, and at their request, the
particulars of my interests. I have also to set down some
points in writing, and to cause that they should come
privately into the hands of those whom I wish should see
them; for I find in many quarters that people are more ready
to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for the former
permits them to agree or dissent without blushing, and then
finally to yield to the arguments used—for in such
discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, whereas
people do not so readily change their opinions if it has to be
done publicly.”[131]

Galileo at length succeeded by his strenuous efforts in freeing himself
from all false accusations and in refuting the slanders of Caccini. His affairs
took so favourable a turn that the monk found it advisable to pay an
obsequious visit of several hours to Galileo, humbly begged pardon for his
previous conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power, and assured Galileo
that the agitation going on was not in any way to be laid at his door.[132] But
he could not refrain from trying to prove that the Copernican doctrines were
erroneous, in which however he had no more success than in convincing
Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to Picchena that he had found in
Caccini “great ignorance and a mind full of venom.”[133]
But Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy adjustment of
the difficulties affecting himself; the more important and grander part of it,
the preservation of the Copernican system from the interdict of the Church,
had yet to be accomplished. His letter of 6th February to Picchena tells him
of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well as of the noble purposes by
which he was animated. He writes:—

“My business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed;
all the exalted personages who have been conducting it have

told me so plainly, and in a most obliging manner, and have
assured me that people are fully convinced of my
uprightness and honour, and of the devilish malice and
injustice of my persecutors. As far as this point is concerned,
therefore, I might return home without delay, but there is a
question concerning my own cause which does not concern
myself alone, but all those who, during the last eighty years,
have advocated in printed works or private letters, in public
lectures or private conversations, a certain opinion, not
unknown to your Grace, on which they are now proposing to
pronounce judgment. In the conviction that my assistance
may be of use in the investigation of the matter, as far as a
knowledge of those truths is concerned which are proved by
the science to which I have devoted myself, I neither can nor
ought to neglect to render this assistance, while I shall
thereby follow the dictates of my conscience and Christian
zeal.”[134]

This was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few others were, to
appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately his warm and perhaps
too solicitous efforts for the Copernican cause had a result precisely
opposite to the one he intended. He was still under the great delusion that
the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of the correctness of
the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought out scepticism on the subject
everywhere in the eternal city, combated it eagerly and apparently with
signal success. In many of the first houses in Rome, such as the Cesarini’s,
Ghislieri’s, and others, he unfolded before numerous audiences his views
about the construction of the universe. He always began these discourses by
carefully enumerating all the arguments for the Ptolemaic system, and then
proved that they were untenable by the telling arguments with which his
own observations had so abundantly supplied him; and as he not seldom
added the biting sarcasm of his wit to serious demonstration, thus bringing
the laugh on his side, he prepared signal defeats for the orthodox views of
nature.[135]
But by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. He would not
see that the Romanists cared far more for the authority of Scripture than for

the recognition of the laws of nature; that his system, running counter to
orthodox interpretation of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of the
Church. And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way of
looking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the true system of the
universe would be of greater importance, even to the servants of the
Church, than her own mysteries, it was but a natural consequence of these
false premises that, instead of attaining his end, he only widened his
distance from it.

CHAPTER VI.
THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE
ASSUMED PROHIBITION TO GALILEO.

Adverse Opinion of the Inquisition on Galileo’s Propositions.—Admonition by
Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute Prohibition to treat of the Copernican
Doctrines.—Discrepancy between Notes of 25th and 26th February.—
Marini’s documents.—Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts
the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s Documents.
—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican system.—Attitude of
the Church.—Was the Absolute Prohibition ever issued to Galileo?—
Testimony of Bellarmine in his favour.—Conclusions.

The Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo’s active propagandism,
even among the learned world of Rome, and by his brilliant defence of the
new system, now hastened to bring to a conclusion the transactions which
had been going on for a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th
February, 1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were not
judges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) and required them
to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo’s work on
the solar spots:—
I. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place.
II. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not immovable, but
moves, and also with a diurnal motion.[136]
In accordance with the papal decree, these theologians met four days
afterwards, at 9 a.m. on 23rd February, and published the result of their
deliberations the next day, as follows:—
The first proposition was unanimously declared to be false and absurd
philosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts
the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many passages, both if taken in their
literal meaning and according to the general interpretation and conceptions
of the holy Fathers and learned theologians.
The second proposition was declared unanimously “to deserve the like
censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least
erroneous in the faith.”[137]
The Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against Galileo as the
chief advocate of the Copernican system, as follows:—

“Thursday, 25th February, 1616. The Lord Cardinal
Mellini notified to the Reverend Fathers the Assessors and
the Commissary of the Holy Office, that the censure passed
by the theologians upon the propositions of Galileo—to the
effect particularly that the sun is the centre of the world, and
immovable from its place, and that the earth moves, and also
with a diurnal motion—had been reported; and His Holiness
has directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before
him the said Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the said
opinion; and in case of his refusal to obey, that the
Commissary is to intimate to him, before a notary and
witnesses, a command to abstain altogether from teaching or
defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from
discussing it; and if he do not acquiesce therein, that he is to
be imprisoned.”[138]

This is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended to look like an
official report on the course of the proceedings ordained above. Every
unbiassed reader will expect to find in it either that Galileo refused to obey
the admonitions of the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of the
Inquisition then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo
immediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition would
not have had to interfere. Instead of this we find the following document,
couched half in a narrative tone, half like the report of a notary:—

“Friday, the 26th.—At the Palace, the usual residence of
the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been
summoned and brought before the said Lord Cardinal, was,
in presence of the Most Revd. Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of
the order of preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy
Office, by the said Cardinal warned of the error of the
aforesaid opinion, and admonished to abandon it; and
immediately thereafter, before me and before witnesses, the
Lord Cardinal Bellarmine being still present, the said
Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and
enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope, and the

whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish
altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the
world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor
henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way
whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings
would be taken against him in the Holy Office; which
injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to
obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, in presence of
Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of Cyprus, and
Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy of Rottz,
in the diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said Cardinal’s
house, witnesses.”[139]

The discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February is
obvious: that says that the Pope had ordered that Cardinal Bellarmine
should admonish Galileo to renounce the opinions of Copernicus, and only
in case he should refuse, was the Commissary to issue the order to him to
abstain from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here in the
report of the 26th we read, that “immediately after” the admonition of the
cardinal, the Commissary issued this stringent order, and with the
significant modification, “nor to hold, teach, or defend it in any way
whatsoever.” In this report of the proceedings it is not expressly stated
whether Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording of the
report, it is almost impossible that he could have done so, since it represents
that the Cardinal’s admonition was followed immediately by the absolute
prohibition from the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure was by no
means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would rather have been
an arbitrary deviation from it.
Until within the last ten years, in all the works, great or small, which treat
of Galileo’s trial, we find this absolute prohibition which he was said to
have received related as an established historical fact. It was the sole legal
ground on which the indictment was based against Galileo sixteen years
later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by an ostentatious
appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document had been seen by any of the
authors who wrote so confidently of the stringent prohibition of 1616,
which confirmed its historical truth. And yet it could but exist among the

inaccessible archives relating to the trial of Galileo, since the Inquisitors
relied upon it in 1633, and it was the pole and axis of the famous trial. And
what the world had accepted in good faith on the somewhat doubtful
veracity of the Inquisition was at length, apparently confirmed by the
testimony of Mgr. Marino Marini, prefect of the Vatican Archives. In that
year he published at Rome a book entitled, “Galileo e l’Inquisizione,
Memorie storico-critiche,” which, as the author stated, was founded upon
the original documents of the trial. It actually contained many “extracts”
from the original protocols; and founded upon documentary materials
accessible only to the author, it was encircled with the convenient halo of
inviolability. And for nearly twenty years no serious objection was raised to
it. Many historians did shake their heads and say that the work of the right
reverend gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition as
one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by the author’s
high-flown assertion that “the entire publication of the documents would
only redound to the glory of the Inquisition,”[140] but drily remarked that it
was really a great pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid an
opportunity to slip of performing a great service alike to history and the
Church, while the fragments produced were of little value to either one or
the other. None of this served to refute a single sentence of the apology in
question. It became, on the contrary, notwithstanding its obvious
partizanship, the chief source for subsequent narratives of the trial. And it
could not fail to be so; for even taking this partizanship into account, how
could the dates given be doubted? Could any one suspect a
misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did suspicions of an arbitrary use
and distortion of the documents at the author’s command seem justified?
Assuredly not. Besides, the papal archivist appealed with apparent
scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although, therefore, the light
thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed to be one-sided, the
correctness of his facts in general admitted of no doubt. Among these the
special prohibition of 1616 played a conspicuous part. It is laid before the
reader as beyond all question, and fully confirmed by documents. The
author, however, prudently refrained from publishing these “documents”
verbatim,—the reports of the Vatican MS. of 25th and 26th February. The
discrepancy between them would then have come to light. That was to be
avoided, and so Marini, by the approved method of rejecting all that did not

suit his purpose, concocted from the two reports a story of the assumed
prohibition to Galileo so precise as to leave nothing to be desired.[141]
In 1867 Henri de L’Epinois surprised the learned world with his work,
“Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation d’après des Documents inédits.” He
reproduced for the first time in full the most important documents which
had been at Marini’s command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he
had used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th and 26th
February verbatim. But the story of the prohibition of 1616 had so firmly
rooted itself in history, that neither Epinois himself nor the next French
historian, Henri Martin, who published a comprehensive work on Galileo
based on the published documents, thought of disturbing it.
It was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, in Germany and
Galileo’s own country, simultaneously and independently, of the
authenticity of the prohibition of 1616. In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill
who first shook this belief after careful and unbiassed investigation of the
Roman MS. published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: “Der
Inquisitions Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen
Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen Inquisition.” (The Trial of
Galileo Galilei. An Examination into its Legal Foundation by the Acts of
the Roman Inquisition.) And just when German learning was seeking to
prove by keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual narrative,
the document was published in Italy which raised Wohlwill’s conjectures to
certainty.
Up to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment resist the
cardinal’s admonition, but submitted at once, could only be drawn, as it was
drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the wording of the report of the
proceedings of 26th February, 1616, partly from Galileo’s sincere Catholic
sentiments, for he was to the end, from conviction, a true son of the Church.
However much there might be to justify the conclusion, therefore, it was
founded only on probability, was confirmed by no documents, and was
therefore open to assault. It was attacked by Friedlein in a review of
Wohlwill’s brochure.[142] But when Friedlein was trying to prove that
Galileo must have resisted the cardinal’s admonitions, and only submitted
to the peremptory threats of the official of the Inquisition, the document had
been already published in Italy which placed the question beyond doubt.
This is an extract of the protocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the

Holy Office of 3rd March, 1616, and forms part of the collection of
documents published by Professor Silvestro Gherardi in the Rivista
Europea, 1870. It is as follows:—

“3rd March, 1616.
“The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that
Galileo Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of
the Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon
(deserendam) [disserendam (discuss) was the word
originally written] the opinion he has hitherto held, that the
sun is the centre of the spheres and immovable, and that the
earth moves, and had acquiesced therein; and the decree of
the Congregation of the Index having been presented,
prohibiting and suspending respectively the writings of
Nicholas Copernicus (De Revolutionibus orbium
cœlestium....) of Diego di Zuñiga on Job, and of Paolo
Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite Friar—His Holiness ordered
this edict of prohibition and suspension respectively, to be
published by the Master of the Palace.”[143]

This document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater importance
than merely for the evidence it affords that Galileo at once submitted to the
Cardinal’s admonition; it permits the conclusion, almost to a certainty, that
a proceeding like that described in the note of 26th February never took
place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal Bellarmine was giving a
report of the proceedings of 26th February at a private sitting of the
Congregation of the Holy Office under the personal presidency of the Pope.
His report agrees precisely with the papal ordinance of 25th February: he
had admonished Galileo to give up the Copernican doctrines, and he had
consented. This was to all appearance the end of the business. The cardinal
does not say a word about the stringent proceedings said to have taken place
in his presence before notary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would
have been of far greater importance than the first. It may perhaps be said
that it was not the cardinal’s business to report the doings of the
Commissary of the Inquisition. But the objection is not valid; for in the first
place the conditions did not exist which would have justified the

interference of the Commissary, and in the second, his report would
certainly also have been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th
February were reported. But in the note of 3rd March there is not a trace of
the report of Brother Michael Angelo Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however, so
incredible that no communication should be made to the Congregation
about the most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, and that
Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the slightest reference to it in his
report, that this document of 3rd March, 1616, discovered by Professor
Gherardi, would be sufficient of itself to justify the suspicion that the course
of the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was not at all that reported in
the note relating to it in the Vatican MS., but was in accordance with the
papal ordinance of 25th February, and ended with the cardinal’s
admonition.
Let us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree better with
this suspicious note. Two days after the sitting of 3rd March, in accordance
with the order of Paul V., the decree of the Congregation of the Index on
writings and books treating of the Copernican system was published. It ran
as follows:—

“And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the
said Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is
false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture—of the
motion of the earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is
also taught by Nicholas Copernicus in De Revolutionibus
orbium Cœlestium, and by Diego di Zuñiga in (his book on)
Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many—as
may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father,
entitled, Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini,
Carmelite, on the opinion of the Pythagoreans and of
Copernicus concerning the motion of the earth, and the
stability of the sun, and the new Pythagorean system of the
world, at Naples, printed by Lazzaro Scorriggio, 1615:
wherein the said father attempts to show that the aforesaid
doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the centre of the
world, and of the earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and
is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that

this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the
prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has
decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, De
Revolutionibus orbium, and Diego di Zuñiga, on Job, be
suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the
Carmelite Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether
prohibited and condemned, and that all other works
likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by
this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends
them all respectively. In witness whereof the present decree
has been signed and sealed with the hands and with the seal
of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St.
Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March,
1616.”[144]

In this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, a distinction
is drawn between two classes of writings: those which advocate the positive
truth of the Copernican system—which are absolutely interdicted and
condemned; and those to which, by some modifications, a hypothetical
character can be given—these are to be suspended until the needful
corrections have been made. This indicated the precise attitude which the
Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican system. As a mere
working hypothesis it was not dangerous to the Roman Catholic religion;
but as irrefragable truth it shook its very foundations. They were, therefore,
determined at Rome that it should not make way as truth—it was to be
tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a mathematical hypothesis,
the use of which was obvious even to the Romish savans, it might be
allowed to stand. The cardinal’s admonition and the decree are in logical
agreement with this intention. Galileo was to “renounce” the opinions of
Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain them as established fact; as a
hypothesis, like the rest of the world he might retain them. But according to
the document of 26th February, entire silence was enjoined upon Galileo
upon the subject of the double motion of the earth, for in the injunction
neither to hold, teach, or defend it in any way (quovis modo), the
hypothetical treatment was obviously included.

Perhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the most
distinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of the Copernican
system, who by his telescopic discoveries had made the controversy a
burning question of the day. But this conjecture does not stand the test of
close investigation, for Galileo’s work on the solar spots, which was based
upon the sun’s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of forbidden
or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings of the curia against him at
that period, the friendly feeling for him personally, of powerful patrons in
the Church, is obvious, and it makes any specially rigorous action against
him very improbable. We have also other indications that this categoric
prohibition to Galileo had not then been, de facto, issued.
His letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. We cannot expect
to find in them precise information about the proceedings of 26th February,
as it was contrary to the rules of the Inquisition to make public its secret
orders, under the severest penalties; but they contain no trace of the deep
depression which would have been caused by the stringent orders of the
Holy Office against him personally. On the contrary, he writes on the 6th
March (the day following the issue of the decree) to Picchena: “I did not
write to you, most revered sir, by the last post, because there was nothing
new to report; as they were about to come to a decision about that affair
which I have mentioned to you as a purely public one, not affecting my
personal interests, or only so far as my enemies very inopportunely want to
implicate me in it.” He goes on to say that he alludes to the deliberations of
the Holy Office about the book and opinions of Copernicus; and mentions
with evident satisfaction, that the purpose of Caccini and his party to have
that doctrine denounced as heretical and contrary to the faith had not been
attained, for the Holy Office had simply stated that it did not agree with
Holy Scripture, and therefore only prohibited the books which maintained,
ex professo, that the Copernican doctrine was not contrary to the Bible.
Galileo then tells him more particularly what the decree contained, and that
the correction of the works of Copernicus and Zuñiga was entrusted to
Cardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations will be
confined to such passages as aim to prove the agreement of the modern
system with Scripture, and “here and there a word, as when Copernicus
calls the earth a star.” He adds: “I have, as will be seen from the nature of
the case, no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said before, have
troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn me into it.” He means

by this that the prohibition to try and make the doctrine of the double
motion square with Scripture was indifferent to him; he would never have
concerned himself with theology if he had not been driven to it. He then
goes on: “It may be seen from my writings in what spirit I have always
acted, and I shall continue to act, so as to shut the mouth of malice, and to
show that my conduct in this business has been such that a saint could not
have shown more reverence for the Church nor greater zeal.”[145]
In the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo repeats what he has
said about the correction of the work of Copernicus, and says emphatically
that it is clear that no further restrictions will be imposed. From a reply
from Galileo’s faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters unfortunately not extant, it
is evident that he had by no means expressed himself as cast down by the
issue of the affair. Sagredo writes in the best of spirits: “Now that I have
learnt from your valued letters the particulars of the spiteful, devilish
attacks on and accusations against you, and the issue of them, which
entirely frustrates the purposes of your ignorant and malicious foes, I, and
all the friends to whom I have communicated your letters and messages, are
quite set at rest.”[146]
It is clear, then, from Galileo’s correspondence, that he took the decree of
the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks with satisfaction of the trifling
alterations to be made in Copernicus’s work. How could the man, who was
forbidden to “hold, teach, or defend” the repudiated doctrine “in any way,”
write in this style?
A document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating to these
transactions, is of the utmost importance to the assertion that no such
prohibition had ever been issued to Galileo. After the publication of the
decree of 5th March he remained three months at Rome. His enemies took
advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been obliged formally
to recant, and absolutely to abjure his opinion. Galileo seems to have been
indignant at this; he pacified his adherents who sent anxious inquiries to
their master, and complained bitterly of the unscrupulousness of his
enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were too bad. But in order to
confute these calumnies and guard himself against them in future, before
leaving Rome he begged a certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine to prove the
falsity of this perfidious fiction. This dignitary consented, and wrote the
following declaration:—

“We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is
calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our
hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary
penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this,
declare, that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, either
in our hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome,
or anywhere else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine
held by him, neither has any salutary penance been imposed
upon him; but only the declaration made by the Holy Father
and published by the sacred Congregation of the Index, has
been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the
doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves round
the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the
world, and does not move from east to west, is contrary to
the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or
held. In witness whereof we have written and subscribed
these presents with our hand this 26th day of May,
1616.”[147]

Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and
that of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks, “the
secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the expense of
truth,”[148] it would not have put forth so downright a lie in optima forma as
the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed prohibition had really
been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition. This
prohibition might easily have been passed over in silence, while the
calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the cardinal was not
content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had “only” been
personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the Index about
the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine’s glaringly
contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it not only entirely
accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also with Bellarmine’s
report of the proceedings of 26th February in the private sitting of the
Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the cardinal certified nothing
more nor less than what had actually taken place. It leads therefore to the
following conclusions:—

1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal’s
admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine.
2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him.
3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616,
is therefore untrue.
These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of historical
events will confirm them step by step, while it can by no means be made to
tally with the assumed strict injunction of the Commissary-General. Next
however, the question immediately arises, Through whose means did the
falsehood get into the acts of the trial, and was it bona or mala fide?
Historical research can only partially answer this question. All these
notifications were entered by a notary of the Inquisition, and probably that
of 26th February, 1616, also. Did he, perhaps merely from officious zeal,
enter a note of an official proceeding as having actually taken place, which
undoubtedly was to have taken place under certain circumstances, but in
their absence did not occur, or even were not to be permitted at all in
consequence of papal instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a
power which had long been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the
failure for the time of its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters
for future use by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain
knowledge of the motives and influences which gave rise to the
falsification; as however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or
independent falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in
probability that we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo’s
enemies,[149] which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its purpose.
Wohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long been of opinion
that this note originated, not in 1616, but in 1632, in order to legalise the
trial of Galileo. But after having repeatedly and very carefully examined the
original acts of the trial, preserved among the papal secret archives, we
were compelled to acknowledge that the material nature of the document
entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent falsification.[150] The note
was not falsified in 1632; no, in 1616 probably, with subtle and perfidious
calculation, a lie was entered which was to have the most momentous
consequences to the great astronomer.

CHAPTER VII.
EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT.

Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect his recall.—Erroneous
idea that he was trying to get the Decree repealed.—Intrigues against
him.—Audience of Pope Paul V.—His friendly assurances.—His
Character.—Galileo’s return to Florence.

Galileo had humbly submitted, had witnessed the issue of the decree of
5th March by the august council; he knew that the only correct doctrine of
the system of the universe had been reduced to the shadow of a hypothesis,
and yet he could not make up his mind to leave the capital of the hierarchy
where such a slap in the face had been given to science. The story told in
most works on Galileo, that though he had submitted to the Holy Office he
afterwards used his utmost endeavours to effect a reversal of the decree, is
another of the firmly rooted and ineffaceable mistakes of history. It
originated in the reports of the Tuscan ambassador, Guiccardini, to the
Grand Duke.[151]
This diplomatist, who was no great friend of Galileo’s, found himself in
an awkward position; he had been, on the one hand, enjoined by his
sovereign to support Galileo as far as it lay in his power, while on the other
he knew that the influential female members of the house of Medici were
very anxious to maintain the good relations of Tuscany with the Holy See;
and he tried to extricate himself from this dilemma by urgently seeking to
effect the recall of the inconvenient guest to Florence. This object runs
through all the ambassador’s despatches to Cosmo II. He could not depict in
colours too glaring the passion, fanaticism, and pertinacity with which, in
spite of all advice to the contrary, Galileo defended the Copernican cause at
Rome, though he was thereby doing it more harm than good. The long
report of Guiccardini to the Grand Duke, of 4th March, 1616,[152] held to be
authentic by most of Galileo’s biographers, is couched in this tone. Among
other things a dramatic scene is narrated which was the immediate cause of
the condemnation of the Copernican system. Cardinal Orsini, one of
Galileo’s warmest friends, to whom the Grand Duke had sent an autograph
letter of introduction, had spoken to the Pope in favour of Galileo in the
consistory of 2nd March. The Pope replied that it would be well if he would
persuade Galileo to give up this opinion. Orsini then tried to urge the Pope
further, but he cut him short, saying that he had handed over the whole
affair to the Holy Office. No sooner had Orsini retired than Bellarmine, the

celebrated Jesuit theologian, was summoned to the Pope, and in the
conversation that ensued it was determined that this opinion of Galileo’s
was erroneous and heretical.
Guiccardini must have been greatly misinformed to send reports so
incorrect to his court. As we have seen, on 19th February the Qualifiers of
the Holy Office were summoned to pronounce an opinion on the
Copernican doctrines, and as the result Galileo was summoned seven days
later to appear before Bellarmine, who informed him of the decree, and
admonished him to renounce the prohibited doctrine. But all this seems to
have escaped the acuteness of the Tuscan ambassador. He supposes that the
catastrophe had been brought about by a fit of papal anger! On 4th March
he only knows what was known the next day to all the world—by the
decree of the Congregation of the Index—that the writings of Copernicus
and other authors on the subject of the double motion were to be partly
condemned, partly corrected, and partly prohibited.
Guiccardini in this despatch represented, on the one hand, the difficulties
into which the imprudent astronomer “might” bring himself by his
vehemence, and on the other the embarrassment in which those who took
his part would be placed; he reminded the Grand Duke of the attitude which
his house had at all times assumed in the past towards such attacks on the
Church of God, and of the services it had rendered to the Inquisition, adding
that he “could not approve that we should expose ourselves to such
annoyances and dangers without very good reason, and a different prospect
from that of great damage.” The most potent argument, however, which he
saved for the close of his long epistle of 4th March, as the climax, was the
endeavour to inspire Cosmo II. with the fear that his brother, Cardinal Carlo
de’ Medici, who was just coming to Rome, would compromise himself by
his relations with Galileo.
From Galileo’s correspondence with Picchena, we learn in contradiction
to this despatch what it was that induced him to linger at Rome after the
issue of the decree of 5th March. He did not wish to return to Florence
under the impressions produced by the alarming reports of Guiccardini and
the rumours spread by many of his opponents. It is evident that he was
aware of what was said of him from a passage in a letter to Picchena of 6th
March. After expressing a fear that somebody not friendly to him might
represent his affairs to the Tuscan Secretary of State and others in a false

light, he entreats Picchena to maintain, until his return, the good opinion of
him which his sincerity deserves. He is convinced that the arrival of
Cardinal de’ Medici will relieve him from the need of uttering one word of
self-justification, as he will hear at once what an excellent reputation he
enjoyed at the Court of Rome. He then goes on, as if directly refuting
Guiccardini’s accusations:—

“Then your Grace will learn, above all, with what
composure and moderation I have conducted myself, and
what regard I have had for the honour and good repute of
those who have eagerly tried to injure mine and certainly
your Grace will be surprised. I say this to you, most
honoured sir, in case any false accusations of the kind should
reach your ears from any quarter; and I hope that credit will
be given to a party not adverse to me, so that a more just
understanding may be arrived at.”

Meanwhile Galileo’s position became more favourable, because the Pope
received the submissive philosopher very graciously on 11th March, and
gave him an audience which lasted three-quarters of an hour. He seized the
opportunity of speaking to Paul V. of the intrigues of his enemies, and of
some of the false accusations against him; to which the Pope replied that he
was well aware of the rectitude and sincerity of his sentiments. And when
Galileo, in conclusion, expressed his fears of the perpetual persecutions of
relentless malice, the Pope consoled him by saying that he need not fear, for
he was held in so much esteem by himself and the whole Congregation, that
they would not listen to these calumnies, and as long as he occupied the
chair of St. Peter, Galileo might feel himself safe from all danger. Paul V.
also repeatedly expressed his readiness to show his favour by his actions.
Galileo hastened on the very next day to make known the favourable
result of this audience to Picchena, the Secretary of State, in a long letter.
[153]
The effect of it, however, was quite different from what he probably
expected. The Court of Tuscany, which had been not a little disquieted by
Guiccardini’s alarming despatch, thought it a good opportunity to press
upon Galileo, now that his fame was so brilliantly re-established, to leave
Rome and return to Florence. This was the tenor of Picchena’s reply of 20th

March.[154] Their highnesses, evidently still under the impression of
Guiccardini’s letter, implored Galileo to be quiet, and no longer to discuss
this dangerous subject, but to return.
Encouraged by the Pope’s friendly words, however, Galileo showed no
disposition to take these plain hints, and we learn from his further
correspondence that his tarriance at Rome was fully approved by the Tuscan
Court. Thus we read in a letter of 26th March: “As to my return, unless his
Highness wishes it otherwise, I shall, in accordance with your commands,
await the arrival of his Reverence the Cardinal.” And further on: “After the
arrival of the Cardinal I shall stay here as long as his Highness or the
Cardinal pleases.”[155]
To the great annoyance of Guiccardini, Galileo remained three months
longer at Rome—beneath those skies which, according to the ambassador,
must prove dangerous to him in consequence of his vehement temperament,
“especially at a time when the ruler of the eternal city hates science and
polite scholars, and cannot endure these innovations and subtleties.” This
portrait of Paul V. was undoubtedly a correct one. He cared very little for
learning, and displayed a harsh and sometimes savage character; while the
inviolability of the dogmas of the Church, ecclesiastical privileges, and
blind obedience to the faith, were supreme in his eyes. We will just remind
our readers that it was Paul V. who, just after his elevation to the papacy,
had a poor wretch, named Piccinardi, beheaded, because, for his private
amusement, he had written a biography of Clement VIII., in which he was
not very aptly compared with the Emperor Tiberius, although the work was
not intended for publication,—a sentence which occasioned great
consternation.
At a time, therefore, when the tiara was worn by a man of this character,
the atmosphere of Rome might certainly have been dangerous to an ardent
explorer in the fields of natural science. But as Galileo did not suffer any
sort of papal persecution during his stay there, it is obvious that the
character drawn of him by Guiccardini was very much exaggerated. This
also refutes the constantly reiterated fable that Galileo was eagerly trying to
get the decree of 5th March repealed. The vehement agitation imputed to
him by the ambassador, and this bold attempt, would have been speedily
followed by penalties. But history knows nothing at this period of
misunderstandings between Galileo and the Church; indeed we possess a

document which entirely contradicts the reports of Guiccardini. This is a
letter from Cardinal del Monte to the Grand Duke at the time of Galileo’s
departure from Rome, written expressly “to bear witness that he was
leaving with the best reputation and the approval of all who have had
transactions with him; for it has been made manifest how unjust the
calumnies of his enemies have been.” The cardinal adds, “that having
conversed much with Galileo, and being intimate with those who were
cognisant of all that had taken place, he could assure his Highness that there
was not the least imputation attaching to the philosopher.”[156]
But to return to the course of events. The Tuscan ambassador continued
to send disquieting letters to the Grand Duke about Galileo in order that he
might be recalled. He wrote in a despatch of 13th May: “ ... Galileo seems
disposed to emulate the monks in obstinacy, and to contend with personages
who cannot be attacked without ruining yourself; we shall soon hear at
Florence that he has madly tumbled into some abyss or other.”[157]
Cosmo II., not a little alarmed by these gloomy prognostications of his
ambassador, and really in care for the revered philosopher, at length issued
the order for his long-desired return. Picchena then wrote the following
drastic letter to Galileo, on 23rd May:—

“You have had enough of monkish persecutions, and
know now what the flavour of them is. His Highness fears
that your longer tarriance at Rome might involve you in
difficulties, and would therefore be glad if, as you have so
far come honourably out of the affair, you would not tease
the sleeping dog any more, and would return here as soon as
possible. For there are rumours flying about which we do
not like, and the monks are all powerful. I, your servant,
would not fail to warn you, and to inform you, as in duty
bound, of the wishes of our ruler, wherewith I kiss your
hand.”[158]

Galileo complied without delay with Cosmo’s wishes, and set out on his
homeward journey on the 4th of the following month.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS.

Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work of Copernicus.—
Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke Leopold of Austria.—The
Letter which accompanied it.—The three Comets of 1618.—Galileo’s
Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s Treatise on
them inspired by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical and Philosophical
Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His Death.—Death of Cosmo II.—
Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion” on it.—
Death of Gregory XV.—Urban VIII.

Seven years passed by, during which Galileo lived a secluded and
studious life in the Villa Segni, at Bellosguardo, near Florence, without
publishing any new work. How could he do so? The acceptance and further
application of the Copernican system was the mainspring of all his
scientific pursuits, of which, multifarious as they were, the principle of the
double motion of the earth was both foundation and keystone. The general
permission to employ the theory as a working hypothesis was of little
service to him. The lofty structure of correct knowledge of our universe
could not be raised on a pedestal of sand; it required the imperishable
marble of truth. Galileo was compelled to withhold the results of his
researches until, perchance, some altered state of things should change the
mind of the papal court, at present so inimical to the Copernican cause. The
publication of any researches in accordance with the Copernican system
appeared especially dangerous, until the promised corrections had been
made in the famous work of the Canon of Frauenburg, which had been
temporarily placed on the Index. These corrections would give more precise
information as to how they wished the new doctrine handled at Rome, what
limits had been set by ecclesiastical despotism to researches into nature.
Galileo watched with great anxiety the labours of the papal censors, and
tried to hasten them through his friend Prince Cesi.[159] This eager interest
in the earliest possible publication of the corrections is another thing which
does not accord with the assumed stringent prohibition of February 26th.
What difference would it have made to Galileo whether any facilities were
offered for the discussion of the Copernican theory or not, if absolute
silence on the subject had been enjoined on him?
During this period, when he could not venture to have the results of his
various researches published, he was careful to make them known to some
friends of science by means of long letters, numerous copies of which were

then circulated in Europe. Very few of them, unfortunately, have come
down to us, but there is one of them that deserves special notice. It indicates
precisely Galileo’s position: on the one hand he feels constrained to make
way for the recognition of the truth; but on the other, as a good Catholic,
and from regard to his personal safety, he does not wish to clash with
ecclesiastical authority. This letter, too, adds weight to the conclusion that
there was no prohibition enjoining absolute silence on the Copernican
theory on Galileo.
During his last stay at Rome, at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini, he had
written a treatise on the tides in the form of a letter to that dignitary, dated
January 8th,[160] in which he expressed his firm conviction, erroneously as
we now know, that this phenomenon could only be explained on the theory
of the double motion of the earth. He represented it as an important
confirmation of the truth of it. In May, 1618, he sent a copy of this treatise
to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, who was friendly to him, and was a
brother of the Grand Duchess. But as since it was written the decree of
March 5th had been issued, which only permitted discussion of the subject
as a hypothesis, Galileo thought it advisable to add a sort of accompaniment
to his treatise, in which he took the utmost pains to comply with the
conditions imposed by the Church on her dutiful and orthodox son. He
wrote:—

“With this I send a treatise on the causes of the tides,
which I wrote rather more than two years ago at the
suggestion of his Eminence Cardinal Orsini, at Rome, at the
time when the theologians were thinking of prohibiting
Copernicus’s book and the doctrine enounced therein of the
motion of the earth, which I then held to be true, until it
pleased those gentlemen to prohibit the work, and to declare
that opinion to be false and contrary to Scripture. Now,
knowing as I do, that it behoves us to obey the decisions of
the authorities, and to believe them, since they are guided by
a higher insight than any to which my humble mind can of
itself attain, I consider this treatise which I send you merely
to be a poetical conceit, or a dream, and desire that your
Highness may take it as such, inasmuch as it is based on the

double motion of the earth, and indeed contains one of the
arguments which I have adduced in confirmation of it. But
even poets sometimes attach a value to one or other of their
fantasies, and I likewise attach some value to this fancy of
mine. Now, having written the treatise, and having shown it
to the Cardinal above-mentioned, and a few others, I have
also let a few exalted personages have copies, in order that
in case any one not belonging to our Church should try to
appropriate my curious fancy, as has happened to me with
many of my discoveries, these personages, being above all
suspicion, may be able to bear witness that it was I who first
dreamed of this chimera. What I now send is but a fugitive
performance; it was written in haste, and in the expectation
that the work of Copernicus would not be condemned as
erroneous eighty years after its publication. I had intended at
my convenience, and in the quiet, to have gone more
particularly into this subject, to have added more proofs, to
have arranged the whole anew, and to have put it into a
better form. But a voice from heaven has aroused me, and
dissolved all my confused and tangled fantasies in mist. May
therefore your Highness graciously accept it, ill arranged as
it is. And if Divine love ever grants that I may be in a
position to exert myself a little, your Highness may expect
something more solid and real from me.”[161]

On reading such passages one really does not know which to be the most
indignant at,—the iron rule by which a privileged caste repressed the
progress of science in the name of religion, or the servility of one of the
greatest philosophers of all times in not scorning an unworthy subterfuge in
order to disseminate a grain of supposed truth in the world without
incurring personal danger.
But in spite of all precautions, in spite of “chimeras,” “fictions,”
“fantasies,” and even “the voice from heaven,” the circulation of this
treatise, based upon the theory of the double motion, would have been an
infringement of the assumed absolute prohibition to Galileo, while, thanks
to the ingenious accompaniment, it in no way clashed with the decree of 5th

March. Galileo’s conduct shows plainly enough that he humbly submitted
to the ecclesiastical ordinance, but there is not a trace of the prohibition to
discuss the doctrine “in any way.”
Little, however, as Galileo desired to engage, thus hampered, in any
perilous controversies, the next time it was nature herself who enticed him
into the field in which his genius and his polemical ingenuity acquired for
him both splendid triumphs and bitter foes.
In August, 1618, three comets appeared in the heavens, and the brilliant
one in the constellation of the Scorpion strongly attracted the attention of
astronomers. Although it was visible until January, 1619, Galileo had very
little opportunity of observing it, as he was confined to his bed by a severe
and tedious illness.[162] But he communicated his views on comets to
several of his friends, and among others to the Archduke Leopold of
Austria, who had come to see the sick philosopher.[163] He did not consider
them to be real heavenly bodies, but merely atmospheric appearances,
columns of vapour which rise from earth to the skies, to a very considerable
height, far beyond the moon, and become temporarily visible to the
inhabitants of the earth, in the well-known form of a comet, by the
refraction of the sun’s rays. As he judged comets to be without substance,
and placed them on a par with mock suns and the aurora borealis, he
concluded that they could have no parallax determinations.
In the same year, 1619, a Jesuit, Father Grassi, delivered a lecture on the
three comets in the Roman College, in which he gave out that such
phenomena were not mere appearances, but real heavenly bodies; copies of
this lecture were widely circulated, and Galileo was strongly urged by his
adherents to publish his opinion. He was prudent enough to evade for the
time a fresh controversy, which, in the existing critical state of affairs,
might bring him into danger, and apparently took no part in the scientific
feud which was brewing. But he induced his learned friend and pupil,
Mario Guiducci, consul of the Academy at Florence, to publish a treatise on
comets. Numerous alterations and additions, however, which are found in
the original MS. in the Palatina Library at Florence, attest that he had a
direct share in the editorship.[164] The opinions hitherto held by
philosophers and astronomers on this subject were discussed, and the
author’s own—that is Galileo’s—expounded. Grassi’s views were sharply

criticised, and he was reproachfully asked why he had passed over Galileo’s
recent astronomical discoveries in silence.
Grassi, who recognised the real originator of the work, in the reply which
he issued a few months later entirely ignored the pupil, that he might the
more vigorously attack the master. Under the pseudonym of Lothario Sarsi
Sigensano, he published a pamphlet against Galileo, entitled, “The
Astronomical and Philosophical Scales.”[165] It is written with caustic
bitterness, and is a model of Jesuitical malice and cunning. The comet
question was for the time a secondary matter with Grassi, and he begins
with a personal attack on Galileo, by disputing the priority of several of his
most important discoveries and inventions, and reproaching him, with pious
indignation, with obstinate adherence to a doctrine condemned by
theologians. Up to this point he is only angry and spiteful, but as he goes on
he becomes cunning. He sets up for a warm defender of the Peripatetic
physics, and attacks the Copernican system, and its advocate Galileo, to
compel him either to ignominious silence or dangerous demonstrations.
Under pretext of meeting Guiducci’s reproach that he (Grassi) had taken
Tycho as his authority, he asks whether it would have been better to follow
the system of Ptolemy, which had been convicted of error, or that of
Copernicus, which every God-fearing man must abhor, and his hypothesis,
which had just been condemned? In discussing the causes of the movements
of comets, it seemed to him that the arguments were insinuated on which
the forbidden doctrines were based. “Away!” he exclaims in righteous
indignation, “with all such words so offensive to truth and to every pious
ear! They were prudent enough certainly scarcely to speak of them with
bated breath, and not to blazon it abroad that Galileo’s opinion was founded
upon this pernicious principle.”
Thus attacked, Galileo prepared to defend himself. The greatest caution
was necessary, for Grassi was backed by the powerful party of the Jesuits,
who made a great boast of this work.[166] The letters of this period from
Prince Cesi and Galileo’s ecclesiastical friends at Rome show that they
were very anxious that he should not make the influential order of Jesuits
his enemies by a direct collision with them. But as they saw the absolute
necessity of a reply, they gave him all sorts of good advice, how to parry the
attack without incurring their hatred. They were of opinion that he should
not honour an adversary concealed behind a pseudonym with a reply

written by himself, but should depute the task to a pupil, or, if he intended
to conduct his defence in person, clothe his reply in the form of a letter
instead of a treatise, not addressed to Sarsi himself, but to one of his own
party.[167] He decided for the latter; and adopting a hint from Mgr.
Ciampoli,[168] he addressed the reply to Mgr. Cesarini, one of his most
devoted friends and dauntless defenders.
But the completion of this afterwards famous rejoinder was delayed for
two years, and its publication, which, according to custom with all works by
members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, was undertaken by the Society, was
delayed fully another year owing to the scruples of Prince Cesi and other
“lynxes.” Galileo’s procrastination is to be explained partly by his
continued ill health, but more so by the position of affairs at Rome as well
as in Tuscany, which was by no means encouraging for a contest with a
Jesuit.
The imperious Paul V. was still the reigning Pope, and his good will
towards Galileo would certainly only have lasted so long as he was entirely
submissive. His dialectic reply, which was pervaded by cutting irony aimed
at a father of the order of Jesuits, even sometimes making him appear
ridiculous, could not have been much to the taste of a Pope to whom the
inviolability of the Church and her ministers was all in all. It is
characteristic of this pontiff that, as appears from the negotiations with
James I., he seriously claimed the right of deposing kings, and called every
attempt to make him relinquish this claim “a heretical proceeding,” and
pronounced the writings of some Venetian ecclesiastics who disputed it, to
be worse than Calvinistic. Just as this stern pontiff was gathered to his
fathers (16th January, 1621), in consequence of an attack of apoplexy on the
occasion of the celebration of the victory on the Weissenberg, and the good-
natured and infirm old man, Gregory XV., ascended the papal chair, Galileo
sustained a blow which was most disastrous to him. This was the death, on
28th February, 1621, of his kind protector and patron, Cosmo II. The
protection of an energetic prince who sincerely respected him, which he had
hitherto enjoyed, was replaced by the uncertain favour of a feminine
government, as the widowed Grand Duchess, whose tendencies were
thoroughly Romish, assumed the regency for Ferdinand II., who was still in
his minority.

Under these circumstances Galileo was but little inclined to bring out his
reply; and perhaps the time when they were founding the Propaganda at
Rome, and enrolling Loyola and Xavier among the saints, did not seem
very opportune. From the new Pope personally there was nothing to fear.
The phlegmatic little man, who was so bowed down by age and sickness
that those about him often feared to lay complicated business matters before
him, lest he should entirely break down, was certainly not likely to inspire
awe; besides, Gregory had expressed himself to Ciampoli very favourably
of Galileo.[169] But the Pope’s infirmities made it all the more necessary to
proceed with caution; for they allowed the Romish administration to
exercise full sway. And the man who guided it with almost sovereign
authority was the Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Lodovico Lodovisi, a former
pupil and therefore zealous friend of the Jesuits.
Nevertheless Galileo’s adherents, and especially his clerical friends at
Rome, considered it absolutely necessary to publish his reply as soon as
possible, with the precautions before mentioned, because his opponents
construed his silence into a triumph for Grassi and the Aristotelian school.
[170]
Prince Cesi, Mgrs. Cesarini and Ciampoli—the latter of whom
meanwhile had become Secretary of the Papal Briefs to Gregory XV., a post
which he also held under his successor, Urban VIII., until he fell into
disgrace about Galileo—urged him repeatedly to finish his reply.[171]
Francesco Stelluti, a member of the Accadémia dei Lincei, a learned
friend of Galileo’s, did indeed at this time (June, 1622) bring out a work
against “Lothario Sarsi,” but he only defended Guiducci, and studiously
avoided touching on the reproaches cast on Galileo, in order not to
anticipate him.[172]
At length, in October of the same year, Galileo sent the MS. of his
celebrated work, “Il Saggiatore” (The Assayer), to Mgr. Cesarini, at Rome.
[173]
For five months it passed from hand to hand among the members of the
Accadémia dei Lincei, who carefully criticised it, and with Galileo’s
consent, altered the passages which might possibly have been taken
advantage of by his enemies to renew their intrigues against him. The
Jesuits meanwhile had got wind of the completion of the reply, and did their
utmost to get hold of one of the numerous copies of the MS.; but Cesarini,
Cesi, Ciampoli, and the other “Lynxes,” took good care of them, well

knowing that if the Jesuits once made acquaintance with this crushing reply,
they would use every endeavour to prevent its receiving the imprimatur.[174]
This was granted on 2nd February, 1623, by the supreme authorities of the
censorship, not only without hesitation, but they spoke of the work in very
favourable and flattering terms. The opinion—which was drawn up by
Father Nicolo Riccardi, a former pupil of Galileo’s, who will often be
mentioned in the sequel, then examiner, and afterwards even Magister
Sacrii Palatii—was as follows:—

“By command of the Master of the Palace I have read the
work, ‘Il Saggiatore,’ and not only have I detected nothing in
it which is contrary to good morals, or deviates from the
divine truth of our religion, but I have found in it such
beautiful and manifold observations on natural philosophy,
that I think our age will not have to boast merely of having
been the inheritor of the labours of earlier philosophers, but
also of having been the discoverer of many secrets of nature
which they were not able to penetrate, thanks to the subtle
and solid researches of the author, whose contemporary I
think myself happy to be, for now the gold of truth is no
longer weighed wholesale and with the steelyard, but with
the delicate scales used for gold.”[175]

The commencement of the printing was again delayed till the beginning
of May,[176] and then proceeded but slowly, for it was not until 27th May
that Ciampoli sent the first two sheets of the “Saggiatore” to the author, in
order to prove to him the falseness of a report which had meanwhile gained
currency, that the printing of the work had been prohibited.[177]
An event then took place which seemed likely to produce a great change
in Galileo’s relations with Rome; indeed in the whole attitude of
ecclesiastical authority towards the free progress of science. At all events,
as we shall see, Galileo flattered himself with this hope, and not without
some justification. On 8th July, 1623, Gregory XV. succumbed to age and
infirmity in the second year of his pontificate. The man who at the age of
fifty-five was now elevated to the papacy, not only did not in the least
resemble his immediate predecessors, but his tendencies were in striking

contrast to theirs. He was previously Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, and now
ascended the papal throne as Urban VIII.

CHAPTER IX.
MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII.

His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when Cardinal.—
Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication of “Il Saggiatore,”
with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the Work.—The Pope’s
approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed Prohibition.

Scarcely any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation of his
character and aims in his own trenchant utterances as Urban VIII. When
shown the marble monuments of his predecessors, he proudly observed that
he “would erect iron ones to himself.” And the fortress of Castelfranco on
the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort Urbino), the
new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the Vatican Library turned into
an arsenal, the new manufactory of arms at Tivoli, and finally the costly
harbour of Civita Vecchia, are so many silent testimonies to the cherished
desire of this pontiff to transform the eternal city into an inviolable symbol
in stone of the temporal power of the Pope, and to accredit himself as a true
mediæval vicegerent of Christ with the two-edged sword of the world. His
athletic physique and iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of his
ideas. In his self-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel with the Sacred
College, saying that he “knew better than all the cardinals put together,” and
boldly set himself above all ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard of
reason that “the sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the
decrees of a hundred dead ones.” And finally, to leave his flock, the
Christian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral humility, he
revoked the resolve of the Romans never again to erect a monument to a
Pope in his lifetime, saying, “such a resolution could not apply to a Pope
like himself.”
The desire for unlimited temporal power rises like a column out of the
life of Urban VIII. Still it is not destitute of the embellishments of art,
poetry, and love of learning. It is no fiction that this imperious pontiff found
pleasure in turning passages of the Old and New Testaments into Horatian
metre, and the song of Simeon into two sapphic strophes! His numerous and
often cordial letters to Galileo bear witness also of his interest in science
and its advocates; but if these scientific or poetic tastes clashed for a
moment with the papal supremacy, the patron of art and science had to give
place at once to the ecclesiastical ruler, who shunned no means, secret or

avowed, of making every other interest subservient to his assumption of
temporal and spiritual dominion.
It is simply a psychological consequence of these traits of character, that
arbitrary caprice, the twin brother of despotic power, often played an
intolerable part in his treatment of those who came in contact with him.[178]
This then was the character of the new head of the Catholic Church, on
whom Galileo placed great hopes for the progress of science in general, and
the toleration of the Copernican system in particular, though they were to
result in bitter disappointment. Yet to all appearance he was justified in
hailing this election, for not only was Urban VIII. a refreshing contrast to
his immediate predecessors, who cared little for art or science, but as
Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, he had for years shown the warmest friendship
for and interest in Galileo.
Many letters from this dignitary to Galileo which have come down to us
bear witness to this.[179] Thus he wrote to him from Bologna on 5th June,
1612: “I have received your treatise on various scientific questions, which
have been raised during my stay here, and shall read them with great
pleasure, both to confirm myself in my opinion, which agrees with yours,
and, with the rest of the world, to enjoy the fruits of your rare intellect.”[180]
The words, “in order to confirm,” etc., have led some not very careful
writers to conclude that, at all events when cardinal, Urban VIII. was a
follower of Copernicus. But this is quite beside the mark. For the work in
question was the one on floating bodies, with which, though the Peripatetics
got the worst of it, neither Ptolemy or Copernicus had anything to do. A
little more attention would have saved Philarete Chasles and others from
such erroneous statements.
Another letter to Galileo from the cardinal, 20th April, 1613, after the
publication of his work on the solar spots, shows the interest he took in the
astronomer and his achievements. He writes:—

“Your printed letters to Welser have reached me, and are
very welcome. I shall not fail to read them with pleasure,
again and again, which they deserve. This is not a book
which will be allowed to stand idly among the rest; it is the
only one which can induce me to withdraw for a few hours

from my official duties to devote myself to its perusal, and
to the observation of the planets of which it treats, if the
telescopes we have here are fit for it. Meanwhile I thank you
very much for your remembrance of me, and beg you not to
forget the high opinion which I entertain for a mind so
extraordinarily gifted as yours.”[181]

But the cardinal had not confined himself to these assurances of esteem
and friendship in his letters, but had proved them by his actions in 1615 and
1616, by honestly assisting to adjust Galileo’s personal affairs when
brought before the Inquisition. And Maffeo Barberini attributed the success
then achieved in no small degree to his own influence, and used even to
relate with satisfaction when Pope, that he had at that time assisted Galileo
out of his difficulties. But here we must remind those authors who represent
Barberini, when cardinal, as a Copernican, in order to paint his subsequent
attitude as Pope in darker hues than history warrants, that although in 1615
and 1616 he exerted himself for Galileo personally, he in no way sought to
avert the condemnation of the system.
In 1620, however, Barberini gave Galileo a really enthusiastic proof of
his esteem. He celebrated his discoveries in some elegant and spirited
verses, in which astronomy was allied with morality, and he sent them to
Galileo, under date of 28th August, with the following letter:—

“The esteem which I always entertain for yourself and
your great merits has given occasion to the enclosed verses.
If not worthy of you, they will serve at any rate as a proof of
my affection, while I purpose to add lustre to my poetry by
your renowned name. Without wasting words, then, in
further apologies, which I leave to the confidence which I
place in you, I beg you to receive with favour this
insignificant proof of my great affection.”[182]

When this dignitary, who was generally regarded as a friend and
protector of science, had ascended the papal chair, the “Accadémia dei

Lincei” hastened to dedicate “Il Saggiatore” to his Holiness, in order to
spoil the sport of the author’s enemies beforehand.
To the annoyance of Galileo’s opponents and delight of his friends, by
the end of October, 1623, “Il Saggiatore” appeared. This work is a
masterpiece of ingenuity; for the author not only dexterously avoids falling
into the snares laid for him by Father Grassi, but prepares signal defeats for
him. Galileo takes his attack on him, “The Astronomical and Philosophical
Scales,” paragraph by paragraph, throws light on each, and disputes or
confutes it. And it is done in so sparkling and spirited a style, and the
reasoning, pervaded by cutting sarcasm, is so conclusive, that “Il
Saggiatore” certainly deserves to be called a model of dialectic skill. Our
limits preclude going further into its scientific contents. For our purpose it
will suffice to say that Galileo took occasion in it to lash many errors in
Grassi’s work unmercifully, and thereby incurred the eternal hatred of the
all powerful Jesuit party. Thus it was to a great extent the purely scientific
“Saggiatore” which subsequently conjured up the tragic element in
Galileo’s fate.
Another interesting point in the work is the way in which Galileo replies
to Grassi’s interpellations about the system of the universe. Admirable as is
the ingenuity with which he performs this ticklish task, one cannot
sympathise with the denial of his inmost convictions. He parries the
provocations of his adversary by demonstrating that the Ptolemaic and
Copernican doctrines had nothing to do with the controversy about comets,
and that this question was only raised by “Sarsi” in order to attack him
(Galileo). He adds the ambiguous remark: “As to the Copernican
hypothesis, I am fully convinced that if we Catholics had not to thank the
highest wisdom for having corrected our mistake and enlightened our
blindness, we should never have been indebted for such a benefit to the
arguments and experiences of Tycho.”[183] He then shows that the
Copernican system, “which, as a pious Catholic, he considers entirely
erroneous and completely denies,” perfectly agrees with the telescopic
discoveries, which cannot be made to agree at all with the other systems.
But since, in spite of all this caution, a defence of the new system might
have been detected in these statements, Galileo hastens to the conciliatory
conclusion, that since the Copernican theory is condemned by the Church,

the Ptolemaic no longer tenable in the face of scientific research, while that
of Tycho is inadequate, some other must be sought for.
Notwithstanding all this fencing, however, no one can fail to see in “Il
Saggiatore” an underhand defence of the Copernican system, as is evident
from the passages quoted. Such a vague discussion of it as this, however,
did not compromise Galileo according to the decree of 5th March, 1616; but
“Il Saggiatore” would have directly contravened the assumed absolute
injunction to silence on that system of 26th February, and Galileo would
certainly not have ventured to write in this style if the Commissary-General
of the Holy Office had, in 1616, solemnly forbidden him to discuss the said
doctrine in any way whatever (quovis modo). This is another proof that this
famous prohibition was not issued to Galileo in the form in which it occurs
in the archives of 26th February.
“Il Saggiatore” was, indeed, denounced to the Inquisition in 1625, by
Galileo’s opponents, as containing a concealed endorsement of the
Copernican system, and a motion was made in the Congregation of the
Holy Office to prohibit it, or at any rate to have it corrected; but it was not
carried, and the party only prepared a defeat for themselves. In consequence
of the denunciation, a cardinal was charged to investigate the matter, and to
report upon it. He selected Father Guevara, General of the Theatines, to
assist him, who, after careful examination of the work in question, spoke in
high praise of it, recommended it most warmly to the cardinal, and even
gave him a written statement, in which he explained that the opinion of the
earth’s motion, even if it had been maintained, would not have appeared to
him a reason for condemning it.[184] Even Urban VIII., who, we must
suppose, was perfectly acquainted with the proceedings of 1616, does not
appear to have had any scruples about “Il Saggiatore,” for he had it read
aloud to him at table, immediately after its publication,[185] and, as Galileo
was assured, enjoyed it highly.[186]

CHAPTER X.
PAPAL FAVOUR.

Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his Accession.—
Favourable Reception.—Scientific discussions with the Pope.—Urban
refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The
Microscope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Urban’s favours to Galileo on
leaving Rome.—Galileo’s reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s
hypocrisy.—Spinola’s harangue against the Copernican System.—
Lothario Sarsi’s reply to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his
“Dialogues.”

On the accession of Urban VIII. Galileo formed a project of offering his
congratulations to the new Pope at Rome, and of using all his personal
influence on the occasion to obtain toleration for the Copernican system,
now no longer opposed by the weighty influence of Cardinal Bellarmine,
for he had died two years before. But he first consulted his friends at Rome,
whether he would be well received, and especially by his Holiness. He
wrote among other things to Prince Cesi, on 9th October, 1623: “I have in
my head plans of no small importance for the learned world, and perhaps
can never hope for so wonderful a combination of circumstances to ensure
their success, at least so far as I am able to conduce to it.”[187] Cesi, who
well understood Galileo’s mode of speaking, confirmed him in his
intentions in his answer of 21st October, and urged him to carry out his
project speedily. “It is necessary for you to come, and you will be very
welcome to his Holiness,” wrote the Prince.[188] Thomas Rinuccini, brother
of the Archbishop of Fermo, of whom Galileo made the same inquiries,
replied as commissioned by the new Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Francesco
Barberini, that Urban VIII. would always be pleased to receive him, and
told him that he had had a long audience of the Pope himself three days
ago, of which he reported to Galileo:—

“I swear to you that nothing pleased his Holiness so much
as the mention of your name. After I had been speaking of
you for some time, I told him that you, esteemed sir, had an
ardent desire to come and kiss his toe, if his Holiness would
permit it, to which the Pope replied that it would give him
great pleasure, if it were not inconvenient to you, and if the
journey would not be injurious to your health; for great men

like you must spare themselves, that they may live as long as
possible.”[189]

Galileo now resolved to go to Rome as soon as he could, but his
uncertain health and the unprecedentedly bad weather, which had laid
whole tracts of land under water, delayed his departure. His friends at Rome
wrote meanwhile again and again, encouraging him to set out, for the Pope,
Cardinal Barberini, and all his exalted patrons and numerous adherents
were longing for his presence;[190] and Mgr. Ciampoli assured him that he
“would find that his Holiness had a special personal affection for him.”[191]
At length, on the 1st April, Galileo was able to set out, although the state
of his health was still such that he could only perform the journey in a litter.
He reached Aquasparta on 8th April, spent a fortnight with Prince Cesi in
his fine place there, and discussed the affairs which lay so near his heart
with his learned and influential friend. He did not arrive in Rome till
towards the end of April. The long-expected guest would have been sure of
a distinguished reception, even without the Grand Duchess Christine’s
letter[192] of recommendation to her son, Cardinal de’ Medici. Every one
was aware of the favour which the new Pope entertained for the great
astronomer. His old adherents, therefore, received him with greater delight
than ever; and his enemies, for the time, only ventured to clench their fists
behind his back. His letters of this period express the great satisfaction
which this flattering reception afforded him.[193] The prospect did not
indeed look quite so favourable for his cause. Within six weeks he had had
six long audiences of Urban VIII., had been most affably received by him,
and had found opportunity to lay before him all his arguments in defence of
the Copernican system;[194] but he would not be convinced, and in one of
these discussions tried to turn the tables, and to convince the advocate of
the modern system of its incorrectness, in which he met with no success.
And not only did Urban, in spite of his esteem for Galileo, turn a deaf ear to
his arguments, but he would not grant his petition for toleration of the new
doctrine; on this point he was quite inexorable.
In vain did Galileo obtain the support of several of the cardinals who
were friendly to him, to gain permission from the supreme ruler of
Christendom to teach the Copernican system as true. The Pope said to

Cardinal Hohenzollern, who, at Galileo’s request, warmly took up the
question, and had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great
caution was required in dealing with it, “that the Church neither had
condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine as heretical, but only as
rash.”[195] This language was, as Henri Martin justly observes,[196] more
than wanting in precision; for in the first place the Church had never
condemned it at all, either as “heretical” or “rash,” for the Qualifiers of the
Holy Office never mean the “Church”; and in the second place, this
commission had, in 1616, not condemned this opinion as “rash,” but
“foolish and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical,” and this
without the papal confirmation, so that no condemnation by the Church
could be said to exist.
Galileo, finding that Urban, with all his friendly feeling towards him
personally, would never be persuaded to revoke the decree of 5th March,
1616, resolved to return home after a stay of six weeks at Rome. There was
little to be gained by remaining longer. As soon as the attitude which Urban
intended to assume towards the prohibited doctrine became evident,
Galileo’s clerical adherents as far as possible avoided expressing
themselves on the subject, and the moderate party among the Romanists
merely advised him to take care that his scientific speculations did not
contradict Holy Scripture.
Father Nicolo Riccardi, who was much attached to Galileo and took a
great interest in his subsequent trial, was very ingenious in maintaining a
safe neutrality between the two systems. This good man, to whom from his
eloquence, or as others said because he was so fat, the King of Spain had
given the nickname of “Il Padre Mostro,” prudently agreed neither with the
Ptolemaic nor the Copernican system, but contented himself with a view as
peculiar as it was convenient. He saw no difficulty in the stars being moved,
as we see them to be moved in the vault of heaven, by angels, a proceeding
which demanded nothing on our part but wonder and admiration.[197]
Meanwhile Galileo’s stay at Rome had been of essential service to
science, although in quite a different way from that which he intended on
his arrival. In 1622 a certain Jacob Kuppler, from Cologne, came to Rome
with a microscope made by a relative of his, a Dutchman of the name of
Drebbel, in order to lay the new discovery, of which Drebbel claimed to be

the inventor,[198] before the papal government. Kuppler, however, died
before he had an opportunity of exhibiting his instrument to the court. Soon
afterwards many other microscopes were sent to Rome, where, however, no
one knew how to use the complicated instrument. Galileo not only at once
perceived its use, but greatly improved it.[199] He afterwards sent many of
these improved instruments to his friends, and before long his microscopes
were in as great request as his telescopes.[200] In order to rectify a mistake
that has been often repeated, that Galileo was the inventor of this instrument
of such vast importance to science, we mention here that he never claimed
this merit himself; it was his eulogist, Viviani, who first claimed it for him,
and his thoughtless followers have repeated it. Galileo had indeed, as he
mentions in his “Il Saggiatore,” discovered a method of using the telescope
to magnify objects as early as 1610, but it required an over-zealous
biographer to claim Galileo as the inventor of the microscope from this. It
was, however, he who, in 1624, brought the microscope to a degree of
perfection on which for a long time no advance was made.
Urban VIII. heaped favours of all sorts on Galileo before his departure.
He promised him a pension for his son,[201] three days afterwards he sent
him a splendid picture, then again two medals—one of silver, the other of
gold, and quite a number of Agnus Dei[202]; poor consolation, it is true, for
the disappointment of the great expectations with which he came to Rome.
However, he did not return to Florence entirely without hope. Although
there could be no longer any expectation of a public revocation of the
famous decree, he was fain to believe that it would not be rigidly kept to,
and thought that, supported by his papal patron, he should be able
ingeniously to circumvent it. He was far from thinking that the fetters
placed by the ecclesiastical power on the free course of the Copernican
doctrine were removed, but he was of opinion that they were considerably
loosened. And ensuing events, as well as all the news which Galileo
received from his friends at Rome, were calculated to confirm the idea. The
Pope, wishing to give a strong official proof of his favour, had himself
addressed a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which, to the no small
chagrin of Galileo’s enemies, he had not only done full justice to his
services to science, but had laid special stress on his religious sentiments. In
this letter of 7th June, 1624, Urban first mentioned Galileo’s great
discoveries, “the fame of which will shine on earth so long as Jupiter and

his satellites shine in heaven.” And after declaring that he felt a true fatherly
affection for so great a man, his Holiness continued:—

“We have observed in him not only the literary
distinction, but also the love of religion and all the good
qualities worthy of the papal favour. When he came to
congratulate us on our accession, we embraced him
affectionately, and listened with pleasure to his learned
demonstrations which add fresh renown to Florentine
eloquence. We desire that he should not return to his native
country without having received by our generosity manifold
proofs of our papal favour.... And that you may fully
understand to what extent he is dear to us, we wish to give
this brilliant testimony to his virtues and piety. We are
anxious to assure you that we shall thank you for all the
kindness that you can show him, by imitating or even
surpassing our fatherly generosity.”[203]

With his hopes raised still higher by these unusually gracious words of
his papal patron, Galileo ventured, soon after his return from Rome, to reply
to a refutation of the Copernican system, which in 1616 had been addressed
to him as its most distinguished advocate in the then favourite form of a
public letter, by a certain Ingoli, then a lawyer at Ravenna, and afterwards
secretary of the Propaganda at Rome. Ingoli, though an adherent of the old
system, was at the same time a sincere admirer of Galileo, so that his
arguments against the theory of the double motion of the earth were
characterised by great objectivity. After the events of 1616, Galileo had
wisely refrained from answering it; in 1618, however, it had been done by
another corypheus of science, Kepler, in his “Extracts from the Astronomy
of Copernicus,”[204] in which he valiantly combated Ingoli’s objections. But
the latter did not consider himself beaten, and replied in a letter addressed
to a chamberlain of Paul V.
Now, after the lapse of eight years, Galileo thought that, protected by the
favour of Urban VIII., he might venture on a reply to Ingoli. But he again
took care in writing it not to come into collision with the decree of 5th
March. With the assumed imperious prohibition of February, 1616, this step

of Galileo’s can be no more made to agree than his sending his treatise on
the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, 1618, or the publication of “Il
Saggiatore.” Galileo undertakes, in the reply to Ingoli, to defend the
Copernican doctrine under a double pretext. On the one hand, he says he
wishes to show that, as he had given currency to the new system of the
universe before it was condemned by ecclesiastical authority, he had not
been the defender of an improbable or unreasonable idea; on the other hand,
he wishes to prove to the Protestant Copernicans in Germany, that in
Catholic Italy the views of their great countryman had not been rejected
from ignorance of their great probability, “but from reverence for Holy
Scripture, as well as zeal for religion and our holy faith.” After this
ingenious introduction, and an assurance that he had no intention whatever
of representing the forbidden doctrine as true, he proceeds with equal
politeness and vigour to refute all Ingoli’s objections.[205]
In spite of this diplomatic introduction, however, his friends at Rome,
well aware of the malice of his enemies, and having had but a few months
before to defend “Il Saggiatore,” urgently dissuaded him from having this
rather warm defence of a forbidden doctrine printed.[206] He gave heed to
their warnings, and so this reply was only circulated in numerous copies
among the learned world in Italy.
Meanwhile the reports which Galileo was constantly receiving from his
friends at Rome tended to increase his confidence in the favourable
influence which Urban’s personal liking for him, and his taste for art and
science, were likely to exercise on tolerance of the Copernican system.
Thus his devoted adherent Guiducci, in several letters of 6th, 13th and 24th
September, 1624,[207] told him, that through the mediation of the Jesuit
father, Tarquinio Galuzzi, he had had several interviews with Galileo’s
former bitter adversary, Father Grassi, who had said that Galileo’s theory
that the phenomena of the tides were to be attributed to the double motion
of the earth “was very ingenious,” and that when the truth of these opinions
was unanswerably established, the theologians would bestir themselves to
alter the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which refer to the
earth as being stationary! The guileless Guiducci added confidentially, quite
taken with this Jesuit’s amiability, that he had not noticed any great aversion
to the new system in Grassi, indeed he did not despair of estranging
“Lothario Sarsi” from Ptolemy.

Two months later, however, the same correspondent told Galileo that a
violent harangue had been delivered in the Jesuit College at Rome against
the adherents of the new doctrine, by Father Spinola, and some time
afterwards he sent him a copy of it;[208] but as it attacked all those who did
not profess to be followers of an antiquated Peripateticism, it made but little
impression on Galileo, and that little was entirely effaced when Mgr.
Ciampoli wrote to him, on 28th December, 1625, that he had acquainted the
Pope with several passages of his reply to Ingoli, and that he had highly
approved them.[209]
Before long Guiducci found out how bitterly he had been deceived in
Grassi, and what a miserable game he had been playing with him as
Galileo’s friend. The memory of the favours by which the Pope had
distinguished the great Tuscan when at Rome had scarcely died away when
Grassi threw aside the mask, and “Lothario Sarsi” exhibited himself in a
new and revised edition, fulminating rage and venom against Galileo and
his system. Notwithstanding the hypocritical moderation exhibited to
Guiducci, he had not forgotten the mortifying defeat which “Il Saggiatore”
had subjected him to, and, though circumstances had prevented him from
defending himself at once, he had by no means given up the intention of
doing so. Two years having elapsed since Galileo’s visit to Rome, Grassi
thought he might venture, under pretext of a reply to “Il Saggiatore,” to
publish a new attack on its author. It was entitled, in bad Latin: “Ratio
ponderum Libræ et Simbellæ, etc. Autore Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” It
contained many personal accusations against Galileo, and the work
altogether was characterized by a blind hatred, which repeatedly led the
author into very foolish statements. For instance, Grassi tried incidentally to
prove by very ingenious arguments that Galileo’s physics would lead to the
denial of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper![210] But the enraged Jesuit
went still further, and gave his readers pretty plainly to understand that
since Galileo agreed on many questions of physics with Epicurus, Telesius,
and Cardanus, he must also approve their godlessness, which strange
assertion, however, he did not venture to sustain by any evidence.
To Galileo it seemed an encouraging sign of the times that it was
considered desirable to seek a publisher for these accusations from a
member of the Roman College away from the papal residence. Grassi’s
effusions came out at Paris in 1626, and at Naples in 1627. The very

unfavourable reception of the work at Rome, except among a few
pettifogging enemies of Galileo, also tended to confirm him in his
unfortunately mistaken opinion that Rome, under the pontificate of Urban
VIII., would have little or nothing to object to in the rich harvest promised
by the researches of Copernicus and Kepler, as well as by his own
discoveries in the field of science. He thought he could reckon on papal
tolerance, if only the defence of the new system were so circumspectly
handled as not to clash with the oft-mentioned decree of the Congregation.
On this assumption he had resolved, immediately after his return from
Rome, to carry out the great work which he had long projected, and which,
from the vast scientific knowledge it displayed, combined with a brilliant
style, was to meet with greater success and favour than had ever been
attained by any scientific work. This was his “Dialogues on the Two
Principal Systems of the World.”

PART II.
PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO
PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND
CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.

CHAPTER I.
THE “DIALOGUES” ON THE TWO SYSTEMS.

Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their Popular Style.—Significance of the name
Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the Copernican System.—
Attitude of Rome towards Science.—Thomas Campanella.—Urban
VIII.’s Duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. to Rome.—Riccardi’s
Corrections—He gives the Imprimatur on certain Conditions.—Galileo
returns to Florence to complete the Work.

It is a curious fact that the very work which was destined to be one of the
most powerful levers in obtaining general recognition for the true order of
the universe originated in what we now know to be an erroneous idea. The
famous book, “Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the World, the
Ptolemaic and Copernican,”[211] arose out of the treatise on the tides which
Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini.[212]
The important influence of these “Dialogues,” both on science and the
subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss them more particularly.
The book contains a great deal more than is promised by the title; for the
author included in it, in connection with the discussion of the two systems,
nearly all the results of his researches and discoveries in science, extending
over nearly fifty years. He also endeavoured to write in a style which
should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but which would be both
intelligible and attractive to every educated person; and in this he attained
complete success, for he wished by means of this book to extend as widely
as possible a knowledge of the true order of nature. The form of the work
was most happily chosen. The results of the researches of a lifetime were
not given to the reader in a work redolent of the pedantry of the professor’s
chair, in which scientific demonstrations drag on with wearisome
monotony, but in the lively form of dialogue, which admitted of digressions
and gave the author scope for displaying his seductive eloquence, his rare
skill in dialectics and biting sarcasm—in short, for his peculiarly brilliant
style.
The dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of whom adduce
the scientific reasons for the double motion of the earth, while the third
honestly tries to defend the opinions of the Aristotelian school with all the
scientific means at his disposal, and as these did not suffice, with the arts of
sophistry also. If he has but little success, the fault lies with the cause he
advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders of the Copernican system the

names of his two famous pupils and friends, neither of them then living,
Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and Giovan Francesco Sagredo, senator of
Venice, thereby erecting a better monument to them than he could have
done in marble. Salviati is the special advocate of the Copernican theory.
Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman, intelligent, impartial, and
desirous to learn. The advocate of the Ptolemaic system was called briefly
Simplicius, a pseudonym over which the learned have often puzzled their
heads. Did he give this name of simpleton satirically to the champion of the
ancient system, or was it merely an allusion to Simplicius, the commentator
of Aristotle, as Galileo stated in his “Avviso al lettore?”
The selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous attitude
which the author maintains in his “Dialogues.” The sarcastic vein is obvious
throughout, but is ingeniously concealed behind a mask intended to inspire
confidence. Salviati conducts the arguments for the Copernican theory with
such convincing force and clearness, and annihilates so completely all the
objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no unbiassed reader can fail to
perceive the scientific superiority of the modern theory to the old. And as
Galileo conscientiously puts in the mouth of the Peripatetic philosopher
every possible argument in favour of the Aristotelian cause, as well as the
objections to the other side, the total defeat of its advocate is a victory all
the more brilliant for the immortal Canon of Frauenburg.
The condition that the Copernican doctrine is only to be employed as a
hypothesis is ostensibly fully complied with. If Salviati or Sagredo
demonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness of some Ptolemaic axiom, or
add an important stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to
interpolate some remark to weaken the impression. It must be confessed,
however, that the agreement of this “hypothesis” with all the phenomena of
nature is as clear as daylight; and when, for instance, it is said that the final
decision in the present controversy rests neither with mathematics and
physics, nor with philosophy and logic, but solely with a “higher insight,”
or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that he does not in the least wish to
maintain the truth of the Copernican doctrine, but applies the word
“possibly” to it, or speaks of it as a “fantasia” or “vanissima chimera,” the
reader cannot fail to perceive that these prudent reservations, which always
occur at critical passages, are made with the sole purpose of rendering the
publication of the work possible.

The preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with the contents
of the “Dialogues,” and owe their origin to the same motive. In the preface
the ecclesiastical prohibition of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is
actually called a “salutary edict” (un salutifero editto)! The reader learns
further, to his no small astonishment, that the purpose of this
comprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion which has
gained much credit abroad, that this adverse judgment of Rome was not the
result of mature deliberation, but merely of the hasty impulse of judges who
were not qualified to decide on these questions of natural science. Galileo
asserts that his zeal did not permit him to keep silence in face of those
audacious accusations, and that being in possession of all the circumstances
connected with that prudent decision, he felt constrained to bear witness to
the truth before all the world. In bringing forward here all his speculations
on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show that at Rome, where he had
taken part in the consultations, they had been fully aware of all the
arguments which could be adduced in favour of the new doctrine.[213]
On the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which divergent
and often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall enter in detail in its right
place.
The conclusion of the work, which is divided into four “days,” agrees no
better with the rest of the contents than the preface. Although the
Copernicans everywhere gain the day, Galileo takes care, for very good
reasons, not to draw any conclusions from it on the fourth day. The
discussion ends apparently without coming to any result. Salviati disclaims
any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed to him a “chimera”
or a “paradox.” Addressing himself to Sagredo, he remarks that Sagredo
had often agreed with the opinions he had expressed, but he thinks that this
was often more from their originality than their conclusiveness. Having
therefore thanked him for his “polite indulgence,” he apologises to
Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, and assures him that he had no
intention of offending him, but rather of inducing him to communicate his
sublime ideas (!), which would certainly be instructive to himself. In
conclusion, they agree to meet again for a final discussion.[214]
Did Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin thinks it probable,
“for,” he says, “Galileo might at that period still have hoped that the
ecclesiastical authorities would tolerate the new system during his lifetime,

especially should some new discovery, as, for instance that of a small
annual parallax of the fixed stars, afford certain proof in favour of his
system. In that case Galileo would have been at last allowed to express his
opinions without reserve.”[215] We think it very possible, indeed probable,
that Galileo did intend to add a fifth day at a favourable opportunity, in
which he would have given the result of the previous discussions; but he
certainly was not waiting for “some new discovery.” It was his firm
conviction that none was wanted, since his telescopic observations amply
proved the truth of his theory; neither would the most convincing discovery
have enabled him to express his views without reserve, for they had by no
means been condemned by the clergy from want of proof, but as “foolish
and absurd philosophically and formally heretical.”
We are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed the task of
defending the action of the curia against Galileo, maintain that the
ecclesiastical party objected to the new system because its accordance with
the phenomena of nature had not been sufficiently proved.[216] But even
were this granted, in view of the opposition raised on scientific grounds and
the rooted attachment to old opinions, every unbiassed person must demur
to the assumption that in the attitude of Rome towards the Copernican
question the interests of science had any influence whatever. It could not be
an advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The subsequent harsh
proceedings against Galileo, when seventy years of age, the hostile and
peremptory attitude which Rome maintained towards him until his death, as
well as towards the new system and all discussion of it, bear ample
testimony, in our opinion, that the clergy had the interests of science very
little at heart, and that their sole desire was to maintain the foundation-stone
in its place on which the ingenious structure of the Christian Catholic
philosophy was raised; namely, the doctrine that mother earth is the centre
of the universe.
In December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated work on the two
systems, except the introduction and a few finishing strokes. He announced
this to his friends in sundry letters,[217] and told Prince Cesi in two letters of
24th December, 1629, and 13th January, 1630, that he intended coming to
Rome to see to the printing of the “Dialogues.”[218] The prince in his reply
expressed entire approval of the project, and encouraged Galileo to set out

for Rome very soon, “where he would have no further trouble about the
proofs than to give such orders as he pleased.”[219]
Altogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably favourable for the
publication of the “Dialogues.” Galileo’s devoted adherent, Castelli, had
been summoned to Rome in 1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great
consideration with the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest
scion, Taddeo, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried friend
informed Galileo in a letter of 6th February,[220] that Father Riccardi, who
meanwhile had been raised to the office of chief censor of the press
(Magister Sacri Palatii) had promised his ready assistance in Galileo’s
affairs. Castelli also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi was
concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of information in the
same letter, however, was not quite so satisfactory; the personage second in
importance at the papal court, Urban’s brother, Cardinal Antonio Barberini,
had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the “Dialogues,” said
nothing particular against the theory itself, so far as it was treated as a
hypothesis, but had made the just remark that the earth, if it revolved round
the sun, must be a star, an idea “which was too far opposed to theological
truth.” Castelli appeased the cardinal by assuring him that Galileo had
weighty arguments against this, and it is characteristic of the prevailing
confusion of ideas on astronomical subjects, that Barberini thought this
possible, and that Castelli wrote to Galileo that he would not find it hard to
steer clear of this rock. Another instance of the trammels placed by religion
on the advancement of science.
A second letter of Castelli’s to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, contains far
more important and encouraging intelligence. According to this, Thomas
Campanella[221] had told the Pope at an audience, that a short time before
he had tried to convert some German nobles to the Catholic faith, that he
had found them favourably disposed, but when they heard of the prohibition
of the Copernican system, they were so indignant that he could do nothing
more with them. To this Urban replied: “It never was our intention; and if it
had depended upon us, that decree would not have been passed.”[222] These
pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when repeated to Galileo were
well calculated to mislead him into infringing the decree, in the spirit if not
in the letter. They seem, however, to have been at least as incorrect as the
reply reported on the same subject to Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. Urban

entirely forgot that he had not interceded in any way in 1616 for the
astronomical system threatened with condemnation. And his conduct
showed that he must have been a party to it. We need only call to mind how
inexorable he had been on the question in 1624 to Galileo himself, and how
sternly he afterwards allowed proceedings to be taken against him. Urban
could only have acted in this way because he was convinced of the danger
of the Copernican system to the Christian philosophy. And he was far too
shrewd not to perceive how the modern views threatened a religion based
upon ancient astronomy. His remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing
but smooth words, and this is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But
they could not fail to inspire Galileo with confidence that under Urban VIII.
an ingenious circumvention of the decree would give no offence at the
Vatican. Besides this, Castelli reported in the same letter that Mgr.
Ciampoli, who was also well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo’s
personal appearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty that
might occur about publishing the “Dialogues.”[223] Another letter from
Castelli of 6th April urged him to set out for the papal residence, where, to
quote the words of Ciampoli, “they were longing for him more than for a
lady love.”[224]
Full of hope from these promising reports, on 3rd May Galileo arrived at
Rome with the MS. of his “Dialogues.” And events during his two months’
stay seemed to realise his expectations. Soon after his arrival he had a long
audience of Urban VIII., and wrote on 18th May in high spirits to Florence:
—“His Holiness has begun to treat my affairs in a way that permits me to
hope for a favourable result.”[225] Riccardi also met Galileo, as was to be
expected from Castelli’s letters, in the most obliging way. Galileo showed
him his work with the express request that he would examine it closely. The
papal censor, however, could not but perceive, with all his personal regard
for Galileo, that in his “Dialogues” he had by no means always kept, de
facto, within the limits of hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system,
and in some parts had far exceeded them. He decided, therefore, both as his
official duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have the book altered
to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections were to be made, and both
preface and conclusion were to be altered so as to agree with them. Riccardi
intrusted the first task to his official assistant, Father Rafael Visconti, who
seemed well qualified for it in his capacity of professor of mathematics. He

executed it with equal prudence and ingenuity, improved many passages,
and finally approved the work thus revised.
The middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo was anxious to
leave Rome on account of the heat. But Riccardi wished to look through the
“Dialogues” once more after they had been revised by Visconti, before
giving them his imprimatur. Galileo represented that this second revision
was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi to grant permission
for the printing for Rome.[226]
On the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning and end of
the work in accordance with a plan of the supreme authorities of the
censorship. There were also still a few passages to be personally discussed
with the author; and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome without
danger to his health, which was already beginning to suffer, it was agreed
that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile[227] he would prepare
the index and the dedication to the Grand Duke, and revise the preface and
conclusion. The main condition, however, under which Riccardi gave the
book his imprimatur, was that after its final completion it should be
submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of time, he engaged to look it
through sheet by sheet, and to send each at once to press after inspection.
As was usual in the case of members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, the work
was to be published in the name of this society, and the president, Prince
Cesi, was to see it through the press.
So at the end of June[228] Galileo returned to Florence with his MS. and
the ecclesiastical imprimatur, which was granted bona fide for Rome
without reserve. There were indeed sundry conditions attached to it, to be
arranged privately; but they seemed to present so little difficulty, that a few
days after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli that Signor
Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly satisfied, and with his affairs quite
settled.[229]
But events were now at hand which long deferred Galileo’s ardent desire
to see the results of his unwearied researches and labours speedily given to
the world, and which involved complications afterwards taken advantage of
by his enemies to effect the ruin of their great opponent.

CHAPTER II.
THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE “DIALOGUES.”

Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei Lincei.—Galileo
advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and Delays.—His Impatience.
—Authorship of the Introduction.—The Imprimatur granted for
Florence.—Absurd Accusation from the style of the Type of the
Introduction.

Six weeks had scarcely elapsed after Galileo’s return from Rome, when
he received from his friend Francesco Stelluti the startling intelligence of
the death of his influential patron, Prince Cesi, who had been snatched
away on 1st August by an attack of fever, after a few days’ illness.[230] This
was a great blow to Galileo. It was not only that he lost in the prince an
adherent, as influential as he was devoted, but his death just then was of the
greatest moment on account of the “Dialogues.” There was, perhaps, no one
so well qualified to forward their publication as Cesi, who, as president of
the Accadémia dei Lincei, seemed just the man for it. The Academy,
deprived of its strongest support, was gradually dissolved, after the hand
was wanting which knew how to weave its multitudinous threads into a
firm and solid fabric.
Only the third week after the prince’s death, Galileo felt the first effects
of his heavy loss. In a letter of 24th August, Castelli urgently advised him
“for many most weighty reasons which he did not wish just then to commit
to paper, to have the work printed at Florence, and as soon as possible.”[231]
Castelli added that he had inquired of Father Visconti whether this would
present any difficulties, to which he had replied that there was nothing to
prevent, and he (Visconti) desired above all things that the work should see
the light. Galileo was the more ready to fall in with this proposition because
the plague, which had made fearful ravages in North Italy, had now made
its appearance in Tuscany, and the precautionary measures taken by the
neighbouring States made all intercourse with them, and especially with the
States of the Church, very tedious and often impossible. Galileo therefore at
once took the needful steps for publishing his book at Florence. He applied
to the Inquisitor-General of the city, to the Vicar-General, and to the
political authorities for permission, and it was granted without hesitation on
11th September, 1630.[232]
Galileo next addressed himself to Riccardi; represented to him the great
obstacles to publishing the work at Rome, and therefore asked permission

to publish it at Florence. This was the beginning of troubles. The chief of
the Roman censorship at first roundly refused, and when Galileo urged his
request again, he informed him through the Tuscan ambassador at the papal
court, Francesco Niccolini, that the work must be sent in for final revision
as agreed upon, without which he should never have consented to the
publication. Castelli also wrote to Galileo on 21st September,[233] as
commissioned by Riccardi, that as his coming himself to Rome, as
originally agreed upon, was rendered impossible by the outbreak of the
plague, he had better send the manuscript to Riccardi, in order that he and
Mgr. Ciampoli might make the final corrections. Castelli said further that
Riccardi was still very favourably disposed to Galileo, and that when his
work had undergone this censorship, he could send it to press in Florence as
well as anywhere else. After this Galileo made inquiries whether, under
present circumstances, a large packet of MSS. could be sent safely over the
border. But he was everywhere met with a negative, and the remark that
mere letters scarcely passed. In vain he applied to the postmaster, in vain he
appealed to the Grand Ducal secretary of state, Bali Cioli, for help; no
means could be devised, under the strict close of the frontiers, whereby the
bulky work could be transmitted to Rome with any prospect of safety.
Greatly disconcerted, Galileo represented this state of things to Riccardi,
and offered to send, at any rate, the preface and conclusion of the
“Dialogues,” that the ecclesiastical authorities might alter these important
parts of the work as seemed good to them, and said that he was willing to
designate the Copernican views mentioned in the book as mere chimeras,
paralogisms, dreams, and fantasies, which, as is well known, was
afterwards actually done. As to the final revision, Galileo proposed that
Riccardi should entrust it to some one at Florence. Exceedingly annoyed by
all these obstacles to an early publication of his “Dialogues,” Galileo at the
same time asked the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, and his wife, who were
well disposed towards him, to try and induce Riccardi, whom he had often
seen at their house, to accept this proposal. And what friends and colleagues
of the chief censor and other eminent men had failed in, was accomplished
by the delicate mediation of a lady. On 19th October, 1630, Caterina
Niccolini wrote to Galileo, that the Padre Maestro, who was heartily
devoted to him, would obligingly excuse him from sending the whole work;
let him send the introduction and conclusion, but on condition that the
whole MS. should be revised before publication by some competent person

at Florence, and by a theologian empowered by the ecclesiastical
authorities, who must belong to the Benedictine order. Father Riccardi
proposed Father Clement for the task. The ambassador’s wife added,
however, commissioned by the Master of the Palace, that if this choice were
not agreeable to Galileo, he might himself propose a suitable person, who
would be empowered to act.[234]
And, in fact, Father Clement was not to Galileo’s taste, and he proposed
Father Hyacinthe Stephani, counsellor to the Holy Inquisition at Florence,
who was approved by Riccardi. This ecclesiastic revised the work very
thoroughly, and—so at least Galileo reports[235]—was moved to tears at
many passages by the humility and reverent obedience which the author had
displayed. Having made some insignificant corrections, suggested by extra
caution, he gave the “Dialogues” his approval, and declared that the famous
author should be begged to publish them rather than have obstacles placed
in his way.
Riccardi, notwithstanding his friendship for Galileo, seems to have been
of a different opinion. The preface and conclusion had been sent, but he had
allowed weeks and months to pass without letting Galileo hear anything of
them, to say nothing of sending them back. Castelli once wrote to Galileo
that he had met Riccardi, and that he had told him that these portions were
now quite in order, and that he would send them to Galileo immediately;
but months again went by without his fulfilling his promise.
Galileo was in despair, and on 7th March, 1631, addressed a long letter to
Bali Cioli, in which he first related the course of the negotiations respecting
the “Dialogues”[236] in detail, and then asked for the powerful intervention
of his Highness the Grand Duke, at Rome, to bring the business to a
conclusion, so that he (Galileo) might enjoy while he lived these fruits of
the labours of over fifty years. Little did Galileo foresee what dire results
these “fruits” were to bring. On 8th March his request was granted, and he
was informed that Niccolini, at Rome, would be commissioned in the name
of the Grand Duke to hasten as much as possible the termination of the
negotiations with the Master of the Palace.[237]
Galileo was all the more pleased with the success of this attempt, because
meanwhile, weary of the long delays, he had begun to have his “Dialogues”
printed. This is confirmed by a letter from him of 20th March to his learned

friend, Cesare Marsili, in which he says that six sheets of his work, which
would consist of fifty or more, were finished.[238] We may here remark that
this proceeding of Galileo’s has been the subject of severe and unjustifiable
blame on the part of some authors actuated by party spirit. It seems the less
called for, since Galileo made no secret of the printing having been begun,
and he was not reproached for it at the subsequent trial before the
Inquisition. He quite supposed that after Father Stephani had inspected and
sanctioned the work, all the conditions were fulfilled. He therefore
considered Riccardi’s consent to the publication in Florence as certain. It
never occurred to him that after all this he would raise new difficulties.
A report of Niccolini’s of 19th April to Cioli[239] confirmed him in this
supposition, and rejoiced his heart, as there seemed to be an immediate
prospect of an end to these tiresome negotiations. Niccolini wrote that he
and his wife had a little while before had a long conversation with Father
Riccardi about Galileo’s affairs, which had resulted in his promising to
grant permission for the publication, but with the addition of a declaration,
for his own protection, which he was to forward to Niccolini in a few days.
On the 28th Niccolini received it, but instead of its containing the promised
imprimatur, it required new clauses and imposed fresh conditions on the
publication. The chief censor indeed acknowledged, at the beginning of this
letter, that he had given the imprimatur to the work, but stated that it was
only with the reservation that the author should make some alterations as
agreed upon, and send his book to Rome to be published, where with the
help of Mgr. Ciampoli all difficulties would have been overcome. “Father
Stephani,” continues Riccardi, “has no doubt subjected the book to a
conscientious revision; but as he was not acquainted with the Pope’s views,
he had no power to give any approval which would enable me to sanction
the printing without incurring the danger both to him and myself that
unpleasantnesses might arise, if things were still found contrary to the
proscriptions.” Riccardi then asserts that he had no greater desire than to
serve the Grand Duke, but he considers that it must be done so as to prevent
any danger to his Highness’s reputation. And this would not be the case if
he gave his imprimatur, as it was not his province to give it for Florence,
[240]
while it would be secured by his assuring himself that everything was
in accordance with the commands of his Holiness. “When I have inspected
the beginning and end of the work,” he continued, “I shall easily discover

what I want to know, and will then give a certificate that I have approved
the whole work.”
This sentence is, to say the least, very obscure. Riccardi had had these
two portions of the work in his possession for months, and could long
before have discovered from them what he wanted to know. Or had he not
condescended to look at them? This seems scarcely credible, and is in direct
opposition to what he said to Castelli months before. But a desire to spin the
matter out is evident enough from this obscure sentence as well as the rest
of the letter. The Master of the Palace then proposed, if it were still
impossible to forward the work, to send the ordinances of his Holiness to
the Inquisitor at Florence, in order that he, after assuring himself that they
had been complied with, might give the imprimatur. When Niccolini
expressed his suspicions that these delays had been caused by some
intrigues of Galileo’s enemies, Riccardi assured him that no one but friends
of the famous astronomer had spoken to him on the subject, and that there
really had been no cabal of any sort.[241]
When Galileo received the news of this letter, which, contrary to all his
expectations, once more removed all hope of an end of these transactions
into the far future, he could not repress his ill humour. This is plain enough
from a letter to Cioli of 3rd May. He begins with the tart remark: “I have
read what the Father Master of the Palace has written about the publication
of the ‘Dialogues,’ and perceive, to my great vexation, that after keeping me
for nearly a year without coming to any conclusion, he means to pursue the
same course with his Holiness, namely, to delay and spin out everything
with empty words, which it is not easy to put up with.” He then bitterly
complains that this letter of Riccardi’s, instead of the promised imprimatur,
contains nothing but fresh delays on the pretext of conditions with which he
had complied several months before, and in such a way as to prove to his
Holiness and all who were willing to be convinced that he had done so.
“And since I perceive,” he continues bitterly, “that my affairs are afloat on a
vast and boundless ocean, while the publication of my book is of the utmost
importance to me, as I wish to see the fruits of my labours secured, I have
been considering various ways by which it might be accomplished; but the
authorization of his Holiness is indispensable for all.” Galileo then says that
in order to come to some result it might be of the highest importance some
day, and that as soon as possible, to be summoned to appear before his

Highness, with the Inquisitor and Father Stephani. He would like to show
them the work with all the corrections from the hands of Fathers Riccardi,
Visconti, and Stephani, in order that, in the first place, they might see how
trivial the alterations were, and in the second, how submissively and
reverently he had designated all the evidence and arguments which
appeared to confirm an opinion not approved by the authorities, as dreams,
chimeras, and nullities. He concludes by saying: “Those present will then
perceive how true and just my doctrines are, and that I have never
entertained other views or opinions than those held by the most venerable
and holy fathers of the Church.”[242]
The Grand Duke, Ferdinand II., however, with all his good will towards
his chief mathematician, was by no means inclined to interfere personally in
the matter. He was desirous to use all the influence he possessed to bring
about a decision at Rome, but it no more occurred to him now to exercise
his rights as sovereign ruler, than it did afterwards when he gave up the
infirm philosopher, at nearly seventy years of age, to the Roman tribunal.
Galileo’s suggestion, therefore, that the Grand Duke should, to some extent,
take the initiative was by no means acceptable, and was not followed. The
summons to the Inquisitor and Father Stephani to appear with Galileo
before the Grand Duke never came; Niccolini, however, made fresh efforts
to bring about a solution of the question at Rome. He went to the Master of
the Palace and strongly represented to him that through the dedication the
Grand Duke himself was greatly interested in the publication of this work,
at the head of which his exalted name was placed.[243] Galileo finally
succeeded, on 24th May, in inducing Riccardi to address a letter to Fra
Clemente Egidio, the Inquisitor at Florence, in which he left it entirely to
him, after examining the work, to grant permission for the publication or
not. The Master of the Palace again expressly mentioned in this letter that
he had given the authorization to print, but with the reservation that the
necessary alterations should be made, and that after further revision it
should go to press in Rome, which conditions, however, had not been able
to be fulfilled owing to the plague. The most interesting parts of the letter
for us are the hints which Riccardi gives the Inquisitor, in the course of it,
as to the Pope’s views on the subject, which are to guide him in sanctioning
the work. Title as well as contents are only to relate to the mathematical
aspects of the Copernican system, and so that “the absolute truth of this

view is never conceded, but made to appear as mere hypothesis, and
without reference to Scripture.”[244] “It must also be explained,” continued
Riccardi, “that this work is only written to show that all the arguments
which can be adduced in favour of this view were well known; that
therefore the sentence of 1616 was not to be attributed to ignorance at
Rome, and the beginning and end of the book must agree with this
statement, which portions, properly arranged, I will send from here. By
observance of these precautions the work will meet with no obstacles at
Rome, and your reverence will be able to gratify the author, as well as to
serve his Highness, who has shown so warm an interest in the matter.”[245]
The Inquisitor replied on 31st May that he would act in accordance with the
received instructions. He says further that he had given the MS. to Stephani,
as a very eminent man and counsellor of the Holy Office, to be revised
again, and this time in accordance with the papal instructions; also that
Galileo consented most willingly to all the corrections.[246]
But it would almost appear as if Riccardi had again repented of the steps
he had taken for the final settlement of the business, for weeks and months
passed before Fra Clemente Egidio received the preface and conclusion.
Not till Niccolini, at Galileo’s request, had repeatedly urged him to send
them, could he be induced to do so, after a further delay of two months, and
then, as the ambassador graphically describes the situation, not “till
formally pulled by the hair.”[247] In the letter of 19th July, 1631, which
accompanied them, Riccardi empowered the author to alter the style of the
revised introduction as he pleased, and to ornament it rhetorically, but so
that the sense should remain the same. As to the conclusion, he made the
vague remark that it must be based upon the same argument as the
beginning.[248]
This seems to be the place to enter into the oft discussed question of the
real authorship of this remarkable introduction. Some, who rely upon the
letter of Riccardi’s above quoted, attribute it to him; others even maintain
that it owes its origin to Urban VIII. himself; while, on the other hand, some
are of opinion that Galileo had the chief share in it, though assuredly only
because he considered that it would secure his object—permission to
publish the “Dialogues.” All these opinions contain some truth,
contradictory as they seem; the truth lies between them. After careful

examination of the documents relating to the subject, the historical facts
appear to be as follows:—
When Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer of 1630, in
order to submit his “Dialogues” to the Roman censorship, an introduction
was sketched for him, which he was to complete at Florence, and on his
intended return to Rome in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript
before the Master of the Palace for final revision.[249] From the good
understanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and
Galileo, and from the contents of the introduction, we may conclude with
certainty that the sketch was made with Galileo’s concurrence, or even that
the main idea of it was his own. For on close examination we find that the
idea on which the whole introduction turns—namely, that it was by no
means ignorance of the scientific arguments in favour of the Copernican
system which led to the verdict of 1616—is precisely the same as that stated
by Galileo in his reply to Ingoli in 1624.[250] As we are aware, since the
plague prevented Galileo from returning to Florence or sending the whole
MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to the chief censor, who kept
them for months, and did not return them to the Inquisitor at Florence till
19th July. From Riccardi’s letter we learn two facts: firstly, that he had only
concerned himself with the introduction, leaving the conclusion to the
author with the vague remark we have quoted; and secondly, that Galileo’s
preface must have undergone considerable alterations by the chief censor,
as he gave him leave to alter the style but not the sense. There can be no
more doubt that the Pope had some hand in the final composition of the
preface than that it was not penned by himself. Riccardi appeals in both his
ex officio letters to the Inquisitor of 24th May and 19th July, to the “views”
and commands of his Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst,
the Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo’s affairs he had
always and in everything acted in concert with the papal secretary, Mgr.
Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly to special commands of
Urban’s.[251] Riccardi and Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion with
the loss of their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the subject that,
“evidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet afforded by the fact of
the witnesses being compelled to silence or suffering punishment.”[252]
With the arrival at last of the preface and conclusion, all the obstacles
which had threatened the continuation of the printing of the “Dialogues”

were removed. Stephani, who was charged by the Inquisitor at Florence to
undertake the final censorship, was not the man to place difficulties in the
way of the appearance of the book. He took great care, however, that the
Pope’s commands as to the treatment of the Copernican doctrines should, as
far as the letter went, be strictly obeyed. The “Dialogues,” from beginning
to end, were opposed to the spirit both of the decree of 5th March, 1616,
and the papal ordinances, and there was great naiveté in the idea that the
fine-spun preface and the various little diplomatic arts which Galileo
employed in the course of his work could disguise its real meaning from the
learned world. But that was not Stephani’s affair; for the MS. as a whole
had been sanctioned by Father Visconti and had received the imprimatur for
Rome from the authorities of the censorship.
The delay about the preface, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, was
to be printed before the book, had two results out of which Galileo’s
enemies afterwards tried to make capital for their intrigues, and which must
therefore find mention here. The printing had been long in hand and was
proceeding when the preface arrived. It was therefore necessary to print it
on a separate sheet, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, was placed at the
beginning of the book. For technical reasons, also, it was printed in
different type from the rest of the work. From these two insignificant
circumstances, Galileo was afterwards reproached with having by the
outward form destroyed the inner connection between the introduction and
the book; and with having thus, to some extent, intended to indicate that it
had nothing to do with the “Dialogues.”[253] This was at the time when one
party was setting every lever in motion to find cause for accusation against
Galileo. The book itself, which appeared with the double imprimatur of the
ecclesiastical censorship of Rome and Florence, afforded no legal ground
for it. We will not, however, anticipate the historical course of these
memorable events, but will carefully follow them step by step.

CHAPTER III.
THE “DIALOGUES” AND THE JESUITS.

Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s Friends and the Learned
World.—The hostile Party.—The Jesuits as Leaders of Learning.—
Deprived of their Monopoly by Galileo.—They become his bitter Foes.
—Having the Imprimatur for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought
himself doubly safe.—The Three Dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did
“Simplicius” personate the Pope?—Conclusive Arguments against it.—
Effect of the Accusation.—Urban’s Motives in instituting the Trial.

By the beginning of January, 1632, the printing of the “Dialogues” was
so far advanced, that on the 3rd Galileo had the satisfaction of telling his
friend, Cesare Marsili, at Bologna, that the work would be completed in ten
or twelve days.[254] It did not, however, appear till February. On the twenty-
second of that month Galileo presented his book to the Grand Duke, to
whom it was dedicated, and to the other members of the house of Medici.
[255]
On the twenty-third he sent at first thirty-two copies to Cesare Marsili.
[256]
He had a large number of copies handsomely bound for his powerful
friends and patrons at Rome, but they could not be despatched immediately,
since, owing to the continued prevalence of the plague, they would have
had to be purified in the quarantine houses, which might have injured them.
It was not till May that two unbound copies reached the papal residence in a
roundabout way.[257] One of these came into the hands of Cardinal
Francesco Barberini, who lent it to Father Castelli. In a letter to Galileo of
26th September, 1631,[258] he had vowed that, after the appearance of the
“Dialogues,” he would read no other book but that and the Breviary; and in
a letter of 29th May,[259] he now expressed to the author his admiration of
his work, which surpassed all his expectations. Shortly afterwards, Count
Filippo Magalotti, who was on very friendly terms with Galileo, and from
his relationship to the Barberinis, was an influential personage, imported
eight copies from Florence, and, as charged by the author, presented one
copy each to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, to the Tuscan ambassador
Niccolini, Father Riccardi, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor of the Holy Office,
and the Jesuit Father Leon Santi.[260]
While these few copies were being eagerly devoured by impatient
readers at Rome, and passed rapidly from hand to hand, the book had been
circulating in the rest of Italy in spite of the difficulties of communication.
The applause which this famous work called forth from all men of

independent minds was unexampled, and was only equalled by the
bitterness and consternation it excited among the scientific conservatives.
The learned world of Italy was divided into two hostile camps: that of
Ptolemy on the one side, that of Copernicus-Galileo on the other. In the one
were to be found progress, recognition of truth, free independent thought
and research; in the other blind worship of authority and rigid adherence to
the old school. And the latter party was far the most numerous; it was also
reinforced by those, of whom there were a considerable number, who
opposed the great reformer of science from interested motives. Besides this,
the academic corporations were not favourable to him, because he so
dangerously revolutionised the modern methods of teaching. The university
of his native city seemed especially adverse to him. It had carried its
animosity so far a few years before as to try to deprive him of the income
which he enjoyed as its first mathematician by the Grand Ducal decree of
12th July, 1620, though, thanks to the energetic remonstrances of some
influential patrons, the attempt was not successful.[261]
In addition to all this there is another consideration, which played a much
larger part in the sad story of Galileo’s trial than is generally supposed. The
clergy, and especially the Jesuits, had hitherto had a monopoly of science.
Everybody knows how assiduously it had been cultivated in ancient times
in the cells and schools of the convents, and that the ecclesiastical orders
were the guardians and disseminators of learning, while among both
populace and nobles ignorance flourished like a weed. When by the natural
law of progress the nations of Europe emerged from the simplicity of
childhood into the storm and stress period of youth; when inventions,—
especially printing,—and above all the discovery of America, began to
spread knowledge and culture among the masses, it was once more the
servants of Rome who, justly estimating the spirit of the age, placed
themselves, so to speak, in the van of the intellectual movement, that they
might guide its course. The strongest evidence that the Church was in
exclusive possession of the highest mental powers is afforded by the
Reformation; for the first stirrings of doubt, of critical, philosophical
speculation, arose in the bosoms of the Roman Catholic clergy. All the
reformers, from Abelard and Arnold of Brescia, to Huss and Luther, sprang,
without exception, from among them.

Just at the juncture when the split into two creeds threatened to divide the
joints and marrow of the supreme power of the Church, the man appeared
who most effectually contributed to restore it by founding a new
ecclesiastical order, with a very peculiar organisation. This was Ignatius
Loyola. And if we seek for the explanation of the profound influence gained
by this corporation in all parts of the world, and every grade of society, we
shall find it in four factors: the highest enthusiasm for the common cause;
willing obedience to the central authority—the general for the time being;
utter unscrupulousness as to means; and the supremacy which knowledge
always confers. Far from occupying themselves, like the Protestant clergy,
exclusively with theology, there was no branch of knowledge that was not
cultivated by these champions of the Church; indeed they stood for a
century at the summit of learning.[262] And now, in the most recent epoch of
that stigmatised century, Galileo the layman steps forth upon the arena of
the science of the heavens and the earth, and teaches the astonished world
truths before which the whole edifice of scholastic sophistry must fall to the
ground. The Jesuit monopoly of the education of youth and of teaching
altogether, became day by day more insecure, and the influence of the
society was threatened in proportion. Was it to be wondered at that the
pious fathers strained every nerve in this final conflict for mastery, and in
the attempt to prevent their world-wide mission of educating the people
from being torn from their hands? This explains why the reformers of
science appeared just as dangerous to them as those of religion; and they
resisted the former, as they had done the latter, with all the resources at their
command.
Galileo, as one of the most advanced pioneers of science, was in the
highest degree inconvenient to the Jesuits; members of their order had also
repeatedly measured lances with the great man in scientific discussion—
Fathers Grassi and Scheiner, for instance—with very unfortunate results, by
no means calculated to make the Society of Jesus more favourable to him.
But now that his “Dialogues on the Two Systems of the World” had
appeared, which, as every intelligent man must perceive, annihilated with
its overwhelming mass of evidence the doctrines of the old school, and
raised the modern system upon its ruins, the Jesuits set every lever in
motion, first to suppress this revolutionary book, and then to compass the
ruin of the author.

Riccardi himself remarked to Count Magalotti at that time: “The Jesuits
will persecute Galileo with the utmost bitterness.”[263]
Besides, they found welcome allies in the overwhelming majority of the
rest of the clergy. With them the theological considerations we have
mentioned formed the motive. And the louder the applause with which the
independent scientific world greeted Galileo’s latest remarkable work, the
fiercer burnt the flame of ecclesiastical hate. There can be no doubt that the
full significance of the “Dialogues” had not been apprehended by any of the
censors to whom they had been submitted. This is obvious from the fact that
they seriously thought that the diplomatic preface, and a few phrases in the
work itself, would suffice to make it appear innocuous. The commotion
made by the book in the scientific and theological world convinced them of
their mistake.
Meanwhile, Galileo in Florence gave himself up to unmixed delight at
the brilliant success of his “Dialogues.” His learned friends and followers,
such as Fra Bonaventura Cavalieri, Giovan Batista Baliani, Castelli, Fra
Fulgenzio Micanzio, Alfonzo Antonini, Campanella, and many others,
expressed to him in repeated letters, and often with genuine enthusiasm,
their admiration of his splendid work,[264] not one of them had any
foreboding that it was to bring its grey-headed author before the bar of the
Inquisition; and Galileo himself least of all. He expected violent opposition
from his scientific opponents, and was prepared to engage in the contest,
but he considered himself quite secure from ecclesiastical persecution. Had
not influential personages at Rome, Cesi, Mgr. Ciampoli, Cesarini, and
Castelli, been urging him for years to finish his work, the tendency of which
they well knew?[265] And when it was at last complete, it was these same
friends, as well meaning as they were influential, who had done their best to
forward the publication. Besides, the book had appeared not only with the
imprimatur and under the protection of the Inquisition at Florence, as
prescribed, and with the permission of the political authorities of the city,
but Galileo could show also the imprimatur of the Pater Magister Sacri
Palatii, which was not at all usual with works not printed at Rome.[266] He
considered this a double security; Jesuitism, on the contrary, contrived
afterwards to forge an indictment out of this unusual circumstance. Not a
word had appeared in print without having been read by the organs of papal
scrutiny and having received the sanction of the Church. Might not the

author well look forward to the publication of his work with perfect
tranquillity, and feel himself secure from any collision with the
ecclesiastical authorities? Undoubtedly, if he had not made the solemn
promise sixteen years before, “entirely to renounce the opinion that the sun
is the centre of the universe, and is stationary, and that the earth on the
contrary moves, and neither to hold the same, nor in any way to teach or
defend it in speaking or writing.”
Galileo’s proceedings at this time, as before and after, prove that he was
totally unaware of this assumed prohibition; anyhow, he pays not the
slightest attention to it. He sends copies of his work to the most eminent
persons at Rome; is delighted at its immense success; arms himself for
defence against the indignant Aristotelians, but never thinks of a conflict
with the ecclesiastical authorities, which, sincere Catholic as he was, would
have given him great pain apart from consequences. Even in June and July
there were some ill-disposed persons, to the great annoyance of Riccardi,
zealously trying to discover something in the book which could be
formulated into an accusation against the author. The title page was adorned
with a drawing of three dolphins, one with the tail of another in its mouth,
with an insignificant motto above it.[267] This illustration was impugned
because it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical approbation, and they
expatiated with more malice than wit upon the meaning of the mysterious
device. It was a great relief to Riccardi’s mind when it was pointed out by
Count Magalotti that the same illustration appeared on almost all the works
which issued from the press of Landini at Florence, where the “Dialogues”
had been printed. This bait, then, had not taken, and Galileo’s foes, worthy
members of the Society of Jesus, had to find some other mode of ensnaring
him. They now brought against him the twofold reproach, that the preface
was printed in different type from the rest of the book, which was true; and
that several weighty arguments which the Pope had brought against the
Copernican system in conversation with Galileo, though they might perhaps
have been adduced in the MS., were not in the printed book; this was a lie.
[268]
The truth however at once came to light, for these “weighty
arguments” were reduced to one, which was brought forward at the
conclusion of the “Dialogues.” But Jesuitism, as we shall soon see, drew
very singular conclusions from the very natural circumstance that it was
mentioned by Simplicius, the defender of Ptolemy. The brethren of Father

Grassi and Father Scheiner,[269]—the latter of whom had been for a few
months at Rome, and was greatly incensed at the “Dialogues,”—well knew
how to lay hold of the Pope by his most vulnerable points, his personal
vanity and boundless ambition, which made him feel every contradiction
like an attack on his authority. They were assiduous in confirming Urban in
his opinion that the Copernican doctrine endangered the dogmas of the
Christian Catholic faith in the highest degree, and now represented that the
publication of the “Dialogues” was an incalculable injury to the Church.
Besides this, they persuaded the Pope that in his latest work Galileo had
again, though this time under concealment, entered into theological
interpretations of Holy Scripture. They thus stigmatised him as a rebel
against the papal decrees, who had only obtained the licence from Riccardi
by cunning devices,—a misrepresentation of the facts which, however, did
not fail of its effect on Urban. This is conclusively proved by the despatches
of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 11th September, 1632, of which we shall
have to speak more particularly.[270]
The crowning point of the intrigues of Galileo’s foes was, however, the
cunning assertion that by Simplicius no other was intended than Urban VIII.
himself; and they actually made him believe it. One would scarcely have
thought this possible with this shrewd Pope, who was so well-disposed
towards Galileo; but it is beyond all question that it was so, and it put him
in a boundless rage. It is decidedly indicated by his attitude towards Galileo
at the trial, especially at the beginning of it. At that time it put him in such
ill humour to be spoken to about Galileo, that all who interested themselves
for him agreed that it was better not to confer with Urban himself, but with
Cardinal Barberini or the ministers.[271] The repeated attempts also made by
Galileo and his friends, even years afterwards, to convince Urban that it had
never entered his head to insult him, and that it was a cunning slander,
prove that for a long time the Pope had taken Simplicius for his counterfeit.
As this manifest falsehood is revived by certain writers, even at this time
of day, as having been Galileo’s real intention, it seems necessary to throw a
little more light on it. The telling remarks which Albèri makes on the
subject might well suffice to show the absurdity of the imputation. He says
that in the first place the attachment and devotion always shown by Galileo
towards Urban, to the sincerity of which numerous letters bear witness,
exclude all idea of so perfidious an act; and in the second, that it was

Galileo’s own interest to retain the goodwill of his powerful patron, and not
frivolously to fritter it away.[272] But we pass from this argument ad
absurdum to one ad concretum. Simplicius is said to be Urban VIII. But not
appropriately, for he was no such headstrong Peripatetic as is represented
by Simplicius; had he been so, it was impossible that in 1624 he should
have enjoyed having “Il Saggiatore” read to him at table, that cutting satire
on the Aristotelian wisdom in general, and the wisdom of Father Grassi in
particular; and that in the next year he should have been so much pleased
with Galileo’s reply to Ingoli.
Galileo’s enemies founded their assertion on the circumstance that at the
end of the work Simplicius employs an argument which the Pope himself
had brought forward in repeated conversations in 1624 with Galileo, and on
the weight of which he plumed himself not a little.[273] It consisted of the
reflection, undoubtedly more devout than scientific, that God is all-
powerful, so that all things are possible to Him, and that therefore the tides
could not be adduced as a necessary proof of the double motion of the earth
without limiting His omnipotence. This pious objection is received by both
Salviati and Sagredo with the utmost reverence. The former calls it
heavenly and truly admirable, and the latter thinks that it forms a fitting
conclusion to the discussion, which opinion is acted upon.[274] The Pope’s
argument is thus by no means made to appear ridiculous, but quite the
contrary. As to the main point, Simplicius says expressly that “he had this
argument from a very eminent and learned personage.” If this means Urban
VIII., it is plain that Simplicius cannot be Urban VIII. Q.E.D.[275]
In writing his “Dialogues,” Galileo found himself in a difficult position.
As he brought forward all the arguments of the disciples of Ptolemy against
the new system, the vain pontiff would have been sorely offended if he had
not introduced his. But who should mention it, if not Simplicius? Galileo
might think that Urban would not perhaps like to see his argument treated
as the original suggestion of Simplicius, who did not appear in a brilliant
light, and devised the expedient of making him quote it, as that of “a very
eminent and learned personage,” whereby he would imagine that he had
steered clear of every obstacle. But there was no security against calumny.
How little idea Galileo could have had of making Urban ridiculous under
the guise of Simplicius appears also from the fact that in 1636, when
seeking full pardon from the Pope, and when he would be most anxious not

to irritate him, he had just completed his famous work, “Dialogues on the
Modern Sciences,” in which Simplicius again plays the part of defender of
the ancient principles; and that he published it in 1638, just when, in view
of the unfavourable answer of 1636, he was begging at least for the favour
of being nursed at Florence. There can be no doubt that this suspicion
materially contributed to injure Galileo’s cause. Pieralisi, indeed, makes an
assertion as novel as it is untenable, that this bold slander was first heard of
in 1635, and therefore not until after the famous trial; and in his book,
“Urban VIII. and Gal. Galilei,”[276] he devotes a chapter of forty-six pages
to prove this latest novelty. But all his arguments are upset by the following
passage by Galileo in a letter to his friend Micanzio on 26th July, 1636:—

“I hear from Rome that his Eminence Cardinal Antonio
Barberini and the French ambassador have seen his Holiness
and tried to convince him that I never had the least idea of
perpetrating so sacrilegious an act as to make game of his
Holiness, as my malicious foes have persuaded him, and
which was the primary cause of all my troubles.”[277]

Pieralisi is acquainted with these words, and seeks to weaken their
indisputable force as evidence in a lengthy disquisition; but an impartial
critic only sees in this the apologist of Urban VIII., who desires, at all
hazards, to shield him from the suspicion of having been actuated in the
matter of Galileo’s trial by personal motives, which will always be
recognised in history as a fact, though it is also an exaggeration of some
historians to maintain that it was the actual starting-point of the whole
process, Urban having wished to revenge himself for this assumed personal
insult.[278] No, it had its effect, but was not the chief motive. The Jesuits had
inspired the Pope with the opinion that the “Dialogues” were eminently
dangerous to the Church, more dangerous and abhorrent even than the
writings of Luther and Calvin,[279] and he was highly incensed at the
representation that Galileo had shamefully outwitted Father Riccardi, Mgr.
Ciampoli, and even his Holiness himself, in obtaining the licence. Offended
majesty, the determination to guard the interests of the Church and the
authority of the Bible, indignation at Galileo’s assumed cunning, and
annoyance at having been duped by it,—these were the motives which

impelled Urban VIII. to the deed called the institution of the trial of the
Inquisition against Galileo.

CHAPTER IV.
DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616.

Symptoms of the Coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade of
Forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional
Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview with the Pope and
unfavourable Reception.—Report of it to Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—
Real Object of the Special Commission to find a Pretext for the Trial.—
Its Discovery in the Assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report of the
Commission and Charges against Galileo.

As we have seen, even during the months of June and July a ferment had
already begun in certain circles at Rome about the “Dialogues.” Complaints
and accusations were rife, the Pope was artfully worked upon—these were
the first portents of the heavy storm which was to break over Galileo’s
head. The Master of the Palace went about Rome in great fear for himself as
well as for Galileo, and told his troubles to Count Magalotti.[280] At the
beginning of August, Riccardi begged him to deliver up the eight copies of
the “Dialogues” which Magalotti had brought to Rome, with the assurance
that he would return them in ten days at the latest. It was not in Magalotti’s
power to grant this request, the books having, as we know, long ago passed
into other hands.[281]
A few days later the first thunderclap broke over Galileo. His publisher,
Landini, at Florence received instructions, though for the time they were
only provisional, forbidding the further sale of the “Dialogues.” The
succeeding scenes of the melancholy drama quickly followed. A special
commission was instituted at Rome by order of the Pope to investigate the
whole affair. Urban afterwards repeatedly stated with great emphasis to
Niccolini, that it was out of regard for the Grand Duke, as well as for
Galileo, that the very unusual measure was taken of not referring his cause
directly to the Holy Office, but to a separate congregation.[282]
It is altogether a characteristic trait in all the proceedings of the Roman
curia against Galileo, that there was a parade of great consideration for and
forbearance towards him although strictly within the limits of their real
intentions. Even the favour ostensibly shown to him of referring his cause
to a preliminary commission, composed of theologians and mathematicians,
was not so great in reality as it was trumpeted to be at the Vatican. It was
composed of persons by no means favourable to him, and all the
endeavours of Niccolini and other powerful friends of Galileo to have

influential persons who were friendly to him put on the commission, such
as Fathers Castelli and Campanella, were frustrated by the Pope. It
occasioned a dangerous threat to be held over the undaunted Campanella,
who energetically exerted himself in the matter.[283]
Meanwhile disquieting rumours had reached Florence, and Galileo
recognised with terror his dangerous position, though not to its full extent;
this perhaps was as yet foreseen by no one. He appealed in full confidence
to his friendly young sovereign for protection, and found a willing ear. On
the 24th August a note on this business was sent to Niccolini, by order of
the Grand Duke. It is clear that Ferdinand’s efforts to assist Galileo were
sincere from the circumstance that, although the letter was written in Cioli’s
name, Galileo was the author of it, as appears from the original draft in his
handwriting in the Palatina Library at Florence.
The Grand Duke in this letter expresses his surprise that a book which
had been laid before the supreme authorities at Rome by the author in
person, had been carefully read there again and again, as well as afterwards
at Florence, and at the author’s request had been altered as seemed good to
the authorities, and had finally received the imprimatur both there and here,
should now after two years be considered suspicious and be prohibited. The
astonishment of his Highness was the greater, because he knew that neither
of the main opinions treated of were positively confirmed, but only the
reasons for and against brought together; and this was done, as his Highness
knew for certain, for the benefit of the Holy Church itself, in order that on
subjects which in their nature are difficult to understand, those with whom
the decision rests may see, with less expenditure of time and trouble, on
which side the truth lies, and bring it into agreement with Holy Scripture.
The Grand Duke was of opinion that this opposition must be directed rather
against the person of the author than against his book, or this or that
opinion, ancient or modern. In order, however, to convince himself of the
merits or misdemeanours of his servant, his Highness desires that that
which is granted in all disputes and before all tribunals should be permitted
to him,—to defend himself against his accusers. The Grand Duke therefore
urges that the accusations brought against the work, which have caused it to
be prohibited, may be sent here for the author, who stands firmly on his
innocence, to see them. He is so convinced that all this originates in the
calumnies of envious and malicious persecutors, that he has offered his

sovereign to leave the country and renounce his favour unless he can
palpably prove how pious and sincere his sentiments on these subjects have
always been and still are. The letter concludes with the commission, by the
Grand Duke’s orders, to take the necessary steps towards the fulfilment of
his most reasonable request.[284]
On the same day on which this despatch went off, a mandate was issued
from Rome, which not only confirmed the provisional prohibition of the
“Dialogues,” but requested Landini to send all the copies in stock to Rome.
He replied that all the copies had been delivered to the purchasers.
Niccolini on receipt of the Grand Duke’s order hastened to carry it out,
but met with more bitter and obstinate opposition than either he or the
Tuscan court had expected. On 4th September, when the ambassador was
about to execute his mission at the Vatican, the Pope met him bluntly with
the words: “Your Galileo has ventured to meddle with things that he ought
not, and with the most important and dangerous subjects which can be
stirred up in these days.” Niccolini remarked that the philosopher had not
published his work without the approval of the Church, to which the Pope
angrily rejoined that Galileo and Ciampoli had deceived him, especially
Ciampoli, who had dared to tell him that Galileo would be entirely guided
by the papal commands, and that it was all right; he had not either seen or
read the work, and this was all he had known about it. His Holiness then
made bitter complaints against the Master of the Palace, adding, however,
that he had been deceived himself, for he had been enticed by fair speeches
to approve the book, and by more fair speeches to allow it to be printed at
Florence, without at all complying with the form prescribed by the
Inquisitor, and with the name of the Roman censor of the press, who had
nothing whatever to do with works which did not appear at Rome. Niccolini
then ventured to say, that he knew that a special congregation was
appointed to try this affair, and as it might happen (as was the case) that
there might be persons on it unfavourable to Galileo, he humbly petitioned
that Galileo might have an opportunity of justifying himself. Urban
answered curtly: “In these affairs of the Holy Office, nothing is ever done
but to pronounce judgment, and then summon to recant.” “Does it not then
appear to your Holiness,” answered the ambassador, “that Galileo should be
informed beforehand of the objections to, scruples and criticisms respecting
his book, and of the points to which the Holy Office takes exception?” “The

Holy Office,” replied the Pope, angrily, “as I told you before, does not
proceed in that way, and does not take that course, nor does it ever give
such information beforehand: it is not the custom. Besides, Galileo knows
well enough what the objections are, if he only chooses to know, because we
have talked to him about it, and he has heard them all from ourself.”
Niccolini now urged that the work was dedicated to the Grand Duke, and
written by one of his most eminent servants; he hoped, therefore, that
Galileo would be treated with indulgence. Urban replied that he had even
prohibited books dedicated to himself, and that in matters where it was a
question of endangering religion, the Grand Duke also was bound, as a
Christian prince, to co-operate in enforcing penalties. Niccolini had
therefore better write plainly to his Highness that he (the Pope) warned him
not to meddle with things which he could not come out of with honour. The
undaunted ambassador now expressed his conviction that his Holiness
would not allow them to go so far as entirely to prohibit the book, which
had received sanction, without at least hearing Galileo. But Urban replied,
that this was the least that could happen to him, and he had better take care
that he was not summoned before the Holy Office. The Pope then assured
Niccolini that the preliminary commission was composed of theologians
and men well versed in science, all grave and pious men, who would weigh
every particular, word for word, for it was a question of the most godless
business which could ever be discussed. He also charged the ambassador to
tell his sovereign that the doctrine was in the highest degree sinful;
everything would be maturely considered; his Highness had better not
interfere, and must be on his guard. In conclusion, the Pope not only
imposed the strictest secrecy on Niccolini as to what he had been told, but
desired that the Grand Duke also should be charged to keep the secret,
adding that he “had acted with great consideration for Galileo, by having
impressed upon him what he knew before, and by not referring his affairs,
as he ought to have done, to the Holy Office, but to a specially-appointed
congregation.” Urban added the bitter remark that his behaviour towards
Galileo had been far better than Galileo’s towards him, for he had deceived
him.
In the narration of the whole of this interesting conversation between the
Pope and the Tuscan ambassador, we have given an almost literal
translation of the Italian original of Niccolini’s report of it to Cioli, of 5th
September, 1632.[285] Urban’s last angry expression caused Niccolini to

remark in his despatch that he found “ill will here too; and as for the Pope,
he could not be more against poor Galileo than he was.” He then said that
he had communicated Cioli’s letter of 24th August to the Master of the
Palace, and that Riccardi thought they would hardly condemn the
“Dialogues” altogether, but only alter some passages which really were
objectionable. He had also offered, as far as he could do so without
incurring censure or transgressing rules, to inform the ambassador at once
of what was going to be done, adding however, that he must be cautious, for
he had already felt the lash in this matter. He then complained that they had
not acted in accordance with his letter to the Inquisitor, that the introduction
was printed in different type from the rest of the work, and that the
conclusion did not agree with the introduction. Towards the end of the
despatch, Niccolini says that “it will be better to act without any temper in
this business, and rather to negotiate with the ministers and Cardinal
Barberini than with the Pope himself, because he obstinately persists that it
is a hopeless case, and if you dispute it, or threaten anything, or are defiant,
his Holiness lets fall hard words and has no respect for anybody.”
The conclusion of Cioli’s reply of 19th September to this ominous
despatch of Niccolini’s gives us an insight into the attitude which the
Tuscan Government, even at that time, desired to assume towards the papal
chair in this unfortunate business. Cioli writes:—

“His Highness has heard the letters of your excellency of
the 4th and 5th, and by this affair of Signor Mariano and that
of Signor Galileo he was placed in so much difficulty that I
do not know how it will be. I know well that his Holiness
will never have to blame the ministers for giving bad
advice.”[286]

Two letters from Count Magalotti,[287] who was usually well informed,
arrived almost at the same time as this despatch. Both bear the date of 4th
September; one is to Mario Guiducci, the other to Galileo, who in a letter of
23rd August, which is lost, had expressed his anxiety to Magalotti lest his
work should be pronounced suspicious, and the Copernican doctrine
condemned as heretical by the authorities. Magalotti’s news was, on the
whole, reassuring. According to the opinions of persons who are generally

present at the sittings of the Congregation of the Holy Office, he thought he
could assure Galileo that it would never go so far as for the Copernican
system to be condemned by the supreme authority.[288] He thought, with
Riccardi, that they would not entirely prohibit the “Dialogues,” but only
correct them, so as to sustain the decree of 5th March, 1616. He also
urgently advised, like Niccolini, that they should arm themselves with the
utmost patience, and rather confer with Cardinal Barberini than with Urban,
“for reasons which it is not necessary to discuss here.”
Neither Galileo himself, nor Magalotti, nor his other friends, ever thought
of any personal danger to him; Niccolini and the Grand Duke might perhaps
have been more sharp-sighted, but they were bound to silence. The threads,
however, of this great intrigue can only be disentangled by the later
historian, who has watched the progress of the whole melancholy drama.
Two facts are perfectly obvious to the attentive observer: the first, that at
Rome, with the Pope at their head, they were determined to bring Galileo to
trial before the Inquisition; and the second, that they did not yet clearly see
how it was to be done with some shadow of justice. To find this out was the
real purpose of the appointment of the special congregation, which Urban
had boasted of as a signal act of forbearance towards Galileo. All the
objections to the book were subjects rather for accusation against the
censors who had sanctioned it than against the author, who had submitted it
to them, altered it, and again submitted the alterations. The responsibility
for the publication really rested not with the author, but with those who had
sanctioned it. The Pope’s accusation, however, that Galileo had coaxed
them to give the permission by fair speeches, was too indefinite to institute
a trial upon, and neither did the irregular quotation of the imprimatur of the
Master of the Palace, nor the typographical difference between the preface
and the rest of the book offer sufficient ground for a legal prosecution. In
this difficult case, therefore, it required all the Romish craft and legal
sophistry at command, to find a pretext for bringing Galileo to trial before
the Inquisition, which should, at any rate according to Romish principles,
justify it in the eyes of the world.
The preliminary commission appointed by Urban VIII. was to perform
this by no means easy task in brilliant style. It was certainly very much
lightened by a discovery in the acts of the trial of Galileo in 1616, which
was evidently a surprise to them—the note of 26th February, 1616.

What vast importance they at once thought fit to assign to this annotation
without signature, we learn from a despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli, of 11th
September.[289] Niccolini refers in it to a recent interview with the Master of
the Palace. He had again strongly advised that nothing be done in a hurry,
and that time must be gained, for the Pope was firmly convinced that
religion was really imperilled, for the work did not treat of mathematics, but
of Holy Scripture, religion, and faith, and the orders respecting the printing
of the work had not been complied with, for the opinion of the author was
not merely indicated, but expressed in many places in the most decided and
unsuitable manner. After Riccardi had assured the ambassador that all
efforts to get Campanella and Castelli put on the preliminary commission
had failed, but that he (Riccardi) would do his best to defend Galileo, both
from friendship for him, and to serve his Highness, and because he had
given the permission to print, he confided to Niccolini, under seal of
profound secrecy, as of the highest importance, “that it had been discovered
in the books of the Holy Office, that sixteen years ago, it having been heard
that Galileo entertained that opinion, and disseminated it in Florence, he
was summoned to Rome, and forbidden by Cardinal Bellarmine, in the
name of the Pope and the Holy Office, to hold that opinion, and this alone
is enough to ruin him entirely.”[290]
This communication of Riccardi’s contains an obvious mis-statement,
namely, that any document had been found showing that Galileo had been
summoned to Rome in 1616. As we have seen,[291] all the historical
documents show that he was not summoned, but that his visit was entirely
voluntary. This verbal statement of Riccardi’s, unsupported by any
document, is of no value as evidence, compared with the letters of Galileo
of that period, and his depositions afterwards before his judges, who were
accurately informed of all the previous proceedings. The second part of his
communication to Niccolini is also far from precise. He does indeed say
that Galileo, in 1616, had in the name of the Pope and the Holy
Congregation been forbidden (prohibito), “il poter tenere questo opinione,”
but according to the father’s account this prohibition was communicated to
him by Cardinal Bellarmine. Riccardi is evidently not precisely instructed,
and does not know that, according to the notification of 26th February,
1616, Galileo received an absolute prohibition before notary and witnesses.

We shall see the part this “document” was destined to play in the
proceedings against Galileo.
The preliminary commission had just then, after about a month’s session,
completed its labours, and submitted to the Pope a long memorial on the
Galileo affair. The document begins with a concise statement of the course
of the negotiations about the publication of the “Dialogues,” and then the
three following indictments were brought against the author:—
(1) Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the hypothetical
treatment by decidedly maintaining that the earth moves and the sun is
stationary. (2) He has erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides to
the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not exist; (3)
and he has further been deceitfully silent about the command laid upon him
by the Holy Office, in the year 1616, which was as follows: “To relinquish
altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and
immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or
defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, otherwise
proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office, which
injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey.”
Then follows the remark: “It must now be considered what proceedings
are to be taken, both against the person of the author and against the printed
book.” Yet the nature of these proceedings is not in any way discussed in
the document, but it now refers more in detail in five counts to the historical
events, from the time when the “Dialogues” were submitted in Rome in
1630, to the publication in Florence in 1632. A sixth count considers that
the following points in the “Dialogues” themselves must be laid to the
author’s account:—

“1. That without orders and without making any
communication about it, he put the imprimatur of Rome on
the title page.
“2. That he had printed the preface in different type, and
rendered it useless by its separation from the rest of the
work; further, that he had put the saving clause at the end in
the mouth of a simpleton, and in a place where it is hard to
find; that it is but coolly received by the other interlocutor,

so that it is only cursorily touched upon, and not fully
discussed.
“3. That he had very often in the work deviated from the
hypothesis, either by absolutely asserting that the earth
moves, and that the sun is stationary, or by representing the
arguments upon which these views rest as convincing and
necessarily true, or by making the contrary appear
impossible.
“4. That he had treated the subject as undecided, and as if
he were waiting for, though he does not expect, explanation.
“5. That he contemns authors who are of a contrary
opinion, and those whom Holy Church chiefly employs.
“6. That he perniciously asserts and sets forth that, in the
apprehension of geometrical matters, there is some equality
between the Divine and human mind.
“7. That he had represented it to be an argument for the
truth that Ptolemaics go over to the Copernicans, but not
vice versa.
“8. That he had erroneously ascribed the tides in the ocean
to the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which
do not exist.”

The special commission, however, by no means draws the conclusion
from all these errors and failings, that the “Dialogues” should be prohibited,
but says: “All these things could be corrected, if it was thought that the
book to which such favour should be shown were of any value.”
Immediately after this follows the seventh point, saying that “the author
had transgressed the mandate of the Holy Office of 1616, ‘that he should
relinquish the said opinion,’ etc.—down to, ‘and promised to obey.’”[292]
Herewith the memorial of the preliminary commission concludes. It
draws no conclusions from the facts adduced, but leaves that to his Holiness
the Pope. The last count confirms Galileo’s chief offence: he is guilty of
having disobeyed a special mandate of the ecclesiastical authorities, has

broken a solemn promise made before a notary and witnesses. Such a
crime, according to inquisitorial usage, demanded severe punishment. The
perfidy of 1616 had signally triumphed.

CHAPTER V.
THE SUMMONS TO ROME.

Niccolini’s Attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s Parable.—The Mandate
summoning Galileo to Rome.—His Grief and Consternation.—His Letter
to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed Order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s
fruitless Efforts to save him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to
Travel.—Castelli’s hopeful View of the Case.—Threat to bring him to
Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to go.—His
Powerlessness to protect his Servant.—Galileo’s Mistake in leaving
Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati.

Only a few days later, on 15th September, the Pope informed the Tuscan
ambassador through one of his secretaries, Pietro Benessi, that he (Urban)
hereby notified to him, out of esteem for his Highness the Grand Duke, that
he could do no less than hand Galileo’s affairs over to the Inquisition. At the
same time the strictest secrecy as to this information was enjoined both on
the Grand Duke and Niccolini, with a threat that otherwise they would be
proceeded against according to the statutes of the Holy Office.[293]
Niccolini was astounded by this news, and hastened, two days
afterwards, to the Pope, to make a final attempt to avert the danger of a trial
before the Inquisition for Galileo. But his urgent though respectful
solicitations met with no response. Urban indeed said that “Signor Galileo
was still his friend,—but that opinion had been condemned sixteen years
before.” He then expatiated, as he had so often done before, on the danger
of the doctrine, and ended by saying that Galileo’s book was in the highest
degree pernicious. When Niccolini remarked that he thought the
“Dialogues” might be altered to the prescribed form, instead of being
prohibited altogether, the Pope answered affably by telling him a parable
about Cardinal Alciato. A manuscript was submitted to him with the request
that, in order not to spoil the fair copy, he would mark the places requiring
alteration with a little wax. The cardinal returned it without any marks at
all. The author thanked him, and expressed his satisfaction that he had not
found anything to find fault with, as there was not a single mark; but the
cardinal replied that he had not used any wax, for if he had, he must have
gone to a wax chandler’s, and dipped the whole work into melted wax in
order to amend it thoroughly.[294] Thus had Cardinal Alciato enlightened the
unfortunate author in his day, and Urban enlightened Niccolini by quoting
the story, to which he could only reply with a forced smile, that nevertheless

he “hoped his Holiness would allow them to treat Galileo’s work as
indulgently as possible.”
Niccolini’s efforts had been in vain, and measures were laid with almost
breathless haste to deliver Galileo up to the Inquisition. This was finally
effected in the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 23rd
September, 1632, when it was pronounced that he had transgressed the
prohibition of 26th February, 1616, and concealed it when he obtained the
imprimatur. In a document of the Vatican Manuscript we have the papal
mandate which followed this sentence. It runs as follows:—

“23rd September, 1632. His Holiness charges the
Inquisitor at Florence to inform Galileo, in the name of the
Holy Office, that he is to appear as soon as possible in the
course of the month of October, at Rome before the
Commissary-General of the Holy Office. He must also
obtain a promise from Galileo to obey this order, which the
Inquisitor is to give him in the presence of a notary and
witnesses, but in such a way that Galileo may know nothing
about them, so that if he refuse and do not promise to obey,
they may, if necessary, bear witness to it.”[295]

On 1st October the Inquisitor carried out this order, which Galileo had to
certify by the following attestation:—

1st October, 1632, at Florence. “I, Galileo Galilei, certify
that on the day indicated the order has been delivered to me
by the honourable Father Inquisitor of this city, by command
of the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office at Rome, to go
to Rome in the course of the present month, October, and to
present myself before the Father Commissary of the Holy
Office, who will inform me what I have to do. I will
willingly obey the order in the course of this month October.
And in testimony thereto I have written these presents.”
“I, Galileo Galilei wrote manu propria.”[296]

This mandate to present himself before the Inquisition quite
overwhelmed Galileo, as is evident from his correspondence of that period.
He was totally unprepared for it. Scarcely recovered from a severe
complaint in the eyes, which had lasted several months and had prevented
him from using them, otherwise suffering in health, and at an advanced age,
he was now to go to Rome in the midst of the plague, which had broken out
again with increased virulence, and entailed strict quarantine regulations, in
order to give account of himself before the dread tribunal. No wonder that it
dismayed him, and in spite of his promise “willingly to obey the order in
the course of this month, October,” we find him making every effort to get
out of it. On 6th October he wrote in the greatest excitement to Cioli, who
was just then with the Grand Duke at Siena, that he was in the greatest
consternation at this summons to appear before the Inquisition at Rome, and
as he was well aware of the importance of the matter, he would come to
Siena to lay his schemes and plans before his Highness, for he had more
than one in his head, and to consult him about the steps to be taken.[297]
This journey, however, was not undertaken, as the court soon returned to
Florence.
Galileo’s deep depression is most evident from a long letter of 13th
October addressed to a cardinal of the Barberini family,[298] which was to
reach him through Niccolini. Galileo remarks first that he and his friends
had foreseen that his “Dialogues” would find opponents, but he had never
imagined that the envious malice of some persons would go so far as to
persuade the authorities that they were not worthy to see the light. He goes
on to say that the summons before the Inquisition at Rome had caused him
the deepest grief, for he feared that such a proceeding, usual only in the
case of serious delinquents, would turn the fruits of all his studies and
labours during many years, which had lent no little repute to his name with
the learned all over the world, into aspersions on his fair fame. “This vexes
me so much,” continues Galileo, “that it makes me curse the time devoted
to these studies in which I strove and hoped to deviate somewhat from the
beaten track generally pursued by learned men. I not only repent having
given the world a portion of my writings, but feel inclined to suppress those
still in hand, and to give them to the flames, and thus satisfy the longing
desire of my enemies to whom my ideas are so inconvenient.” After this
desperate cry from his oppressed soul, he expresses his conviction that,

burdened with seventy years and many bodily sufferings, increased by
constant sleeplessness, he shall not reach the end of this tedious journey—
made more arduous by unusual difficulties—alive. Impelled by the instinct
of self-preservation common to all men, he ventures to ask the good offices
of the cardinal. He begs him to represent his pitiable condition to the wise
fathers in Rome, not to release him from giving account of himself, which
he is most anxious to do, as he is sure that it will only tend to his advantage,
but only that it may be made easier for him to obey. There are two ways of
doing this. One is for him to write a minute and conscientious vindication
of all that he has said, written, or done since the day when the conflict
began on Copernicus’s book and his new system. He is certain that his
sincerity and his pure, zealous, and devout attachment to the holy Church
and its supreme head, would be so obvious from this statement, that every
one, if he were free from passion and party malice, must confess that he had
behaved so piously and like a good Catholic, that not even any of the
fathers of the Church to whom the epithet holy is applied, could have shown
more piety. He asserts and will indisputably prove, by all the works he has
written on this subject, that he has only entered into the controversy out of
zeal for the holy Church, with the intention of imparting to her servants that
knowledge which one or other of them might wish to possess, and which he
had acquired by long study, as it treated of subjects difficult to understand
and different from the learning generally cultivated. He will also show how
many opinions contained in the writings of the fathers of the Church had
been an encouragement to him, and how he was “finally confirmed in his
intention by hearing a short but holy and admirable address, which came
unexpectedly, like an echo of the Holy Spirit, from the lips of a personage
eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of life.” But for the present
he will not give this admirable saying, nor the speaker’s name, as it does not
seem prudent or suitable to involve any one in the present affair which
concerns him personally alone.[299] Having in a touching manner begged
that what he should write may be read, and declared that should his
vindication not give satisfaction on all points he will reply in detail to
objections, he proceeds to the second means of averting the journey to
Rome.
He only wishes that his adversaries would be as ready to commit to paper
what they have perhaps verbally and ad aures said against him, as he was to
defend himself in writing. If they will not accept his written vindication,

and still insist upon a verbal one, there was an Inquisitor, Nuncius,
archbishop, and other high officials of the Church at Florence, whose
summons he was quite ready to obey. He says:—“It appears to me that
things of much greater importance are decided by this tribunal. And it is not
likely that under the keen and watchful eyes of those who examined my
book with full liberty to omit, to add, and to alter as seemed good to them,
errors so weighty could escape that the authorities of this city should be
incompetent to correct or punish them.” This passage again clearly indicates
that Galileo knew nothing whatever of the prohibition of 1616; that he had
no idea of having broken his word to the ecclesiastical authorities. His only
thought is of a revision of his work as the result of a conviction that it
contained errors.[300]
The letter to the cardinal concludes with the following assurance:—“If
neither my great age, nor my many bodily infirmities, nor the deep concern
I feel, nor the wearisomeness of a journey under the present most
unfavourable circumstances, are considered sufficient reasons, by this high
and sacred tribunal, for granting a dispensation, or at least a delay, I will
undertake the journey, esteeming obedience more than life.”[301]
Niccolini could not deliver this letter to the cardinal immediately, as he
was just then absent from Rome. He received however, at the same time, an
urgent petition from another quarter. Michael Angelo the younger wrote to
this dignitary, with whom he was on friendly terms, and entreated him, out
of consideration for the philosopher’s age and infirmities, to use his
powerful influence to get his affairs settled at Florence.[302] But there was a
long delay before Galileo’s letter was delivered to the cardinal. The
ambassador wished first to consult Castelli, whom the Grand Duke had
appointed as his counsel in Galileo’s affairs, whether it was to be delivered.
Niccolini had doubts about these explanations, and expressed them both in
a letter to Galileo of 23rd October,[303] and in a despatch to Cioli of the
24th.[304] In the former Niccolini says that he thinks Galileo’s letter is more
calculated to incense them against him than to pacify them, and the more he
asserted that he could defend his work the more it would be thought that it
ought to be condemned. He thinks that a delay will be granted to the
accused of his journey to Rome, but that he will not be released from it on
any consideration. Niccolini gave him the following friendly hint as to the
attitude he should maintain: “It appears desirable not to enter into any

defence of things which the Congregation do not approve, but to submit and
to recant what the cardinals may desire; for to speak as a Christian, one
must not maintain anything, but what they, as the highest tribunal, that
cannot err, please.”[305] By such conduct the ambassador hopes for an easier
solution of the question; not, however, without its coming to an actual trial,
and Galileo may even be somewhat restricted in his personal liberty. He has
great doubts about the passage referring to an “admirable address, which
came unexpectedly like an echo of the Holy Spirit from the lips of a
personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of life,” as he
thinks that if the letter is handed to the cardinal, he will hand it to the
Congregation, and the cardinals may request to be informed who this
personage is. At all events he would like first to consult Castelli, who was
not just then at Rome.
The result of the consultation was, however, to deliver the letter to
Barberini. Niccolini reported to Galileo on 6th November,[306] that he had
received it in a very friendly spirit, and was altogether very kindly disposed
towards him. The ambassador does not doubt that a delay will at any rate be
granted, that Galileo may make the journey to Rome with less
inconvenience.[307] We learn from a document in Gherardi’s archives, that
Galileo’s petitions were discussed at a sitting of the Congregation of the
Holy Office held on 11th November, in presence of the Pope, but that he
would not grant them, and decreed that Galileo must obey, and ordered that
the Inquisitor at Florence should be written to that he might compel Galileo
to come to Rome.[308]
Niccolini, meanwhile, was unwearied in trying to get Galileo’s proposals
accepted. He went to Cardinal Ginetti, who was a member of the
Congregation and in high favour with the Pope, and to Mgr. Boccabella,
assessor of the Holy Office, and represented to both Galileo’s great age, his
failing health, and the peril to his life of a journey through quarantine and
plague. But as both prelates, on whom as members of the Holy Office strict
secrecy was imposed, “only heard what he had to say, and answered
nothing,” Niccolini went to the Pope himself, to make one more attempt.
Having as he thought put the imperious pontiff into the best of humours, by
assuring him that the unfortunate savant was ready to render prompt
obedience to every command, he laid all the circumstances before him, and
used all his eloquence to awaken pity for the infirm old man. But in vain.

Niccolini asked at last whether his Holiness had not seen Galileo’s letter to
Cardinal Barberini; and he said he had, but in spite of all that the journey to
Rome could not be dispensed with. “Your Holiness incurs the danger,”
replied Niccolini, “considering Galileo’s great age, of his being tried neither
in Rome nor Florence; for I assure your Holiness that he may die on the
way under all these difficulties combined with so much anxiety.” “He can
come very slowly (pian piano) in a litter, with every comfort, but he really
must be tried here in person. May God forgive him for having been so
deluded as to involve himself in these difficulties, from which we had
relieved him when we were cardinal.” This was the Pope’s stern reply to the
ambassador’s urgent representations. And when he remarked that it was the
sanction given to the book here which had occasioned all this, because from
the signature, and the orders given to the Inquisitor at Florence, they felt
quite secure, and had proceeded without scruple, Urban broke out into
violent complaints about the conduct of Father Riccardi and Mgr. Ciampoli,
and repeated that it was a question of a most pernicious doctrine.[309]
Niccolini, seeing that his efforts were in vain retired, but only to hasten to
Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and to entreat him to take up the cause of this
persecuted man. But the cardinal made the pertinent excuse that he could
not act against the Pope’s will, but he would procure all possible relaxation
of the strict quarantine regulations for Galileo. Niccolini could not even
obtain any definite promise of delay; and, much discomfited and with
profound sorrow, he communicated the results of his sincere and unwearied
endeavours in a letter to Galileo of 13th November, 1632, and a despatch to
Cioli of the same date.[310]
A few days after the receipt of this bad news, on 19th November, Galileo
was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence for the second time, in
accordance with the papal mandate of 11th November. He sent the
following report of it on 20th November, to Rome:—

“I have again summoned Galileo Galilei, who said that he
was perfectly willing to go to Rome, and only hesitated on
account of his advanced age, his evident ill health, the
circumstance that he was under medical treatment, and many
other things. I then charged him to comply with the order to
go to Rome, and in presence of a notary and two witnesses

gave him a respite of one month. He again appeared quite
willing, but I do not know whether he will go. I told him
what I had received.”[311]

On 9th December the papal orders were issued to the Inquisitor at
Florence, as soon as the month had elapsed, to compel Galileo to set out for
Rome.[312] Niccolini wrote to Cioli on the 11th[313] and to Galileo on the
12th[314] December, that he had again tried to procure a longer respite, but
had found it impossible. He moreover strongly advised Galileo to set out as
soon as possible, and stay for at least twenty days’ quarantine somewhere
within the territory of Siena, as this prompt obedience would be greatly to
his advantage at Rome.
But the time appointed had nearly elapsed, and Galileo made no
preparations for starting. Shortly before it terminated, in accordance with
his instructions, the Inquisitor at Florence sent his vicar to him. On 18th
December the Inquisitor sent the following report to Rome:—

“My vicar found Galileo Galilei in bed. He told him he
was quite willing to come, but in these times he had no heart
for it; besides, just now, owing to having been attacked by
sudden illness, he was not in a condition to set out. He has
sent me the enclosed medical certificate. So that I have not
failed to do my duty.”[315]

The medical certificate, dated 17th December, gives a clear idea of the
physical condition of this much-tried man, and we therefore give it in full. It
is signed by the doctors Vettorio de Rossi, Giovanni Ronconi, and Pietro
Cervieri, and is as follows:—

“We, the undersigned physicians, certify that we have
examined Signor Galileo Galilei, and find that his pulse
intermits every three or four beats, from which we conclude
that his vital powers are affected, and at his great age much
weakened. To the above are to be ascribed frequent attacks
of giddiness, hypochondriacal melancholy, weakness of the

stomach, sleeplessness, and flying pains about the body, to
which others also can testify. We have also observed a
serious hernia with rupture of the peritoneum. All these
symptoms are worthy of notice, as under the least
aggravation they might evidently become dangerous to
life.”[316]

But much importance does not seem to have been attached to this
certificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, Niccolini
expressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical authorities at Florence
should receive extreme orders.[317] Castelli also, in a letter of 25th
December, urged his old master to set out.[318] But in this, as in all his
letters of this period, he shows that he had no idea of the real moment to
Galileo of the proceedings going on at Rome, and he was altogether ill
informed about the course things were taking.[319] Probably great reserve
was maintained towards this faithful adherent of Galileo, who was also to
be his advocate. Castelli always consoled him with the assurance that, to the
best of his belief, the final decision of the holy tribunal would never be
against him.[320] Even in his letter of 25th December, Castelli says that he
only considers it necessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, because he
entertained a singular notion that Galileo’s cunning persecutors desired
nothing more than that he should not come to Rome, in order that they
might decry him as an obstinate rebel; for he had not committed any crime
against the Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was not
very sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before by giving up the
original of the celebrated letter of Galileo’s to him of 21st December, 1613.
On 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his despatch of
26th December were realised. On that day a papal mandate was issued to
the Inquisitor of Florence, which said that neither his Holiness nor the Holy
Congregation could or would tolerate such evasions; it must therefore be
proved whether Galileo’s state was really such that he could not come to
Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness and the Holy Congregation
would therefore send a commissioner, with a physician, to Florence, who
would visit Galileo and make a true and trustworthy report on his condition,
and if he were in a state to travel, bring him a prisoner in irons to Rome
(carceratum et ligatum cum ferris). If, out of consideration for his health, or

other danger to life, his coming must be postponed, as soon as he had
recovered and the danger was over, he was to be brought a prisoner in irons
to Rome. The document concluded with the remark that the papal
commissioner and the physician would travel at Galileo’s expense, because
he had not obeyed the command to appear at Rome when his condition
would have permitted it.[321]
To avert these extreme measures from being actually carried out, the
Grand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo on 11th January, 1633, that he
(Ferdinand) took a sincere interest in the affair, and regretted that he was
unable to spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he should
obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might perform the journey
more comfortably, he would place one of the grand ducal litters and a
trustworthy guide at his disposal, and would also permit him to stay at the
house of the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would, within a
month, be released from Rome.[322]
The pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face of the Roman
hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign does not dare to protect the
philosopher—the greatest of whom Italy can boast—from papal
persecution, but was obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition. It
must not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then only
twenty-two, because he had been brought up in the strictest Romish fashion
by the two Grand Duchesses and Cioli, acted otherwise than any other
Italian ruler would have done in the like situation. Not one of them would
have had courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome, to put an
energetic veto on a papal mandate like this. The Venetian Republic, in
which it had been established as an axiom by Paolo Sarpi that “the power of
rulers is derived immediately from God, and spiritual as well as temporal
things are subject to it,” was the only State of Italy which would have
asserted its sovereignty and would never have delivered up one of its
officials to the Roman will. Galileo now suffered a bitter penalty for his
former thankless conduct to the Free State. The grand ducal orders had to be
unconditionally obeyed; and as any further delay might entail the worst
consequences, Galileo fixed 20th January for his departure.[323]
Before setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he addressed a
long letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate in the parliament of Paris,

Elia Diodati (not to be confounded with Johannes Diodati, the translator of
the Bible), who corresponded with the most learned men of the time, and
took a lively interest in Galileo’s studies and fate. Some parts of this letter
show how well this strictly theistic, or more properly, Roman Catholic
savant, knew how to bring the modern astronomy into agreement with
Christian philosophy and the Bible, and this from real conviction, for this
letter to his friend at Paris was quite private. From this we may conclude
that even his celebrated demonstrations to Father Castelli, of 21st
December, 1613, and the still more elaborate ones to the Grand Duchess
Christine, 1615, were the result of honest conviction, and were not, as his
enemies maintained, mere dialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and
the Copernican theory into agreement. We give these interesting passages of
the letter as well as those which refer to Galileo’s unhappy situation:—

“I am sorry that the two books of Morin[324] and
Fromond[325] did not reach me till six months after the
publication of my ‘Dialogues,’ because otherwise I should
have had an opportunity of saying much in praise of both,
and of giving some consideration to a few particular points,
especially to one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am
quite astonished that Morin should attach so great a value to
astrology, and that he should pretend to be able, with his
conjectures (which seem to me very uncertain) to establish
its truth. It will really be a wonderful thing, if, as he
promises, he raises astrology by his acuteness to the first
rank among human sciences, and I await such a startling
novelty with great curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves
himself to be a man of much mind, I could have wished not
to see him fall into, in my opinion, a grave though wide-
spread error; namely, in order to refute the opinions of
Copernicus, he first hurls scornful jests at his followers, and
then (which seems to me still more unsuitable), fortifies
himself by the authority of Holy Scripture, and at length
goes so far as to call those views on these grounds nothing
less than heretical. That such a proceeding is not
praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very easy proof. For if
I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun, the moon, the

earth, and the stars, and ordained their order and motions, I
believe he would answer, they are the creations of God. If
asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would answer,
the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is
therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the
same God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never
uses words which appear to be contrary to things as they
really are, and are only so used to accommodate them to the
understandings of rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced
that he would reply, in agreement with the holy fathers, that
such is the usage of Scripture, which, in a hundred passages,
says things for the above reason, that if taken literally, are
not only heresies, but blasphemies, since they impute to
God, anger, repentance, forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to
ask Fromond, whether God, in order to accommodate
Himself to the understanding of the multitude, ever alters
His creations, or whether nature, which is God’s handmaid,
and is not changeable at man’s desire, has not always
observed, and does not still maintain, her usual course in
respect to motion, form, and relative positions of the various
parts of the universe—I am certain that he would answer, the
moon has always been spherical, although for a long period
the people thought she was flat; he would say, in fine, that
nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate itself to the
comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so, why, in our
search for knowledge of the various parts of the universe,
should we begin rather with the words than with the works
of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than the
word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled that the
opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards,
demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation
should prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he
would have brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on
the contrary, the works are indisputably proved to vary from
the literal meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures
the second place, no detriment to Scripture results from this.
Since, in order to accommodate themselves they often

ascribe, even to God Himself, entirely false conditions, why
should we suppose that in speaking of the earth or the sun
they should keep to such strict laws, as not to attribute
conditions to these creations, out of regard for the ignorance
of the masses, which are opposed to fact? If it be true that
the earth moves and the sun stands still, it is no detriment to
Holy Scripture, since it speaks of things as they appear to
the people.
“Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was
beginning, I wrote a letter[326] of some length, in which,
supported by the authorities of numerous fathers of the
Church, I showed what an abuse it was to appeal so much to
Holy Scripture in questions of natural science, and I
proposed that in future it should not be brought into them.
As soon as I am in less trouble, I will send you a copy. I say,
in less trouble, because I am just now going to Rome,
whither I have been summoned by the Holy Office, which
has already prohibited the circulation of my ‘Dialogues.’ I
hear from well-informed parties that the Jesuit fathers have
insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is more
execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of
Luther and Calvin. And all this although, in order to obtain
the imprimatur, I went in person to Rome, and submitted the
manuscript to the Master of the Palace, who looked through
it most carefully, altering, adding, and omitting, and even
after he had given it the imprimatur, ordered that it should
be examined again at Florence. The reviser here, finding
nothing else to alter, in order to show that he had gone
through it carefully, contented himself with substituting
some words for others, as, for instance, in several places,
‘Universum’ for ‘Nature,’ ‘quality’ for ‘attribute,’ ‘sublime
spirit’ for ‘divine spirit,’ excusing himself to me for it by
saying that he foresaw that I should have to do with fierce
foes and bitter persecutors, as has indeed come to pass.”[327]

CHAPTER VI.
GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME.

Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan Embassy.—No
Notice at first taken of his Coming.—Visits of Serristori.—Galileo’s
Hopefulness.—His Letter to Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s Audience of the
Pope.—Efforts of the Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—
Notice that he must appear before the Holy Office.—His Dejection at the
News.—Niccolini’s Advice not to defend himself.

On 20th January this palsied old man set out, borne in a litter, on his
arduous journey to Rome.[328] Near Ponte a Centino, on the frontiers of the
States of the Church, in the unhealthy flats of the vale of Paglia, he had to
submit to a long quarantine, which, in spite of Niccolini’s repeated efforts,
had only been shortened two days.[329] He could not resume his journey for
twenty days, but arrived at length, on 13th February, at Rome, in good
preservation, and alighted at the hotel of the Tuscan Embassy, where he was
most kindly received by Niccolini. On the next day Niccolini informed
Cioli that “Signor Galilei arrived yesterday evening in good health at this
house.” He mentioned further that Galileo had already called on Mgr.
Boccabella, not as an official personage, as he had resigned his office of
assessor to the Holy Office a fortnight ago, but as a friend who showed
great interest in his fate, and to take his advice as to the conduct to be
observed. Galileo had already introduced himself to the new assessor.
Niccolini concluded his despatch by saying that to-morrow, in the course of
the forenoon, he would introduce Galileo to Cardinal Barberini, and ask
him for his kind mediation with his Holiness, and beg him, in consideration
of Galileo’s age, his reputation, and his ready obedience, to allow him to
remain at the hotel of the embassy, and not to be taken to the Holy Office.
[330]

This request was tacitly granted for the time being, and afterwards
officially confirmed. To Galileo’s great surprise, no notice was taken of his
presence at Rome for some time. Cardinal Barberini gave him a friendly
hint, not at all ex officio, that he had better keep very retired in the
ambassador’s house, not receive any one, nor be seen out of doors, as any
other conduct might very likely be to his disadvantage.[331] Of course the
savant, anxious as he was, scrupulously obeyed the admonition, and
awaited the event in quiet retirement, though with great impatience. Not the
smallest instruction was issued by the Holy Office; to all appearance it did

not in the least concern itself about the arrival of the accused which it had
urged so strenuously. But it was appearance only. For only two days after he
came, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor to the Holy Office (the same to whom a
year before Count Magalotti had, by Galileo’s wish, presented one of the
eight copies of the “Dialogues” brought to Rome), called several times on
Galileo, but always said expressly that his visits were entirely of a private
character and originated with himself. But as he always discussed Galileo’s
cause very particularly, there is good reason to think that he was acting
under orders from the Holy Office, who wanted to discover the present
sentiments and defensive arguments of the dreaded dialectician, that they
might act accordingly at the trial,—a measure entirely in accordance with
the traditional practice of the Holy Office. Niccolini put this construction on
the Monsignore’s visits,[332] but not so Galileo. For although he perceived
that in all probability they were “approved or suggested by the Holy
Congregation,” he was far from thinking any evil, and was delighted that
this officer of the Inquisition, his “old friend and patron,” should “cleverly
give him an opportunity of saying something by way of expressing and
confirming his sincere devotedness to the holy Church and her ministers,”
and that he apparently listened to it all with great approval.[333] He thinks
this course pursued by the Inquisition “may be taken to indicate the
beginning of mild and kindly treatment, very different from the threatened
cords, chains, and dungeons;”[334] indeed, while he assumes that these
conferences are held at the instigation of the authorities, “and for the
purpose of gaining some general information,” he thankfully acknowledges
“that in this case they could not proceed in any way more favourable to him
or less likely to make a sensation.”[335] However, in the sequel he was to
discover soon enough, that they cared nothing whatever about making a
sensation at Rome, and that even in this respect they did not spare him in
the least.
At this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. On 19th
February he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance the threatened storm had
passed, so that he did not allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck were
inevitable, and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the more so
as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy billows he—

“Was taking his course with modest sail set.”[336]

This instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo “to be always
ready to obey and to submit to whatever was ordered, for this was the only
way to allay the irritation of one who was so incensed, and who treated this
affair as a personal one.”[337] It is clear that by this personal persecutor no
other than Urban VIII. can be intended.
The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo’s of 25th
February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special attention. It
is as follows:—

“We” (Niccolini and Galileo) “hear at last that the many
and serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest
have been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no
difficulty in getting rid when the grounds of my defence
have been heard, which are meanwhile being gradually
brought, in the best way that circumstances allow, to the
knowledge of some of the higher officials, for these are not
at liberty to listen freely to intercession, and still less to open
their lips in reply. So that in the end a favourable issue may
be hoped for.”[338]

A despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of two days later explains the nature of
this chief accusation:—

“Although I am unable to say precisely what stage
Galileo’s affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far
as I can learn the main difficulty consists in this—that these
gentlemen maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to
discuss the question nor to converse about it. He says, on the
contrary, that those were not the terms of the injunction,
which were that that doctrine was not to be held nor
defended. He considers that he has the means of justifying
himself, because it does not at all appear from his book that
he does hold or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as
a settled question, as he merely adduces the reasons hinc

hinde. The other points appear to be of less importance and
easier to get over.”[339]

It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is evident from
Niccolini’s report above—from the first decidedly denies ever having
received an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory in any way; all
that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is, all that he
knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and with the
decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616. Accordingly he does not
consider that he has gone beyond the orders of the authorities, and thinks
that he can prove it even from the book itself.
On 27th February the Tuscan ambassador had a long audience of the
Pope, officially announced Galileo’s arrival at Rome, and expressed the
hope that as he had shown his readiness to submit to the papal judgment
and the enlightened opinion of the Congregation, the Pope would now be
convinced of his devout reverence for spiritual things, especially in
reference to the matter in hand. The Pope found it convenient not to take
any notice of this indirect question, and replied that he had shown Galileo a
special and unusual favour in allowing him to stay at Niccolini’s house
instead of in the buildings of the Holy Office; and he had only done so
because he was a distinguished official of the Grand Duke’s, and it was out
of respect for his Highness that he had granted this exceptional favour to his
subject. In order to enhance its value, Urban also told the ambassador that
even a noble of the house of Gonzaga, a relative of Ferdinand’s, had not
only been placed in a litter and brought under escort to Rome by command
of the Holy Office, but had been taken at once to the Castle and kept there
for a long time, until the trial was ended. Niccolini hastened to
acknowledge the greatness of the favour, expressed his warmest thanks for
it, and ventured to plead that in consideration of Galileo’s age and infirm
health the Pope would order that the trial should come on soon, so that he
might return home as soon as possible. Urban replied that the proceedings
of the Holy Office were generally rather tedious, and he really did not know
whether so speedy a termination could be looked for, as they were still
engaged with the preliminaries of the trial. Urban had by this time become
warm, and went off into complaints of Ciampoli and the rest of his evil
counsellors; he also remarked that although Galileo had expressly stated in

his “Dialogues” that he would only discuss the question of the double
motion of the earth hypothetically, he had, in adducing the arguments for it,
spoken of it as settled, and as if he agreed with it. In conclusion the Pope
said: Moreover, Galileo had acted contrary to the injunction given him in
1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine in the name of the Holy Congregation.
Niccolini mentioned in defence of Galileo all that he had told him about this
accusation, but the Pope adhered obstinately to his opinion. The ambassador
came away from this audience with the scant consolation that, at all events,
Urban’s personal embitterment against Galileo was a little appeased.[340]
We may remark here that what the Pope said about the proceeding of 26th
February, 1616, is just as inaccurate as Riccardi’s communication to
Niccolini was at that time.[341]
Both Niccolini and the Grand Duke were unwearied in their good offices
for Galileo. The former urgently commended his case to Cardinal Antonio
Barberini, senr., who said he was exceedingly well disposed to Galileo, and
regarded him as a very eminent man; but added that it was a dangerous
question, which might easily introduce some fantastic religious doctrines
into the world, and especially at Florence, where men’s wits were so subtle
and over curious.[342] The Grand Duke, at Galileo’s request, sent letters of
introduction to the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio (the well-known
statesman and historian), who, as Niccolini had learnt, were members of the
Congregation.[343] Ferdinand also thanked the Pope, in an official letter
through Cioli to Niccolini, for the favour of allowing Galileo to stay at the
embassy, ending with a request that the business might be concluded as
soon as possible.[344]
When Niccolini delivered this message to Urban on 13th March, he told
him that it would be absolutely necessary to summon Galileo to the Holy
Office as soon as the trial came on, because it was the usage and it could
not be departed from. Niccolini again urged Galileo’s health, his age, and
willingness to submit to any penalties; but Urban replied, “It would not do
to act otherwise. May God forgive Galileo for having intruded into these
matters concerning new doctrines and Holy Scripture, when it is best to
keep to universally recognised opinions. May God help Ciampoli, also,
about these new notions, as he seemed to have a leaning towards them, and
to be inclined to the modern philosophy.” The Pope then expressed his
regret at having to “subject Galileo, who had been his friend, with whom he

had often held confidential intercourse, and eaten at the same table, to these
annoyances; but it was in the interests of religion and faith.” Niccolini
remarked, that when Galileo was heard he would be able, without difficulty,
to give satisfactory explanations of everything; to which Urban replied: “He
would be heard when the time came; but there was one argument which had
never been answered, namely, that God was omnipotent, and therefore
everything was possible to Him; but if so, why should we impose any
necessity upon Him?” This was, as we know, the argument brought forward
by Urban in his intimate conversation with Galileo in 1624, and which at
the end of the “Dialogues” he had put into the mouth of Simplicius as
originating “with a very exalted and learned personage.” Niccolini
prudently replied that he did not understand these matters, but he had heard
it said of Galileo that he did not hold the doctrine of the earth’s double
motion as true, but said that it could not be denied that as God could have
created the world in a thousand ways, He could have created it in this way.
Urban replied with some irritation: “It is not for man to impose necessity
upon God.” Niccolini, who saw that the Pope was getting angry, tried to
pacify him by saying that Galileo was here on purpose to obey and to recant
everything which could be injurious to religion. He then adroitly turned the
subject, and returned to the request that his Holiness would have
compassion on Galileo, and allow him to remain at the embassy. Urban
merely replied that he would have special apartments assigned to Galileo,
the best and most comfortable in the Holy Office. With this Niccolini had to
be content.
In concluding the despatch of 13th March to Cioli, in which he reported
this interview, he says:—[345]

“When I returned home I told Galileo in part the
conversation with his Holiness, but not for the present, that
it was intended to summon him to the Holy Office, because I
am convinced that this news would cause him the deepest
concern, and he would be in the greatest anxiety till the time
came. I have thought all the more that it was best to act thus,
as no further particulars are as yet known about his citation;
for the Pope told me in reference to the speedy settlement of

the business, that he did not know what hope there was of it,
but that all that was possible would be done.”

Meanwhile, Ferdinand II., in spite of the increasingly unpromising aspect
of affairs, continued indefatigably to sustain his ambassador’s efforts. The
latter and Galileo, in two letters of 19th March,[346] asked the Grand Duke
to send letters of recommendation to the eight other cardinals who
composed the Holy Congregation, like those he had sent to their eminences
Bentivoglio and Scaglia, lest they should feel themselves slighted, and the
Grand Duke readily granted the request.[347] The prelates, however,
received these letters with mixed feelings, and excused themselves from
answering them, as it was forbidden them in their capacity as members of
the Holy Office; some even hesitated to receive the letters at all, and it was
not till Niccolini pointed out that Cardinal Barberini and others had
received them, that they consented to do so.[348] These letters had evidently
produced the happiest effect with the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio.
They united, as Niccolini reported on the 19th to Cioli, in protecting
Galileo. Scaglia even read the celebrated “Dialogues,” and, which was more
to the purpose, that he might, with the help of Castelli,[349] who was best
qualified to do it, explain the offending passages in a conciliatory spirit.
All this time Galileo, as is evident from his letters, was entertaining the
most confident hopes of the favourable issue of his cause, and the final
triumph of truth over falsehood.[350] Neither he nor his indefatigable
friends, Niccolini and Castelli, could, it is true, learn anything definite about
the actual state of the trial. The members of the Congregation, who alone
could have given any information, kept the secrets of the Inquisition very
close, as indeed they were bound to do under the heaviest penalties. The
month of March passed by before the Holy Tribunal opened any direct
official intercourse with Galileo. April was now come, and with it the storm
which had been so long gathering burst over his head.
On the 7th, Niccolini went to Cardinal Barberini by his desire, and was
informed on behalf of the Pope and the Congregation, that, in order to
decide Galileo’s cause, they could not avoid citing him to appear before the
Holy Office, and as it was not known whether it could be all settled in the
course of two hours, perhaps it would be necessary to detain him there.

Barberini continued that “out of respect for the house in which Galileo had
been staying, and for Niccolini as grand ducal ambassador, and in
consideration of the good understanding which had always existed between
his Highness and the papal chair, especially in matters relating to the
Inquisition, they had not failed to inform him (Niccolini) of this beforehand,
not to be wanting in respect for a prince so zealous for religion.” After
Niccolini had warmly thanked the cardinal for the attention shown by the
Pope and the Congregation to the Grand Duke, and to himself as his
ambassador, he pleaded Galileo’s age and health,—he had again been
suffering severely from a fresh attack of the gout,—and finally the deep
grief he would feel, and earnestly begged that his eminence would consider
whether it would not be possible to permit him to return every evening to
sleep at the embassy. As to secrecy, the strictest silence might be enjoined
on him under threat of the severest penalties. But the prelate was not of
opinion that such a permission was to be expected; he proffered, however,
every comfort for Galileo that could be desired, and said that he would
neither, as was customary with accused persons, be treated as a prisoner,
nor be placed in a secret prison; he would have good rooms, and perhaps
even the doors would not be locked.
Niccolini reported this notification to Cioli on 9th April,[351] and added
the following interesting information:—

“This morning I also conversed with his Holiness on the
subject, after having expressed my thanks for the
communication made to me; the Pope again gave vent to his
displeasure that Galileo should have discussed this subject,
which appears to him to be very serious, and of great
moment to religion. Signor Galileo thinks, nevertheless, that
he can defend his statements on good grounds; but I have
warned him to refrain from doing so, in order not to prolong
the proceedings, and to submit to what shall be prescribed to
him to believe respecting the motion of the earth. He has
fallen into the deepest dejection, and since yesterday has
sunk so low that I am in great concern for his life.”

From this, then, we learn that up to 8th April Galileo was still intending
to defend his opinions before the Holy Tribunal; and that it was only on the
urgent expostulation of the ambassador, whom he knew to be his sincere
friend, that he gave up all idea of opposition, and resolved upon entire and
passive submission. How hard it was for him to yield is evident from the
concluding sentence of Niccolini’s despatch.

CHAPTER VII.
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION.

The First Hearing.—Galileo’s submissive Attitude.—The Events of February,
1616.—Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special Prohibition.—Produces
Bellarmine’s Certificate.—Either the Prohibition was not issued, or
Galileo’s Ignorance was feigned.—His Conduct since 1616 agrees with
its non-issue.—The Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—Opinions of
Oregius, Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the
Palace of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri
Bocchineri.—Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an Enigma.—
Now explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. Barberini.—
Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency.

On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first
hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General of
the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the fiscal
attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all his answers to the
Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of shortening the proceedings
and averting a severe sentence by submissive acquiescence. This resigned
attitude must be borne in mind in order to form a correct judgment of his
depositions before the dread tribunal.[352]
According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to the
accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether he knows
or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that he supposed he
had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He was then asked
whether he acknowledged the work shown him, “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,
Linceo,” which treats of the two systems of the world, as entirely his own;
to which he replied after a close examination of the copy, that he
acknowledged all that it contained to have been written by himself. They
then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes to know whether
Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason. He deposed that he
certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he had heard that scruples
were entertained about the Copernican opinions, and he wished to know
what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter, in order to be sure of not
holding any but holy and Catholic views. This deposition seems to be a
misrepresentation of the real state of the case; for we know that he went to
Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the one hand, to frustrate the
intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, Caccini, and their coadjutors; and
on the other, to avert the threatened prohibition of the Copernican doctrines
by his scientific demonstrations. The motive of his journey to Rome is not

in any way altered by the fact that he did not succeed in his object, and that
he then submitted to the admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th
February, and to the decree of 5th March.
The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own
accord, or in consequence of a summons. “In the year 1616 I came of my
own accord to Rome, without being summoned,” was the decided answer.
The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time with
several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these conferences
took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he might instruct them
about Copernicus’s book, which was difficult for laymen to understand, as
they specially desired to acquaint themselves with the system of the
universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. The Inquisitor then asked
what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.

Galileo: “Respecting the controversy which had arisen on
the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the earth
moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the
Index, that such an opinion, considered as an established
fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible
as a conjecture (ex suppositione), as it was held by
Copernicus.”[353]
Inquisitor: “Was this decision then communicated to you,
and by whom?”
Galileo: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the
Index was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.”
Inquisitor: “You must state what his Eminence Cardinal
Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and
whether he said anything else on the subject, and what?”
Galileo: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that
the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a
conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his
eminence was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that
opinion as a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of
the same Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio

Foscarini, provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a
copy, and in which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that
your reverence and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting
yourselves with speaking ex suppositione, and not with
certainty.’ This letter of the cardinal’s is dated 12th April,
1615.[354] It means, in other words, that that opinion, taken
absolutely, must not be either held or defended.”

Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616,
and communicated to him.

Galileo: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal
Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if
adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must
neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held
hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance
with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal
Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that
the Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as
it is opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I
herewith submit a copy.”[355]
Inquisitor: “When the above communication was made to
you, were any other persons present, and who?”
Galileo: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known
to me what I have reported about the Copernican views,
some Dominican fathers were present, but I did not know
them, and have never seen them since.”
Inquisitor: “Was any other command communicated to
you on this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them
or any one else, and what?”
Galileo: “I remember that the transaction took place as
follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one
morning, and told me certain particulars which I was to
bring to the ears of his Holiness before I communicated

them to others.[356] But the end of it was that he told me that
the Copernican opinion, being contradictory to Holy
Scripture, must not be held nor defended. It has escaped my
memory whether those Dominican fathers were present
before, or whether they came afterwards; neither do I
remember whether they were present when the Signor
Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be held. It may
be that a command was issued to me that I should not hold
nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not remember it,
for it is several years ago.”
Inquisitor: “If what was then said and enjoined upon you
as a command were read aloud to you, would you remember
it?”
Galileo: “I do not remember that anything else was said
or enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember
what was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely
what I do remember, because I do not think that I have in
any way disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any
means held nor defended the said opinion that the earth
moves and the sun is stationary.”

The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to
him before witnesses contained: “that he must neither hold, defend, nor
teach that opinion in any way whatsoever.”[357] Will he please to say
whether he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to
him.

Galileo: “I do not remember that the command was
intimated to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally; and
I remember that the command was, not to hold nor defend. It
may be that, ‘and not to teach’ was also there. I do not
remember it, neither the definition ‘in any way whatsoever’
(quovis modo), but it may be that it was; for I thought no
more about it, nor took any pains to impress the words on
my memory, as a few months later I received the certificate

now produced, of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of
26th May, in which the injunction given me, not to hold nor
defend that opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other
definitions of the said injunction which have just been made
known to me, namely, not to teach, and in any way, I have
not retained in my memory, I suppose, because they are not
mentioned in the said certificate, on which I rely, and which
I have kept as a reminder.”

Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the
injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of
5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal Bellarmine
told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a command was
issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; but true to his
resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: “It may be, but I do not
remember it.” But the Inquisitor treats the issue of the “command” as an
established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may have appeared somewhat
indifferent whether he was merely informed of the decree of the
Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it was issued to
him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption of the Inquisitor.
He then informs Galileo “that this command issued to him before witnesses
contained that he must not in any way hold, defend, nor teach that opinion.”
Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any way whatever” and “nor
teach,” sound new, entrenches himself behind his stereotyped answer, “I do
not remember it.” Then he appeals to the certificate given him by Cardinal
Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which does not mention either of these two
definitions. To the repeated query who intimated the command to him, he
invariably replies: “Cardinal Bellarmine.” He obviously supposes that the
Inquisitor regards the cardinal’s communication as the command. Galileo’s
depositions do not contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the
document of 26th February reports), after the cardinal’s communication,
any further instruction was given him by the Father Commissary of the
Inquisition in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat
of a trial before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important
proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo’s memory. There are but
two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo cannot
remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.

Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter supposition
does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume with Wohlwill,
who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen, and whom we have
followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo would only have
availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if it would have helped
him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the advantage of denying any
actual proceeding of 26th February is by no means evident. On the contrary,
Galileo must have seen—supposing him to make false depositions—from
the Inquisitor’s questions that he had the protocol of 26th February before
him. Of what avail then could a fiction be in face of this document? Of
none whatever. It would rather injure his cause by stamping him as a liar.
Wohlwill has pointed out that it would have been a masterpiece of cunning
to play out the comedy of assumed ignorance from beginning to end of the
trial in so consistent a manner, never contradicting himself, as appears from
Galileo’s depositions. His simplest replies would then have formed parts of
a complex tissue of falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout
the whole course of the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his
difficult part.
While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption
of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more
weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he
knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all
Galileo’s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the
seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the strongest evidence for
the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the letters of the
time of the first trial, in which there is not only no trace of the assumed
absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses his satisfaction that his
enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an entire prohibition of the
Copernican theory, and he again and again mentions that the hypothetical
discussion of it still remains open. And the attitude maintained by him
during the seventeen years towards the new system is in entire conformity
with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616, which
was in force for everybody, but not with the categorical prohibition of the
Commissary-General of the Holy Office. This is shown by his eagerness to
get his work on Copernicus published in the very year 1616; by his sending
the treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the
discussion of the Copernican theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his

efforts in 1624 to get the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new,
and, as he thought, more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get
any special prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the
same date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the
Copernican theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues”
themselves, in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision
with the published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work
would have infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican
system.
We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements,
in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the
Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold, teach, or
defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does not take the
least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted on the part of the
judges which might have cleared up the point; for example, to summon the
witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th February, 1616, and
confront them with the accused. And as no attempt is made to account for
his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply taken for granted, it must
be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say the least, were guilty of a great
breach of judicial order, in using, without any close examination, a paper as
a valid document on the trial, which was destitute of nearly all the
characteristics of one, namely, the signatures of the accused, of the notary
and witnesses, and in spite of three contradictory depositions of the
accused. No special arguments are needed to prove that this breach of order
did not proceed from mere carelessness. And so, immediately after the
accused has declared that he does not remember any command but that
intimated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him:
Whether, after the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received
any permission to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and
which he afterwards had printed?

Galileo: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did
not ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to
be mine, because I did not consider that in writing it I was
acting contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to
hold, defend, or to teach the said opinion.”

The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in
what way, Galileo had received permission to print the “Dialogues.” Galileo
briefly relates the whole course of the negotiations which preceded the
printing. As his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it is not
reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking
permission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about the
command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy
Congregation?

Galileo: “I did not say anything about that command to
the Master of the Palace when I asked for the imprimatur for
the book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything,
because I had no scruples about it; for I have neither
maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth moves
and the sun is stationary in that book, but have rather
demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and
shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not
conclusive.”

With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the first
hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath on subjects
connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in the private
residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings of this tribunal.
Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and Niccolini’s reports)
kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he wrote to Geri Bocchineri:
—

“Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms
have been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal
of the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the
spacious apartments. My health is good, for which, next to
God, I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and
his wife, who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and far
more than I require.”[358]

Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the
meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about him,
and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy Office.[359]
No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence between Galileo
and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend and patron daily, and
he replied, openly expressing his opinions, without exciting any
observation.[360]
While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing
but favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him,
nothing was left undone to find the best method of effecting his moral ruin.
At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on, his faithful
friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed in theology as
he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not recalled until
Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned, had left the city.[361]
Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the
Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias
Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius
declared that “in the book superscribed ‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’ the

doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary is
maintained and defended.” Inchofer’s statements (he drew up two) declared
that “Galileo had not only taught and defended that view, but rendered it
very suspicious that he was inclined to it, and even held it to this day.” Both
these attestations were supported by a memorial, in which the opinions
given were founded on passages quoted from the “Dialogues.”[362] The first
sought to prove that Galileo in his book had treated the stability of the sun
and its central position in the universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite
manner; the second, that in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the
doctrine of the earth’s motion round the sun.
Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses his
view that Galileo, by the publication of his “Dialogues,” had infringed the
order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to hold the Copernican
Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or speaking, in respect to
teaching and defending, and it was very suspicious that he held it.
In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the
“Dialogues,”[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo had
stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only as a
hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical language,
and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.
Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special prohibition
of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it both as regards
teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the suspicion of
holding it.[364]
By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as decided. His
transgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the
special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of
his guilt there could be no question—neither could there be any of the
penalty.
The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been so
essential to the old man’s health,[365] combined with great mental agitation,
at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to Geri
Bocchineri:—

“I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for
sixteen hours with severe pains in my loins, which,
according to my experience, will last as much longer. A little
while ago I had a visit from the commissary and the fiscal
who conduct the inquiry. They have promised and intimated
it as their settled intention to set me at liberty as soon as I
am able to get up again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep
up my spirits. I place more confidence in these promises
than in the hopes held out to me before, which, as
experience has shown, were founded rather upon surmises
than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my innocence
and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now hope it
more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will
conclude.”[366]

The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has
hitherto astounded all those who have studied this famous trial; for while at
the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied having defended
the Copernican system in his “Dialogues,” and even asserted that he had
done just the contrary, at the second hearing, almost without waiting for the
Inquisitor’s questions, he makes a humble declaration, which, roundabout
as it is, contains a penitent confession that he had defended it in his book.
The cause of this change in Galileo is explained by a most interesting letter
from the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo
Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at that time with the Pope in the Castle
of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. This letter of 28th April,
1633, first published in full by Pieralisi, the learned librarian of the
Barberiana at Rome, whom we have so often quoted, is as follows:[367]—

“In compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I
yesterday informed the most eminent Lords of the Holy
Congregation of Galileo’s cause, the position of which I
briefly reported. Their Eminences approved of what has
been done thus far, and took into consideration, on the other
hand, various difficulties with regard to the manner of
pursuing the case, and of bringing it to an end. More

especially as Galileo has in his examination denied what is
plainly evident from the book written by him; since in
consequence of this denial there would result the necessity
for greater rigour of procedure and less regard to the other
considerations belonging to this business. Finally I
suggested a course, namely, that the Holy Congregation
should grant me permission to treat extra-judicially with
Galileo, in order to render him sensible of his error, and
bring him, if he recognises it, to a confession of the same.
This proposal appeared at first sight too bold, not much hope
being entertained of accomplishing this object by merely
adopting the method of argument with him; but upon my
indicating the grounds upon which I had made the
suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might
be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday
afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had
passed between us, by God’s grace I attained my object, for I
brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly
recognised that he had erred, and had gone too far in his
book. And to all this he gave expression in words of much
feeling, like one who experienced great consolation in the
recognition of his error, and he was also willing to confess it
judicially. He requested, however, a little time in order to
consider the form in which he might most fittingly make the
confession, which, as far as its substance is concerned, will,
I hope, follow in the manner indicated.
I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your
Eminence with this matter, having communicated it to no
one else; for I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will
be satisfied that in this way the affair is being brought to
such a point that it may soon be settled without difficulty.
The court will maintain its reputation: it will be possible to
deal leniently with the culprit; and whatever the decision
arrived at, he will recognise the favour shown him, with all
the other consequences of satisfaction herein desired. To-day
I think of examining him in order to obtain the said
confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only

remain to me further to question him with regard to his
intention, and to impose the prohibitions upon him; and that
done, he might have the house[368] assigned to him as a
prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer
my most humble reverence.
Rome, 28th April, 1633.
Your Eminence’s humble and most obedient servant,
Fra Vincᵒ da Firenzuola.”

The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola
proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo’s
indisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the truth,
after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then began the
following melancholy confession:—

“In the course of some days’ continuous and attentive
reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of the
present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen years
ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the Holy
Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach ‘in any
manner,’ the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the
motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred
to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three
years I had not seen, in order carefully to note whether,
contrary to my most sincere intention, there had, by
inadvertence, fallen from my pen anything from which a
reader or the authorities might infer not only some taint of
disobedience on my part, but also other particulars which
might induce the belief that I had contravened the orders of
the Holy Church. And being, by the kind permission of the
authorities, at liberty to send about my servant, I succeeded
in procuring a copy of my book, and having procured it I
applied myself with the utmost diligence to its perusal, and
to a most minute consideration thereof. And as, owing to my
not having seen it for so long, it presented itself to me, as it

were, like a new writing and by another author, I freely
confess that in several places it seemed to me set forth in
such a form that a reader ignorant of my real purpose might
have had reason to suppose that the arguments adduced on
the false side, and which it was my intention to confute,
were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel
conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. Two
arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the
solar spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide—
which in truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater
show of force and power than ought to have been imparted
to them by one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who
intended to refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held
and do hold them to be inconclusive and admitting of
refutation. And, as excuse to myself for having fallen into an
error so foreign to my intention, not contenting myself
entirely with saying that when a man recites the arguments
of the opposite side with the object of refuting them, he
should, especially if writing in the form of dialogue, state
these in their strictest form, and should not cloak them to the
disadvantage of his opponent,—not contenting myself, I say,
with this excuse,—I resorted to that of the natural
complacency which every man feels with regard to his own
subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than the
generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false
propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all
this, although with Cicero ‘avidior sim gloriae quam satis
est,’ if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without
doubt I should so weaken them that they should not be able
to make an apparent show of that force of which they are
really and essentially devoid. My error, then, has been—and
I confess it—one of vainglorious ambition, and of pure
ignorance and inadvertence.
This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this
particular, and which suggested itself to me during the re-
perusal of my book.”[369]

After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed
immediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But he
must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial of his inmost
convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had desired in his extra-
judicial interview, further than the Inquisition itself required. He did not
consider the penitent acknowledgment of the “error” into which he had
fallen in writing his “Dialogues” sufficient. The Inquisition was to be
conciliated by the good resolution publicly to correct it. He therefore
returned at once to the court where the sacred tribunal was still sitting, and
made the following undignified proposition:—

“And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held
and do not hold as true the opinion which has been
condemned, of the motion of the earth and the stability of
the sun,—if there shall be granted to me, as I desire, means
and time to make a clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready
to do so: and there is a most favourable opportunity for this,
seeing that in the work already published, the interlocutors
agree to meet again after a certain time to discuss several
distinct problems of nature, connected with the matter
discoursed of at their meetings. As this affords me an
opportunity of adding one or two other ‘days,’ I promise to
resume the arguments already adduced in favour of the said
opinion, which is false and has been condemned, and to
confute them in such most effectual method as by the
blessing of God may be supplied to me. I pray, therefore,
this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good resolution, and to
enable me to put it in effect.”[370]

It is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of science; and yet
the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific convictions
for which he had striven and laboured for half a century, who even proposes
in a continuation of his monumental work on the two chief systems of the
world to annihilate all the arguments therein adduced for the recognition of
the only true system, can never be absolved by the historical critic from the
charge of weakness and insincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the

century the opening of which had been ominously marked by the funeral
pile of Giordano Bruno, and but eight years before, the corpse of
Marc’Antonio de Dominis,—the famous Archbishop of Spalato, who had
died suddenly in the prisons of the Engelsburg during his trial before the
Inquisition,—had, after the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from
its resting place and publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical
writings.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE TRIAL CONTINUED.

Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His Hopefulness.—Third Hearing.—
Hands in his Defence.—Agreement of it with previous Events.—
Confident Hopes of his Friends.—Niccolini’s Fears.—Decision to
examine Galileo under threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s Audience of the
Pope.—Informed that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be
sentenced, and would be imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to
“locum suum.”—No Evidence that he suffered Torture or was placed in a
Prison Cell.

On the day on which the second hearing had taken place, at Firenzuola’s
suggestion to the Pope, Galileo was permitted, in consideration of his age
and infirmities, to return to the hotel of the Tuscan ambassador, on oath not
to leave it, not to hold any intercourse with any one but the inmates of the
house, to present himself before the Holy Office whenever summoned, and
to maintain the strictest silence about the course of the trial.[371] On the very
next day Niccolini wrote to Cioli with great satisfaction: “Signor Galileo
was yesterday sent back to my house when I was not at all expecting him,
and although the trial is not yet ended.”[372] The Tuscan Secretary of State
replied on 4th May, with the curt observation: “His Highness was much
pleased at the liberation of Signor Galileo,” and immediately adds the ill-
humoured and unworthy remark: “It appears to me that I must remind your
Excellency that when I wrote to you to entertain Signor Galileo at the
embassy, the time specified was one month, and the expenses of the
remaining time must fall upon himself.”[373] Niccolini replied with ill-
concealed indignation: “It would not become me to speak of this subject to
Galileo while he is my guest; I would rather bear the expense myself, which
only comes to fourteen or fifteen scudi a month, everything included; so
that if Galileo should remain here the whole summer, that is six months, the
outlay for him and his servant would amount to about from ninety to a
hundred scudi.”[374]
Galileo, who had no idea that his generous protector, Niccolini, had even
had to go into unpleasant questions about his support, was entertaining the
most confident hopes of a successful and speedy termination of his trial.
Although his letters of this period are unfortunately not extant,[375] we see
from the answers of his correspondents what sanguine accounts he sent
them. Geri Bocchineri wrote on 12th May:

“I have for a long time had no such consolatory news as
that which your letter of the 7th brought me. It gives me
well-founded hopes that the calumnies and snares of your
enemies will be in vain; and in the end, the annoyances
involved in the defence, maintenance, and perhaps even
increase, of your reputation, can be willingly borne, as you
undoubtedly have borne them, since you have gained far
more than you have lost by the calamity that has fallen upon
you! My pleasure is still more enhanced by the news that
you expect to be able to report the end of the affair in the
next letter.”[376]

But many a post day was to pass over, many a letter from Galileo to be
received, before his trial was to come to the conclusion he so little
anticipated.
On 10th May he was summoned for the third time before the Holy
Tribunal, where Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the
Inquisition, informed him that eight days were allowed him in which to
write a defence if he wished to submit one. But Galileo handed it in at once,
[377]
from which we may conclude that he had been informed of this
proceeding beforehand. It was as follows:—

“When asked if I had signified to the Reverend Father, the
Master of the Sacred Palace, the injunction privately laid
upon me, about sixteen years ago, by order of the Holy
Office, not to hold, defend, or ‘in any way’ teach the
doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of the
sun, I answered that I had not done so. And not being
questioned as to the reason why I had not intimated it, I had
no opportunity to add anything further. It now appears to me
necessary to state the reason, in order to demonstrate the
purity of my intention, ever foreign to the employment of
simulation or deceit in any operation I engage in. I say, then,
that as at that time reports were spread abroad by evil-
disposed persons, to the effect that I had been summoned by
the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to abjure certain of my

opinions and doctrines, and that I had consented to abjure
them, and also to submit to punishment for them, I was thus
constrained to apply to his Eminence, and to solicit him to
furnish me with an attestation, explaining the cause for
which I had been summoned before him; which attestation I
obtained, in his own handwriting, and it is the same that I
now produce with the present document.[378] From this it
clearly appears that it was merely announced to me that the
doctrine attributed to Copernicus of the motion of the earth
and the stability of the sun must not be held or defended, and
... [Here the MS. is defaced] beyond this general
announcement affecting every one, any other injunction in
particular was intimated to me, no trace thereof appears
there. Having, then, as a reminder, this authentic attestation
in the handwriting of the very person who intimated the
command to me, I made no further application of thought or
memory with regard to the words employed in announcing
to me the said order not to hold or defend the doctrine in
question; so that the two articles of the order—in addition to
the injunction not to ‘hold’ or ‘defend’ it—to wit, the words
‘nor to teach it’ ‘in any way whatsoever’—which I hear are
contained in the order intimated to me, and registered—
struck me as quite novel and as if I had not heard them
before; and I do not think I ought to be disbelieved when I
urge that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years I had lost
all recollection of them, especially as I had no need to give
any particular thought to them, having in my possession so
authentic a reminder in writing. Now, if the said two articles
be left out, and those two only be retained which are noted
in the accompanying attestation, there is no doubt that the
injunction contained in the latter is the same command as
that contained in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of
the Index. Whence it appears to me that I have a reasonable
excuse for not having notified to the Master of the Sacred
Palace the command privately imposed upon me, it being
the same as that of the Congregation of the Index.

Seeing also, that my book was not subject to a stricter
censorship than that made binding by the decree of the
Index, it will, it appears to me, be sufficiently plain that I
adopted the surest and most becoming method of having it
guaranteed and purged of all shadow of taint, inasmuch as I
handed it to the supreme Inquisitor at the very time when
many books dealing with the same matters were being
prohibited solely in virtue of the said decree. After what I
have now stated, I would confidently hope that the idea of
my having knowingly and deliberately violated the
command imposed upon me, will henceforth be entirely
banished from the minds of my most eminent and wise
judges; so that those faults which are seen scattered
throughout my book have not been artfully introduced with
any concealed or other than sincere intention, but have only
inadvertently fallen from my pen, owing to a vainglorious
ambition and complacency in desiring to appear more subtle
than the generality of popular writers, as indeed in another ...
[MS. defaced] deposition I have confessed: which fault I
shall be ready to correct by writing whenever I may be
commanded or permitted by your Eminences.
Lastly, it remains for me to pray you to take into
consideration my pitiable state of bodily indisposition, to
which, at the age of seventy years, I have been reduced by
ten months of constant mental anxiety and the fatigue of a
long and toilsome journey at the most inclement season—
together with the loss of the greater part of the years of
which, from my previous condition of health, I had the
prospect. I am persuaded and encouraged to do so by the
clemency and goodness of the most eminent lords, my
judges; with the hope that they may be pleased, in answer to
my prayer, to remit what may appear to their entire justice ...
to such sufferings as adequate punishment—out of
consideration for my declining age, which too, I humbly
commend to them. And I would equally commend to their
consideration my honour and reputation, against the
calumnies of ill-wishers, whose persistence in detracting

from my good name may be inferred from the necessity
which constrained me to procure from the Lord Cardinal
Bellarmine the attestation which accompanies this.”[379]

This touching appeal to the mercy of the judges of the Holy Office can
scarcely be read without feelings of the profoundest pity for the unhappy
old man, who, in the evening of his days, felt compelled by dread of the
stake to deny his scientific convictions.
In looking at the defence in a judicial light, in spite of mistrust in the
truthfulness of the accused, for which there is some justification, it must be
allowed that his statements about the proceedings of sixteen years before,
agree entirely with all his letters and actions from 1616 to 1632. In view of
this state of the case, Galileo’s remark in his defence that “he had received
that certificate from the very person who had intimated the command to
him,” possesses increased significance. His whole defence is intended to
convince the judges that the two particulars “not to teach” and “in any way”
were unknown to him up to the day of his first hearing, or, as he says, to
avoid direct contradiction, “he had lost all recollection of them.” He
obviously thinks that the gravity of the indictment lies in these words. But
he seems to be absolutely ignorant of their having been issued to him after
the previous admonition of the Cardinal, by the Commissary-General of the
Inquisition, with the threat that “otherwise they would proceed against him
in the Holy Office,” indeed, by the above remark he decidedly contradicts
it. Apologists of the Inquisition at any price, of the stamp of Mgr. Marini,
do not fail to adopt the only means left to them, and call Galileo’s defence
“childish evasions unworthy of so great a man, which are sure signs of
guilt.”[380] We are of opinion, on the contrary, that the confident hopes of a
favourable issue of his trial, by which, as appears from the replies of his
correspondents and Niccolini’s despatches, Galileo was animated up to the
last moment, by no means comport with consciousness of guilt.
After his defence had been received, and the same obligations imposed
on him on oath as after the second hearing, he was allowed to return to the
embassy. The nearer the time approached when the old man’s illusions were
to be dispelled, the more sanguine was the intelligence he sent to his
friends. He reminds one of a consumptive patient, full of hope when in the
last stage of his disorder. Galileo receives in reply to his letters the

congratulations of his friends on the, as they suppose, doubtless favourable
issue of his trial. Cardinal Capponi writes on 21st May, that he had never
expected anything else.[381] Bocchineri, Guiducci, Agguinti, Cini, and
others heartily express their satisfaction;[382] the Archbishop of Siena,
Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo’s devoted friend, invites him, in expectation
of his speedy dismissal from Rome, to come and see him at Siena, that he
may await the extinction of the plague at Florence.[383] Galileo accepts the
friendly invitation, and informs Bocchineri that he intends to go to Siena
immediately after the end of the trial.[384] Archbishop Piccolomini even
offers his impatiently expected guest a litter for the journey.[385] A favour
granted to Galileo just at the last, on the urgent solicitation of Niccolini, and
quite unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition, might have increased these
confident hopes. He was permitted to take the air for the sake of his health
in the gardens of the Castle of Gandolfo, to which, however, he was always
conveyed in a half-closed carriage, as he was not to be seen in the streets.
[386]

Niccolini, however, did not share the hopes of his famous guest, and for
very good reasons. He had had an audience, on 21st May, of the Pope and
Cardinal Barberini, who had told him in answer to his inquiries when the
trial might be expected to end, that it would probably be concluded in the
congregation to take place in about a fortnight. After reporting this in his
despatch to Cioli of 22nd May, Niccolini continues: “I very much fear that
the book will be prohibited, unless it is averted by Galileo’s being charged,
as I proposed, to write an apology. Some ‘salutary penance’ will also be
imposed upon him, as they maintain that he has transgressed the command
communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1616. I have not yet told
him all this, because I want to prepare him for it by degrees, in order not to
distress him. It will also be advisable to observe silence about this in
Florence, that he may not hear it from his friends there; and the more so, as
it may turn out otherwise.”[387] It was indeed “to turn out otherwise,” but in
a way that even Niccolini did not in the least suspect.
A momentary lull now took place in Galileo’s trial—the preparation for
the great catastrophe that was to take all the world by surprise. Sultry
silence reigned for four weeks. No one, not even Niccolini, could learn
anything about the progress of the affair; the thunderbolt had already fallen

which was to crush the accused before it was known to anyone beyond the
Holy Congregation. His fate had been sealed in a private meeting of it
presided over by the Pope. Unfortunately we have no written notes of the
proceedings of this highly interesting sitting. From two documents, which
agree entirely in essentials, we simply know what the decrees were which
minutely prescribed the final proceedings to be taken against Galileo. One
of these documents is derived from the Vatican collection of the acts of
Galileo’s trial; the other is reproduced in Gherardi’s collection of
documents, and belongs to the MS. originals of the decrees drawn up in the
sittings of the Holy Congregation in the archives of the Inquisition.
It is decreed in both documents[388] which agree almost verbatim: To try
Galileo as to his intention, and under threat of torture; if he kept firm, he
was to be called upon to recant before a plenary assembly of the
Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned to imprisonment according to
the judgment of the Holy Congregation, and ordered in future not to
discuss, either in writing or speaking, the opinion that the earth moves and
the sun is stationary, nor yet the contrary opinion, under pain of further
punishment for contumacy; further, the work, “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,
Linceo,” was to be prohibited. And in order to make this known
everywhere, copies of the sentence were to be sent to all papal envoys, and
all inquisitors into heretical crimes, and specially to the Inquisitor of
Florence, who was to proclaim it in a full conclave of the Congregation, and
read it publicly to a majority of the professors of mathematics summoned
for the purpose.
It is noteworthy that it was expressly decreed that Galileo was to be
enjoined, “nor yet to discuss the contrary opinion,” the Ptolemaic. They
obviously accredited the clever dialectician with the skill, under pretext of
defending the old system, of demonstrating exactly the contrary. It therefore
seemed most prudent to impose absolute silence on him on this delicate
subject.
Two days after the course of the proceedings had been secretly
determined on, the Pope gave audience to Niccolini, who once more came
to beg for a speedy termination of the trial. Urban VIII. said that it had
already been terminated, and that within the next few days Galileo would be
summoned before the Holy Office to hear his sentence. The ambassador,
who was terrified at this unexpected intelligence, hastened to implore his

Holiness, out of respect for his Highness the Grand Duke, to mollify the
severity which the Holy Congregation might perhaps have thought it
necessary to exercise; and added obligingly that the great complaisance
shown to the Grand Duke in the matter of Galileo was fully appreciated,
and that the Grand Duke was only awaiting the end of the business to
express his gratitude in person. The Pope replied, with equal suavity, that
his Highness need not take this trouble, as he had readily granted every
amelioration to Galileo out of affection for him; but as to his cause, they
could do no less than prohibit that opinion, because it was erroneous and
contrary to Holy Scripture, dictated ex ore Dei; as to his person, he would,
according to usage, be imprisoned for a time, because he had transgressed
the mandate issued to him in 1616. “However,” added Urban, “after the
publication of the sentence we will see you again, and we will consult
together so that he may suffer as little distress as possible, since it cannot be
let pass without some demonstration against his person.” In reply to
Niccolini’s renewed urgent entreaties that his Holiness would extend his
accustomed mercy to the pitiable old man of seventy, the Pope said that “he
would at any rate be sent for a time to some monastery, as for instance, St.
Croce; for he really did not know precisely what the Holy Congregation
might decree (?!), but it was unanimous and nemine discrepante in
intending to impose a penance on Galileo.”
The very same day the ambassador sent a detailed despatch about this
audience to Cioli,[389] and remarked at the end that he had simply informed
Galileo of the approaching end of the trial, and of the prohibition of his
book, but had said nothing about the personal punishment, in order not to
trouble him too much at once; the Pope had also enjoined this, that Galileo
might not distress himself yet, and “because perhaps in the course of the
proceedings things might take a better turn.”
Galileo’s trial now proceeded strictly according to the programme settled
by the Congregation of the Holy Office under the papal presidency. On the
evening of Monday, 20th June, Galileo received a summons from the Holy
Office to appear the next day.[390] In this final hearing the accused was to be
questioned, under threat of torture, about his intention, that is, as to his real
conviction concerning the two systems. On the morning of the 21st Galileo
appeared before his judges. After he had taken the usual oath, and had

answered in the negative the query whether he had any statement to make,
the examiner began as follows:—
Interrogated whether he holds or has held, and how long ago, that the sun
is the centre of the world and that the earth is not the centre of the world,
and moves, and also with a diurnal motion;
He answered: “A long time ago, i.e., before the decision of the Holy
Congregation of the Index, and before the injunction was intimated to me, I
was indifferent, and regarded both opinions, namely, that of Ptolemy and
that of Copernicus, as open to discussion, inasmuch as either one or the
other might be true in nature; but after the said decision, assured of the
wisdom of the authorities, I ceased to have any doubt; and I held, as I still
hold, as most true and indisputable, the opinion of Ptolemy, that is to say,
the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun.”
Being told that from the manner and connection in which the said
opinion is discussed in the book printed by him subsequently to the time
mentioned—nay, from the very fact of his having written and printed the
said book, he is presumed to have held this opinion after the time specified;
and being called upon to state the truth as to whether he holds or has held
the same;
He answered: “As regards the writing of the published dialogue, my
motive in so doing was not because I held the Copernican doctrine to be
true, but simply thinking to confer a common benefit, I have set forth the
proofs from nature and astronomy which may be adduced on either side;
my object being to make it clear that neither the one set of arguments nor
the other has the force of conclusive demonstration in favour of this opinion
or of that; and that therefore, in order to proceed with certainty we must
have recourse to the decisions of higher teaching, as may be clearly seen
from a large number of passages in the dialogue in question. I affirm,
therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion,
and have not held it since the decision of the authorities.”
Being told that from the book itself and from the arguments adduced on
the affirmative side,—namely, that the earth moves and that the sun is
immovable,—it is presumed, as aforesaid, that he holds the opinion of
Copernicus, or at least that he held it at that time; and that therefore, unless

he make up his mind to confess the truth, recourse will be had against him
to the appropriate remedies of the law;
He answered: “I do not hold, and have not held this opinion of
Copernicus since the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it;
for the rest, I am here in your hands,—do with me what you please.” Being
once more bidden to speak the truth, otherwise recourse will be had to
torture, the terrified old man answered with the resignation of despair: “I
am here to obey, and I have not held this opinion since the decision was
pronounced, as I have stated.”
In the protocol of the trial the concluding sentence follows immediately
after this last answer of Galileo’s: “And as nothing further could be done in
execution of the decree (of 16th June), his signature was obtained to his
deposition, and he was sent back to his place.”[391]
There is not in this document, nor in any other extant, the slightest trace
that torture was actually applied to Galileo, as has long and even recently
been fabled. Since the publication of it by Epinois has acquainted us with
the decree of 16th June, none such can be expected ever to be found. In that
decree the course of the final legal proceedings was precisely indicated. But
it was only the threat of torture that was prescribed, after which recantation
and sentence of imprisonment were to follow. The execution of this threat,
then, would have been a gross, and under the circumstances, incredible
violation of the decrees of the Holy Office itself. Moreover, the assumed
torture of Galileo is opposed, as we shall see by and by, to various historical
facts. When the whole course of the trial is unrolled before our eyes, we
shall go more deeply into the region of fable and malicious fabrication.
But as we pursue the path of history, we come upon an error which Mgr.
Marini’s peculiar mode of interpretation has given rise to. He takes the
concluding words of the protocol of the trial of 21st June, “remissus fuit ad
locum suum,” to mean that Galileo was sent back to the Tuscan embassy.
[392]
Now, it is indisputable, from a despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of 26th
June, 1633, that after the hearing of the 21st June, the accused was detained
in the buildings of the Holy Office, and did not leave them till the 24th.[393]
We have no information whatever as to the treatment he met with this
time in the buildings of the Holy Office. Was he put into the apartments he
had occupied before, or was he confined in a prisoner’s cell? From the

considerate treatment in outward things which Galileo met with during his
trial at Rome, it may perhaps be concluded that he never was thrown into
the dungeons of the Inquisition.

CHAPTER IX.
THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.

The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican System had not been
pronounced heretical by “Infallible” Authority.—The Special Prohibition
assumed as Fact.—The Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.—
The Holy Office exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—
The Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred and
thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to show that
Galileo had really altered his Opinion.—After the Sentence,
Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’ Monti.—Petition
for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to Siena.

On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, in the forenoon, Galileo was conducted
to the large hall used for melancholy proceedings of this kind, in the
Dominican Convent of St. Maria sopra la Minerva, where, in the presence
of his judges and a large assemblage of cardinals and prelates of the Holy
Congregation, the following sentence was read to him:—

We, Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme
Borgia;
Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasia, detto
d’Ascoli;
Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo
Bentivoglio;
Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di
Cremona;
Fra Antonio Barberino detto di S. Onofrio;
Laudivio Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola
detto di S. Sisto;
Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi;
Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna,
Verospi, chiamato Prete;
Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e
Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi;

by the grace of God, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,
Inquisitors General, by the Holy Apostolic see specially
deputed, against heretical depravity throughout the whole
Christian Republic.
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,
Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615
denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false
doctrine taught by many, that the sun is the centre of the
world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and also
with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you
taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with
certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same;
for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Solar
Spots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true;
and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures,
which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing
the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and
whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a
document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by
you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers
propositions are set forth,[394] following the hypothesis of
Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and
authority of Holy Scripture:
This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding
against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which
went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by
command of his Holiness and of the most eminent Lords
Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two
propositions of the stability of the sun and the motion of the
earth were by the theological “Qualifiers” qualified as
follows:
The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and
does not move from its place is absurd and false
philosophically and formally heretical, because it is
expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the
world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a
diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically,
and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently
with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held
before his Holiness on the 25th February, 1616, that his
Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to
abandon altogether the said false doctrine, and, in the event
of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon
you by the Commissary of the Holy Office, to give up the
said doctrine, and not to teach it to others, nor to defend it,
nor even discuss it; and failing your acquiescence in this
injunction, that you should be imprisoned. And in execution
of this decree, on the following day, at the Palace, and in the
presence of his Eminence, the said Lord Cardinal
Bellarmine, after being gently admonished by the said Lord
Cardinal, the command was intimated to you by the Father
Commissary of the Holy Office for the time before a notary
and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the said
false opinion, and not in future to defend or teach it in any
way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon
your promising to obey you were dismissed.
And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be
wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave
prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy
Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books which treat
of this doctrine, and declaring the doctrine itself to be false
and wholly contrary to sacred and divine Scripture.
And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last
year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the
author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the
Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and the
Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was
afterwards informed that through the publication of the said
book, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the

stability of the sun was daily gaining ground; the said book
was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was
discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that
had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have
defended the said opinion previously condemned and to
your face declared to be so, although in the said book you
strive by various devices to produce the impression that you
leave it undecided, and in express terms as probable: which
however is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no
wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be
contrary to Divine Scripture:
Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy
Office, where, being examined upon your oath, you
acknowledged the book to be written and published by you.
You confessed that you began to write the said book about
ten or twelve years ago, after the command had been
imposed upon you as above; that you requested licence to
print it, without however intimating to those who granted
you this licence that you had been commanded not to hold,
defend, or teach in any way whatever the doctrine in
question.
You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is
in various places drawn up in such a form that the reader
might fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false
side are rather calculated by their cogency to compel
conviction than to be easy of refutation; excusing yourself
for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to
your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue,
and by the natural complacency that every man feels in
regard to his own subtleties, and in showing himself more
clever than the generality of men, in devising, even on
behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible
arguments.
And a suitable term having been assigned to you to
prepare your defence, you produced a certificate in the
handwriting of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine,

procured by you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself
against the calumnies of your enemies, who gave out that
you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office;
in which certificate it is declared that you had not abjured
and had not been punished, but merely that the declaration
made by his Holiness and published by the Holy
Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you,
wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the
earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to the Holy
Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held. And as
in this certificate there is no mention of the two articles of
the injunction, namely, the order not “to teach” and “in any
way,” you represented that we ought to believe that in the
course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost all memory
of them; and that this was why you said nothing of the
injunction when you requested permission to print your
book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your
error, but that it might be set down to a vainglorious
ambition rather than to malice. But this certificate produced
by you in your defence has only aggravated your
delinquency, since although it is there stated that the said
opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless
dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability;
nor does the licence artfully and cunningly extorted by you
avail you anything, since you did not notify the command
imposed upon you.
And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the
full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it
necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination, at which
(without prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by
you, and set forth as above, with regard to your said
intention) you answered like a good Catholic. Therefore,
having seen and maturely considered the merits of this your
cause, together with your confessions and excuses above
mentioned, and all that ought justly to be seen and
considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final
sentence against you:—

Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus
Christ and of His most glorious Mother, and ever Virgin
Mary, by this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment,
with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of
sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we
deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes presently
before us between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of
both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one
part, and you Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present,
tried and confessed as above, of the other part,—we say,
pronounce, sentence, declare, that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in process, and by you
confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment
of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely,
of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and
contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the sun is
the centre of the world and does not move from east to west,
and that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world;
and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable
after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy
Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the
censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular,
against such delinquents. From which we are content that
you be absolved, provided that first, with a sincere heart, and
unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid
errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the
form to be prescribed by us.
And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and
transgression may not remain altogether unpunished, and
that you may be more cautious for the future, and an
example to others, that they may abstain from similar
delinquencies—we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of
Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office
during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance, we
enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week
the seven penitential Psalms.
Reserving to ourselves full liberty to moderate, commute,
or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and
penance.
And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain,
condemn and reserve, in this and any other better way and
form which we can and may lawfully employ.
So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce.

F. Cardinalis de Asculo.
G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.
Fr. Cardinalis de Cremona.
Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.
B. Cardinalis Gypsius.
Fr. Cardinalis Verospius.
M. Cardinalis Ginettus.[395]

Before proceeding to narrate the consequences of this sentence to the
culprit (namely, his recantation and punishment), this seems to be the place
to subject this memorable document to a critical review, to show how far
the sentence pronounced on Galileo had a legal basis, even on Romish
principles. To this end it will be necessary to follow the construction of the
sentences step by step, for only in this way can a correct opinion be formed
of the accordance of this cunningly devised structure with the actual state of
things.
The sentence begins with a condensed historical review of the
transactions of 1615, obviously based on the denunciations of Lorini, and
the evidence of Caccini of 20th March, 1615. Immediately afterwards
follows the well-known opinion of the theological Qualifiers on the

principles of Copernicus. This is plainly to justify the measures taken in
consequence by the ecclesiastical authorities against his doctrine and its
most distinguished advocate. For immediately after follows, first a
recapitulation of the report registered in the Vatican MS. of the events of
25th and 26th February, 1616, and then the decree of the Congregation of
the Index of 5th March, 1616, “by which those books were prohibited
which treat of the aforesaid doctrine, and the same was declared to be false
and entirely contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture.” The sentence then
comes to the occasion of the trial of Galileo, namely, his “Dialogues,”—and
states: firstly, that by this book he had transgressed the special prohibition
of 1616;[396] secondly, that his statement therein, which is almost incredible,
that he had left the Copernican view undecided and as only probable, is a
“gross error,” since a doctrine cannot in any way be probable (probalis)
which has already been found and declared to be “contrary to Holy
Scripture.”
The first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, which treated the
note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic document, is certainly correct;
the second, even according to the maxims of Rome, is not to the purpose.
According to these maxims a proposition can only be made into a dogma by
“infallible” authority, namely, by the Pope speaking ex cathedra, or by an
Œcumenical Council; and on the other hand, it is only by the same method
that an obligation can be laid upon the faithful to consider an opinion
heretical. But a decree of the Congregation of the Index does not entail the
obligation; for, although by virtue of the authority conferred on it, it can
enforce obedience and inflict punishment, its decrees are not “infallible.”
They can, however, be made so, according to ecclesiastical views, either by
the subsequent express confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as
supreme head of the Christian Catholic Church; or by the decree of the
Congregation being originally provided with the clause: “Sanctissimus
confirmavit et publicari mandavit.” But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is
neither confirmed by a subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special
formula; and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the opinion
of Copernicus to be “false and contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture,” it
might still be considered as undecided, and even probable, because the
decree might be fallible, and did not entail the obligation to adopt its
sentence as an article of faith.[397] This must also have been the view of the

ecclesiastical authorities of the censorship, who had given Galileo’s book
the imprimatur, and thereby, as H. Martin justly remarks,[398] relieved the
author of responsibility, not in anything relating to the assumed special
prohibition, but concerning the accordance of the work with the published
decree. Point 2, therefore, seems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The
sentence now gives a brief résumé of the confessions made by Galileo
during the examination, which are employed to confirm his guilt. The
twofold reproach is urged against him, as of special weight, that he began to
write his “Dialogues” after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he
said nothing about it in obtaining the imprimatur of the censors; thus the
special prohibition was treated as an established fact—on the one hand, his
disobedience to an injunction of the ecclesiastical authorities was proved,
and on the other, the imprimatur was obtained on false pretences, and was
null and void.
After a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so unedifying to
posterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, the sentence proceeds to
the discussion of an authentic document which formed the chief defence of
the accused: the certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine. The
authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult task to
perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability of the “note” of 26th
February, 1616—this main support of the whole indictment—and by no
means to make this attestation appear at variance with the actual
circumstances, or it would have become an important argument in favour of
the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for the accusation had to be
found in the words of the certificate itself. And thus we find this document,
which, as Wohlwill pertinently remarks,[399] by the words “but only”
directly denies the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616, singularly
enough, thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers, forming a weighty
argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: “But this certificate,” it says,
“produced by you in your defence, has only aggravated your delinquency;
since although it is there stated that the said opinion is contrary to Holy
Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it, and to argue
its probability.”
But as here they again had to refer to the protecting imprimatur of the
ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: “nor does the licence, artfully and

cunningly extorted by you, avail you anything, since you did not notify the
command imposed upon you.”
One cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the attestation of
Cardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, “the command imposed” did not
exist, and of course could not be communicated by Galileo to the censors.
In the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, a passage is
dexterously interwoven, which ascribes the decree of 5th March, 1616, to
the Pope; while, as we know, it belongs officially to the Congregation
alone. The words are these: “But merely that the declaration made by his
Holiness (fatta da nostro Signore), and published by the Holy Congregation
of the Index, had been announced to you.”
Undoubtedly Pope Paul V. wished the decree made and privately
instigated it, as Urban VIII. did the sentence against Galileo; and in this
sense the former may be attributed to the one and the latter to the other, and
the condemnation of the Copernican theory to both. But in this they acted as
private persons, and as such they were not (nor would they now be),
according to theological rules, “infallible.” The conditions which would
have made the decree of the Congregation, or the sentence against Galileo,
of dogmatic importance, were, as we have seen, wholly wanting. Both
Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of the
papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a scientific
controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their sanction, as
heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken, at their
instigation, by the Congregation “to suppress the doctrine of the revolution
of the earth.” Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman Catholic posterity
can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were in error “as men”
about the Copernican system, but not “as Popes.” For us there remains the
singular deduction, that the sentence on Galileo rests again and again, even
on the principles of the ecclesiastical court itself, on an illegal foundation.
After a brief mention of the rigid examination of 21st June, the sentence
comes to formulate the judgment more particularly. According to this
Galileo is, (1) “in the judgment of this Holy Office, vehemently suspected
of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false
and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures ... and that an opinion may
be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to

be contrary to Holy Scripture;” (2) and that consequently he has incurred all
the censures and penalties imposed in the sacred canons against such
delinquents. “From which we are content that you be absolved, provided
that first you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies in
the form to be supplied by us.”
Point 1, according to Romish regulations about making an opinion an
article of faith, in its relation to heresy appears to be illegal and incorrect.
Galileo had not laid himself open to suspicion of heresy because he had
inclined to a doctrine discovered to be contrary to Scripture by the fallible
Congregation of the Index. Point 2 must also, therefore, be illegal, which
says that Galileo had “consequently” incurred all the censures and penalties
adjudged to such criminals by the canon law.
Galileo could never have been legally condemned on suspicion of heresy
from his “Dialogues.” In the first place, because neither he nor any other
Catholic was bound by the decree of 5th March, 1616, to regard the
confirmation of the old system or the rejection of the new as an article of
faith; in the second place, because the imprimatur of the ecclesiastical
authorities relieved him from all responsibility. But he could be condemned
for disobedience to the assumed special prohibition of 26th February, 1616.
In the sentence this forms the only legal basis of the indictment and
condemnation. How far this prohibition is historically credible, we think we
have sufficiently demonstrated in the course of our work.
And when we consider the penalties which follow from this sentence,
based partly upon incorrect, and partly upon false accusations, we find that
the Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to recant with a threat of other and
severer penalties, far exceeded its powers. The Holy Tribunal was
empowered to punish the “disobedience” of the philosopher with
imprisonment and ecclesiastical penances, and to forbid him to discuss the
opinion in writing or speaking, but it had no authority to extort from
Galileo, or any one else, such a confession on an opinion which had not
been defined by “infallible” authority.
This is openly admitted even by high theological authority: “In fact an
excess of authority and an injustice did take place;” “but,” the reverend
gentleman hastens to add, “certainly not from malice, but from a
mistake,”[400]—a lenient opinion which we are unable to share.

Whether any scruples were expressed, or any dissentient voices heard in
this ecclesiastical court about the manifold illegalities in the proceedings
against the famous accused, we do not know, no notes having come down to
us of the private discussions and transactions of the Holy Tribunal. But
there is one fact which leads us to conclude that all the judges did not
consent to this procedure, and that the sentence was not unanimous: at the
head of the sentence ten Cardinals are enumerated as judges, but the
document is signed by seven only, and besides this there is the express
remark: “So we, the undersigned cardinals, pronounce”! Singularly
enough, two hundred and thirty-one years passed by, during which much
that is valuable was written about Galileo, and a great deal more that was
fabulous, before this significant circumstance was noticed by any author.
The merit of having first called attention to it belongs to Professor Moritz
Cantor, in 1864.[401] The three cardinals who did not sign were, Caspar
Borgia, Laudivio Zacchia, and Francesco Barberini, the Pope’s nephew,
whom we have repeatedly found to be a warm patron and protector of
Galileo.
Professor Berti offers as an explanation of the absence of the three
signatures, that the Congregation in the name of which the sentence was
passed consisted of ten members, but that at the last sitting seven only were
present, so that seven only could sign, and adds, as it appears to us
unwarrantably, “that it by no means follows that the three absentees were of
a contrary opinion.”[402]
Pieralisi does not find the matter so simple, and devotes seven large
pages to account for the absence of the three prelates from the
Congregation. “Cardinal Borgia,” he says, “was on very bad terms with
Urban VIII., because he had addressed the Pope in a loud voice in a
consistory, and the Pope had imperiously told him to be quiet and to go
away.”[403] But it has been proved that even after this scene the cardinal
appeared at the consistories up to 12th February, 1635, although there were
complaints that he took walks in Rome instead of attending the sittings of
the Propaganda and the Holy Office. But it is not likely that this cardinal,
whose name stands at the head of the sentence, would have absented
himself from the final sitting without some good reason. Pieralisi thinks that
he was more friendly to Galileo than the other cardinals, an opinion for
which there is no evidence and which proves nothing. Even Pieralisi

confesses that he can find no reason for the absence of Cardinal Zacchia,
but assigns the following motive for that of Cardinal Francesco Barberini:
“He probably wished to uphold the right enjoyed by the cardinal nephews,
and afterwards by the secretaries of state, of sometimes abstaining from
voting in order to reserve to themselves greater freedom in the treatment of
public, private, and political affairs.” The insufficiency of this explanation
is too obvious to need comment. Pieralisi himself comes to the conclusion
that these dignitaries did not wish to append their signatures to the famous
sentence, which is much the same thing as the conjecture that they did not
agree to it.
In accordance with this sentence, certainly not passed unanimously by
the members of the Holy Tribunal, which forms one of the foulest blots in
the melancholy annals of the Inquisition, Galileo was compelled
immediately after hearing it to make the following degrading recantation,
humbly kneeling, before the whole assembly:—

“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,
Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before
this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and
Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against
heretical depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic,
having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy
Gospels swear that I have always believed, do now believe,
and by God’s help will for the future believe, all that is held,
preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Roman Church. But whereas—after an injunction had been
judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect
that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun
is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth
is not the centre of the world, and moves, and that I must not
hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in
writing, the said doctrine, and after it had been notified to
me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture—I
wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this doctrine
already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency
in its favour, without presenting any solution of these; and

for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to
be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having
held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and
immovable, and that the earth is not the centre and moves:—
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your
Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong
suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere
heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the
aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error
and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I
swear that in future I will never again say or assert, verbally
or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a
similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any
heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him
to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the
place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfil
and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or
that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in
the event of my contravening, (which God forbid!) any of
these my promises, protestations, and oaths, I submit myself
to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in
the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and
particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and
these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised,
and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth
thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present
document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at
Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of
June, 1633.
I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own
hand.”[404]

Certain Catholic writers express the hope, at the expense of truth, for the
sake of Galileo’s salvation and honour, that he really had, from conviction,

renounced the opinion which he had been labouring for and advocating up
to old age. Indeed, the super-Catholic author of an essay, called “The Holy
See against Galileo Galilei and the Astronomical System of
Copernicus,”[405] does not hesitate to say: “Probably the physical
absurdities of his (Galileo’s) doctrine had achieved a victory for the voice
of reason and religion.”[406] Undoubtedly there were many physical
difficulties in the way of a general acceptance of the new doctrines
(especially the prevailing incorrect ideas about the specific gravity of the
air),[407] and they were only finally overcome by the discovery of the law of
gravitation by the genius of Newton; but they were not so great as to
prevent men, like Kepler, Descartes, Gassendi, Diodati, Philip Landsberg,
Joachim Rhäticus, and others, and above all, the great Italian reformer of
physics and astronomy, from, even at that time, recognising the truth of the
new theory. It does not appear, either, that the author of that article had
much faith in his own conjecture, for he proceeds to a demonstration, from
opposite premises, which was for a time much in vogue with the Jesuitical
defenders of the Inquisition against Galileo, and which must therefore be
briefly mentioned.
This was nothing less than an attempt to show that even if Galileo held
the Copernican system to be the only true one, he could, thanks to the
wording of the formula of recantation, utter it without doing violence to his
conscience; or, what is now known to be truth.[408] Galileo swore that he
never had believed and never would believe (1) “that the sun was the centre
of the earth and immovable.” That he could easily do, says our author, for,
in relation to the fixed stars, the sun by no means forms the centre; and
heavy bodies on the earth fall towards its centre and not towards the sun,
which, also, in this sense, was not the centre! There was no difficulty for
Galileo in recanting that the sun was immovable, for he had himself
concluded from the motion of the spots that it revolved on its own axis.[409]
As to the earth, he abjured it as an error (2) that “the earth is not the centre;”
quite right, for it is the centre for heavy bodies: and it was not said—“the
centre of the universe;” (3) “that the earth moves;” vast efforts of sophistry
were necessary to make this desperately precise proposition square with the
arguments of this curious casuist. He therefore says, that as, according to
the wording, it is not the diurnal motion of the earth that is in question, this
proposition has quite a different meaning, in which, on the one hand, it must