_Publication of Galileo's 'System of the World'—His Condemnation
and Abjuration._
IN the year 1630, Galileo brought to its conclusion his great work, "The
Dialogue on the Ptolemaic and Copernican Systems," and began to take the
necessary steps for procuring permission to print it. This was to be
obtained in the first instance from an officer at Rome, entitled the
master of the sacred palace; and after a little negotiation Galileo
found it would be necessary for him again to return thither, as his
enemies were still busy in thwarting his views and wishes. Niccolo
Riccardi, who at that time filled the office of master of the palace,
had been a pupil of Galileo, and was well disposed to facilitate his
plans; he pointed out, however, some expressions in the work which he
thought it necessary to erase, and, with the understanding that this
should be done, he returned the manuscript to Galileo with his
subscribed approbation. The unhealthy season was drawing near, and
Galileo, unwilling to face it, returned home, where he intended to
complete the index and dedication, and then to send it back to Rome to
be printed in that city, under the superintendence of Federigo Cesi.
This plan was disconcerted by the premature death of that accomplished
nobleman, in August 1630, in whom Galileo lost one of his steadiest and
most effective friends and protectors. This unfortunate event determined
Galileo to attempt to procure permission to print his book at Florence.
A contagious disorder had broken out in Tuscany with such severity as
almost to interrupt all communication between Florence and Rome, and
this was urged by Galileo as an additional reason for granting his
request. Riccardi at first seemed inclined to insist that the book
should be sent to him a second time, but at last contented himself with
inspecting the commencement and conclusion, and consented that (on its
receiving also a license from the inquisitor-general at Florence, and
from one or two others whose names appear on the title-page) it might be
printed where Galileo wished.
These protracted negotiations prevented the publication of the work till
late in 1632; it then appeared, with a dedication to Ferdinand, under
the following title:—"A Dialogue, by Galileo Galilei, Extraordinary
Mathematician of the University of Pisa, and Principal Philosopher and
Mathematician of the Most Serene Grand Duke of Tuscany; in which, in a
conversation of four days, are discussed the two principal Systems of
the World, the Ptolemaic and Copernican, indeterminately proposing the
Philosophical Arguments as well on one side as on the other." The
beginning of the introduction, which is addressed "To the discreet
Reader," is much too characteristic to be passed by without
notice.—"Some years ago, a salutary edict was promulgated at Rome,
which, in order to obviate the perilous scandals of the present age,
enjoined an opportune silence on the Pythagorean opinion of the earth's
motion. Some were not wanting, who rashly asserted that this decree
originated, not in a judicious examination, but in ill informed passion;
and complaints were heard that counsellors totally inexperienced in
astronomical observations ought not by hasty prohibitions to clip the
wings of speculative minds. My zeal could not keep silence when I heard
these rash lamentations, and I thought it proper, as being fully
informed with regard to that most prudent determination, to appear
publicly on the theatre of the world as a witness of the actual truth. I
happened at that time to be in Rome: I was admitted to the audiences,
and enjoyed the approbation of the most eminent prelates of that court,
nor did the publication of that decree occur without my receiving some
prior intimation of it.[79] Wherefore it is my intention in this present
work, to show to foreign nations that as much is known of this matter in
Italy, and particularly in Rome, as ultramontane diligence can ever have
formed any notion of, and collecting together all my own speculations on
the Copernican system, to give them to understand that the knowledge of
all these preceded the Roman censures, and that from this country
proceed not only dogmas for the salvation of the soul, but also
ingenious discoveries for the gratification of the understanding. With
this object, I have taken up in the Dialogue the Copernican side of the
question, treating it as a pure mathematical hypothesis; and
endeavouring in every artificial manner to represent it as having the
advantage, not over the opinion of the stability of the earth
absolutely, but according to the manner in which that opinion is
defended by some, who indeed profess to be Peripatetics, but retain only
the name, and are contented without improvement to worship shadows, not
philosophizing with their own reason, but only from the recollection of
four principles imperfectly understood."—This very flimsy veil could
scarcely blind any one as to Galileo's real views in composing this
work, nor does it seem probable that he framed it with any expectation
of appearing neutral in the discussion. It is more likely that he
flattered himself that, under the new government at Rome, he was not
likely to be molested on account of the personal prohibition which he
had received in 1616, "not to believe or teach the motion of the earth
in any manner," provided he kept himself within the letter of the limits
of the more public and general order, that the Copernican system was not
to be brought forward otherwise than as a mere mathematically
convenient, but in fact unreal supposition. So long as this decree
remained in force, a due regard to consistency would compel the Roman
Inquisitors to notice an unequivocal violation of it; and this is
probably what Urban had implied in the remark quoted by Hohenzoller to
Galileo.[80] There were not wanting circumstances which might compensate
for the loss of Cosmo and of Federigo Cesi; Cosmo had been succeeded by
his son, who, though he had not yet attained his father's energy, showed
himself as friendly as possible to Galileo. Cardinal Bellarmine, who had
been mainly instrumental in procuring the decree of 1616, was dead;
Urban on the contrary, who had been among the few Cardinals who then
opposed it as uncalled for and ill-advised, was now possessed of supreme
power, and his recent affability seemed to prove that the increased
difference in their stations had not caused him to forget their early
and long-continued intimacy. It is probable that Galileo would not have
found himself mistaken in this estimate of his position, but for an
unlucky circumstance, of which his enemies immediately saw the
importance, and which they were not slow in making available against
him. The dialogue of Galileo's work is conducted between three
personages;—Salviati and Sagredo, who were two noblemen, friends of
Galileo, and Simplicio, a name borrowed from a noted commentator upon
Aristotle, who wrote in the sixth century. Salviati is the principal
philosopher of the work; it is to him that the others apply for
solutions of their doubts and difficulties, and on him the principal
task falls of explaining the tenets of the Copernican theory. Sagredo is
only a half convert, but an acute and ingenious one; to him are allotted
the objections which seem to have some real difficulty in them, as well
as lively illustrations and digressions, which might have been thought
inconsistent with the gravity of Salviati's character. Simplicio, though
candid and modest, is of course a confirmed Ptolemaist and Aristotelian,
and is made to produce successively all the popular arguments of that
school in support of his master's system. Placed between the wit and the
philosopher, it may be guessed that his success is very indifferent, and
in fact he is alternately ridiculed and confuted at every turn. As
Galileo racked his memory and invention to leave unanswered no argument
which was or could be advanced against Copernicus, it unfortunately
happened, that he introduced some which Urban himself had urged upon him
in their former controversies on this subject; and Galileo's opponents
found means to make His Holiness believe that the character of Simplicio
had been sketched in personal derision of him. We do not think it
necessary to exonerate Galileo from this charge; the obvious folly of
such an useless piece of ingratitude speaks sufficiently for itself. But
self-love is easily irritated; and Urban, who aspired to a reputation
for literature and science, was peculiarly sensitive on this point. His
own expressions almost prove his belief that such had been Galileo's
design, and it seems to explain the otherwise inexplicable change which
took place in his conduct towards his old friend, on account of a book
which he had himself undertaken to examine, and of which he had
authorised the publication.
One of the earliest notices of what was approaching, is found in the
dispatches, dated August 24, 1632, from Ferdinand's minister, Andrea
Cioli, to Francesco Nicolini, the Tuscan ambassador at the court of
Rome.
"I have orders to signify to Your Excellency that His Highness remains
greatly astonished that a book, placed by the author himself in the
hands of the supreme authority in Rome, read and read again there most
attentively, and in which every thing, not only with the consent, but at
the request of the author, was amended, altered, added, or removed at
the will of his superiors, which was again subjected here to the same
examination, agreeably to orders from Rome, and which finally was
licensed both there and here, and here printed and published, should now
become an object of suspicion at the end of two years, and the author
and printer be prohibited from publishing any more."—In the sequel is
intimated Ferdinand's desire that the charges, of whatever nature they
might be, either against Galileo or his book, might be reduced to
writing and forwarded to Florence, that he might prepare for his
justification; but this reasonable demand was utterly disregarded. It
appears to have been owing to the mean subserviency of Cioli to the
court of Rome, that Ferdinand refrained from interfering more
strenuously to protect Galileo. Cioli's words are: "The Grand Duke is so
enraged with this business of Galileo, that I do not know what will be
done. I know, at least, that His Holiness shall have no reason to
complain of his ministers, or of their bad advice."[81]
A letter from Galileo's Venetian friend Micanzio, dated about a month
later, is in rather a bolder and less formal style:—"The efforts of
your enemies to get your book prohibited will occasion no loss either to
your reputation, or to the intelligent part of the world. As to
posterity, this is just one of the surest ways to hand the book down to
them. But what a wretched set this must be to whom every good thing, and
all that is founded in nature, necessarily appears hostile and odious!
The world is not restricted to a single corner; you will see the book
printed in more places and languages than one; and just for this reason,
I wish they would prohibit all good books. My disgust arises from seeing
myself deprived of what I most desire of this sort, I mean your other
dialogues; and if, from this cause, I fail in having the pleasure of
seeing them, I shall devote to a hundred thousand devils these unnatural
and godless hypocrites."
At the same time, Thomas Campanella, a monk, who had already
distinguished himself by an apology for Galileo (published in 1622),
wrote to him from Rome:—"I learn with the greatest disgust, that a
congregation of angry theologians is forming to condemn your Dialogues,
and that no single member of it has any knowledge of mathematics, or
familiarity with abstruse speculations. I should advise you to procure a
request from the Grand Duke that, among the Dominicans and Jesuits and
Theatins, and secular priests whom they are putting on this congregation
against your book, they should admit also Castelli and myself." It
appears, from subsequent letters both from Campanella and Castelli, that
the required letter was procured and sent to Rome, but it was not
thought prudent to irritate the opposite party by a request which it was
then clearly seen would have been made in vain. Not only were these
friends of Galileo not admitted to the congregation, but, upon some
pretext, Castelli was even sent away from Rome, as if Galileo's enemies
desired to have as few enlightened witnesses as possible of their
proceedings; and on the contrary, Scipio Chiaramonte, who had been long
known for one of the staunchest and most bigoted defenders of the old
system, and who, as Montucla says, seems to have spent a long life in
nothing but retarding, as far as he was able, the progress of discovery,
was summoned from Pisa to complete their number. From this period we
have a tolerably continuous account of the proceedings against Galileo
in the dispatches which Nicolini sent regularly to his court. It appears
from them that Nicolini had several interviews with the Pope, whom he
found highly incensed against Galileo, and in one of the earliest he
received an intimation to advise the Duke "not to engage himself in this
matter as he had done in the other business of Alidosi,[82] because he
would not get through it with honour." Finding Urban in this humour,
Nicolini thought it best to temporize, and to avoid the appearance of
any thing like direct opposition. On the 15th of September, probably as
soon as the first report on Galileo's book had been made, Nicolini
received a private notice from the Pope, "in especial token of the
esteem in which he held the Grand Duke," that he was unable to do less
than consign the work to the consideration of the Inquisition. Nicolini
was permitted to communicate this to the Grand Duke only, and both were
declared liable to "the usual censures" of the Inquisition in case of
divulging the secret.
The next step was to summon Galileo to Rome, and the only answer
returned to all Nicolini's representations of his advanced age of
seventy years, the very infirm state of his health, and the discomforts
which he must necessarily suffer in such a journey, and in keeping
quarantine, was that he might come at leisure, and that the quarantine
should be relaxed as much as possible in his favour, but that it was
indispensably necessary that he should be personally examined before the
Inquisition at Rome. Accordingly, on the 14th of February, 1633,
Nicolini announces Galileo's arrival, and that he had officially
notified his presence to the Assessor and Commissary of the Holy Office.
Cardinal Barberino, Urban's nephew, who seems on the whole to have acted
a friendly part towards Galileo, intimated to him that his most prudent
course would be to keep himself as much at home and as quiet as
possible, and to refuse to see any but his most intimate friends. With
this advice, which was repeated to him from several quarters, Galileo
thought it best to comply, and kept himself entirely secluded in
Nicolini's palace, where he was as usual maintained at the expense of
the Grand Duke. Nelli quotes two letters, which passed between
Ferdinand's minister Cioli and Nicolini, in which the former intimated
that Galileo's expenses were to be defrayed only during the first month
of his residence at Rome. Nicolini returned a spirited answer, that in
that case, after the time specified, he should continue to treat him as
before at his own private cost.
The permission to reside at the ambassador's palace whilst his cause was
pending, was granted and received as an extraordinary indulgence on the
part of the Inquisition, and indeed if we estimate the proceedings
throughout against Galileo by the usual practice of that detestable
tribunal, it will appear that he was treated with unusual consideration.
Even when it became necessary in the course of the inquiry to examine
him in person, which was in the beginning of April, although his removal
to the Holy Office was then insisted upon, yet he was not committed to
close or strictly solitary confinement. On the contrary, he was
honourably lodged in the apartments of the Fiscal of the Inquisition,
where he was allowed the attendance of his own servant, who was also
permitted to sleep in an adjoining room, and to come and go at pleasure.
His table was still furnished by Nicolini. But, notwithstanding the
distinction with which he was thus treated, Galileo was annoyed and
uneasy at being (though little more than nominally) within the walls of
the Inquisition. He became exceedingly anxious that the matter should be
brought to a conclusion, and a severe attack of his constitutional
complaints rendered him still more fretful and impatient. On the last
day of April, about ten days after his first examination, he was
unexpectedly permitted to return to Nicolini's house, although the
proceedings were yet far from being brought to a conclusion. Nicolini
attributes this favour to Cardinal Barberino, who, he says, liberated
Galileo on his own responsibility, in consideration of the enfeebled
state of his health.
In the society of Nicolini and his family, Galileo recovered something
of his courage and ordinary cheerfulness, although his return appears to
have been permitted on express condition of a strict seclusion; for at
the latter end of May, Nicolini was obliged to apply for permission that
Galileo should take that exercise in the open air which was necessary
for his health; on which occasion he was permitted to go into the public
gardens in a half-closed carriage.
On the evening of the 20th of June, rather more than four months after
Galileo's arrival in Rome, he was again summoned to the Holy Office,
whither he went the following morning; he was detained there during the
whole of that day, and on the next day was conducted in a penitential
dress[83] to the Convent of Minerva, where the Cardinals and Prelates,
his judges, were assembled for the purpose of passing judgment upon him,
by which this venerable old man was solemnly called upon to renounce and
abjure, as impious and heretical, the opinions which his whole existence
had been consecrated to form and strengthen. As we are not aware that
this remarkable record of intolerance and bigoted folly has ever been
printed entire in English, we subjoin a literal translation of the whole
sentence and abjuration.
_The Sentence of the Inquisition on Galileo._
"We, the undersigned, by the Grace of God, Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church, Inquisitors General throughout the whole Christian
Republic, Special Deputies of the Holy Apostolical Chair against
heretical depravity,
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence,
aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615 to this Holy Office, for
holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the
sun is immoveable in the centre of the world, and that the earth
moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom
you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a
correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for
publishing certain letters on the solar spots, in which you
developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the
objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures,
by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and
whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a
letter, professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil,
in which, following the hypotheses of Copernicus, you include
several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the
Holy Scripture: therefore this holy tribunal being desirous of
providing against the disorder and mischief which was thence
proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the holy faith, by the
desire 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 motion of the earth, were _qualified_ by
the _Theological Qualifiers_ as follows:
"_1st. The proposition that the Sun is in the centre of the world
and immoveable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and
formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to the Holy
Scripture._
"_2dly. The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the
world, nor immoveable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal
motion, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically
considered, at least erroneous in faith._
"But whereas being pleased at that time to deal mildly with you, it
was decreed in the Holy Congregation, held before His Holiness on
the 25th day of February, 1616, that His Eminence the Lord Cardinal
Bellarmine should enjoin you to give up altogether the said false
doctrine; if you should refuse, that you should be ordered by the
Commissary of the Holy Office to relinquish it, not to teach it to
others, nor to defend it, nor ever mention it, and in default of
acquiescence that you should be imprisoned; and in execution of this
decree, on the following day at the palace, in presence of His
Eminence the said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after you had been
mildly admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, you were commanded by
the acting Commissary of the Holy Office, before a notary and
witnesses, to relinquish altogether the said false opinion, and in
future neither to defend nor teach it in any manner, neither
verbally nor in writing, and upon your promising obedience you were
dismissed.
"And in order that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether
rooted out, nor insinuate itself farther to the heavy detriment of
the Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Holy Congregation of
the Index[84] prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine;
and it was declared false, and altogether contrary to the Holy and
Divine Scripture.
"And whereas a book has since appeared, published at Florence last
year, the title of which shewed that you were the author, which
title is: _The Dialogue of Galileo Galilei, on the two principal
systems of the world, the Ptolemaic and Copernican_; and whereas the
Holy Congregation has heard that, in consequence of the printing of
the said book, the false opinion of the earth's motion and stability
of the sun is daily gaining ground; the said book has been taken
into careful consideration, and in it has been detected a glaring
violation of the said order, which had been intimated to you;
inasmuch as in this book you have defended the said opinion,
already and in your presence condemned; although in the said book
you labour with many circumlocutions to induce the belief that it is
left by you undecided, and in express terms probable: which is
equally a very grave error, since an opinion can in no way be
probable which has been already declared and finally determined
contrary to the divine Scripture. Therefore by Our order you have
been cited to this Holy Office, where, on your examination upon
oath, you have acknowledged the said book as written and printed by
you. You also confessed that you began to write the said book ten or
twelve years ago, after the order aforesaid had been given. Also,
that you demanded license to publish it, but without signifying to
those who granted you this permission that you had been commanded
not to hold, defend, or teach the said doctrine in any manner. You
also confessed that the style of the said book was, in many places,
so composed that the reader might think the arguments adduced on the
false side to be so worded as more effectually to entangle the
understanding than to be easily solved, alleging in excuse, that you
have thus run into an error, foreign (as you say) to your intention,
from writing in the form of a dialogue, and in consequence of the
natural complacency which every one feels with regard to his own
subtilties, and in showing himself more skilful than the generality
of mankind in contriving, even in favour of false propositions,
ingenious and apparently probable arguments.
"And, upon a convenient time being given to you for making your
defence, you produced a certificate in the hand-writing of His
Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured, as you said, by
yourself, that you might defend yourself against the calumnies of
your enemies, who reported that you had abjured your opinions, and
had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is
declared, that you had not abjured, nor had been punished, but
merely that the declaration made by His Holiness, and promulgated by
the Holy Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you, which
declares that the opinion of the motion of the earth, and stability
of the sun, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and, therefore,
cannot be held or defended. Wherefore, since no mention is there
made of two articles of the order, to wit, the order 'not to teach,'
and 'in any manner,' you argued that we ought to believe that, in
the lapse of fourteen or sixteen years, they had escaped your
memory, and that this was also the reason why you were silent as to
the order, when you sought permission to publish your book, and that
this is said by you not to excuse your error, but that it may be
attributed to vain-glorious ambition, rather than to malice. But
this very certificate, produced on your behalf, has greatly
aggravated your offence, since it is therein declared that the said
opinion is contrary to the Holy Scripture, and yet you have dared to
treat of it, to defend it, and to argue that it is probable; nor is
there any extenuation in the licence artfully and cunningly extorted
by you, since you did not intimate the command imposed upon you. But
whereas it appeared to Us that you had not disclosed the whole truth
with regard to your intentions, We thought it necessary to proceed
to the rigorous examination of you, in which (without any prejudice
to what you had confessed, and which is above detailed against you,
with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good
Catholic.
"Therefore, having seen and maturely considered the merits of your
cause, with your said confessions and excuses, and every thing else
which ought to be seen and considered, We have come to the
underwritten final sentence against you.
"Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
and of His Most Glorious Virgin Mother Mary, by this Our final
sentence, which, sitting in council and judgment for the tribunal of
the Reverend Masters of Sacred Theology, and Doctors of both Laws,
Our Assessors, We put forth in this writing touching the matters and
controversies before Us, between The Magnificent Charles Sincerus,
Doctor of both Laws, Fiscal Proctor of this Holy Office of the one
part, and you, Galileo Galilei, an examined and confessed criminal
from this present writing now in progress as above of the other
part, We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo,
by reason of these things which have been detailed in the course of
this writing, and which, as above, you have confessed, have rendered
yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy: that is
to say, that you believe and hold the false doctrine, and contrary
to the Holy and Divine Scriptures, namely, that the sun is the
centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west,
and that the earth does move, and is not the centre of the world;
also that an opinion can be held and supported as probable after it
has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy
Scripture, and consequently that you have incurred all the censures
and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons, and
other general and particular constitutions against delinquents of
this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be
absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned
faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest the said
errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to
the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, in the form now shown to
you.
"But, that your grievous and pernicious error and transgression may
not go altogether unpunished, and that you may be made more cautious
in future, and may be a warning to others to abstain from
delinquencies of this sort, We decree that the book of the dialogues
of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by a public edict, and We condemn
you to the formal prison of this Holy Office for a period
determinable at Our pleasure; and, by way of salutary penance, We
order you, during the next three years, to recite once a week the
seven penitential psalms, reserving to Ourselves the power of
moderating, commuting, or taking off the whole or part of the said
punishment and penance.
"And so We say, pronounce, and by Our sentence declare, decree, and
reserve, in this and in every other better form and manner, which
lawfully We may and can use.
"So We, the subscribing Cardinals, pronounce.
Felix, Cardinal di Ascoli,
Guido, Cardinal Bentivoglio,
Desiderio, Cardinal di Cremona,
Antonio, Cardinal S. Onofrio,
Berlingero, Cardinal Gessi,
Fabricio, Cardinal Verospi,
Martino, Cardinal Ginetti."
We cannot suppose that Galileo, even broken down as he was with age and
infirmities, and overawed by the merciless tribunal to whose power he
was subjected, could without extreme reluctance thus formally give the
lie to his whole life, and call upon God to witness his renunciation of
the opinions which even his bigoted judges must have felt that he still
clung to in his heart.
We know indeed that his friends were unanimous in recommending an
unqualified acquiescence in whatever might be required, but some persons
have not been able to find an adequate explanation of his submission,
either in their exhortations, or in the mere dread of the alternative
which might await him in case of non-compliance. It has in short been
supposed, although the suspicion scarcely rests upon grounds
sufficiently strong to warrant the assertion, that Galileo did not
submit to this abjuration until forced to it, not merely by the
apprehension, but by the actual experience of personal violence. The
arguments on which this horrible idea appears to be mainly founded are
the two following: First, the Inquisitors declare in their sentence
that, not satisfied with Galileo's first confession, they judged it
necessary to proceed "to the rigorous examination of him, in which he
answered like a good Catholic."[85] It is pretended by those who are
more familiar with inquisitorial language than we can profess to be,
that the words _il rigoroso esame_, form the official phrase for the
application of the torture, and accordingly they interpret this passage
to mean, that the desired answers and submission had thus been extorted
from Galileo, which his judges had otherwise failed to get from him.
And, secondly, the partisans of this opinion bring forward in
corroboration of it, that Galileo immediately on his departure from
Rome, in addition to his old complaints, was found to be afflicted with
hernia, and this was a common consequence of the torture of the cord,
which they suppose to have been inflicted. It is right to mention that
no other trace can be found of this supposed torturing in all the
documents relative to the proceedings against Galileo, at least Venturi
was so assured by one who had inspected the originals at Paris.[86]
Although the arguments we have mentioned appear to us slight, yet
neither can we attach much importance to the contrast which the
favourers of the opposite opinion profess to consider so incredible
between the honourable manner in which Galileo was treated throughout
the rest of the inquiry, and the suspected harsh proceeding against him.
Whether Galileo should be lodged in a prison or a palace, was a matter
of far other importance to the Inquisitors and to their hold upon public
opinion, than the question whether or not he should be suffered to
exhibit a persevering resistance to the censures which they were
prepared to cast upon him. Nor need we shrink from the idea, as we might
from suspecting of some gross crime, on trivial grounds, one of hitherto
unblemished innocence and character. The question may be disencumbered
of all such scruples, since one atrocity more or less can do little
towards affecting our judgment of the unholy Office of the Inquisition.
Delambre, who could find so much to reprehend in Galileo's former
uncompromising boldness, is deeply penetrated with the insincerity of
his behaviour on the present occasion. He seems to have forgotten that a
tribunal which finds it convenient to carry on its inquiries in secret,
is always liable to the suspicion of putting words into the mouth of its
victims; and if it were worth while, there is sufficient internal
evidence that the language which Galileo is made to hold in his defence
and confession, is rather to be read as the composition of his judges
than his own. For instance, in one of the letters which we have
extracted[87], it may be seen that this obnoxious work was already in
forward preparation as early as 1610, and yet he is made to confess, and
the circumstance appears to be brought forward in aggravation of his
guilt, that he began to write it after the prohibition which he had
received in 1616.
The abjuration was drawn up in the following terms:—
_The Abjuration of Galileo._
"I Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, of Florence,
aged 70 years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling
before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General
Inquisitors of the universal Christian republic against heretical
depravity, having before my eyes the Holy Gospels, which I touch
with my own hands, swear, that I have always believed, and now
believe, and with the help of God will in future believe, every
article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds,
teaches, and preaches. But because I had been enjoined by this Holy
Office altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that
the sun is the centre and immoveable, and forbidden to hold, defend,
or teach, the said false doctrine in any manner, and after it had
been signified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant with the
Holy Scripture, I have written and printed a book, in which I treat
of the same doctrine now condemned, and adduce reasons with great
force in support of the same, without giving any solution, and
therefore have been judged grievously suspected of heresy; that is
to say, that I held and believed that the sun is the centre of the
world and immoveable, and that the earth is not the centre and
moveable. Willing, therefore, to remove from the minds of Your
Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion
rightfully entertained towards me, with a sincere heart and
unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest, the said errors and
heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the
said Holy Church; and I swear, that I will never more in future say
or assert anything verbally, or in writing, which may give rise to a
similar suspicion of me: but if I shall know any heretic, or any one
suspected of heresy, that I will denounce him to this Holy Office,
or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be. I
swear, moreover, and promise, that I will fulfil, and observe fully,
all the penances which have been, or shall be laid on me by this
Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said
promises, oaths, and protestations, (which God avert!) I subject
myself to all the pains and punishments, which have been decreed and
promulgated by the sacred canons, and other general and particular
constitutions, against delinquents of this description. So may God
help me, and his Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands. I,
the above-named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and
bound myself, as above, and in witness thereof with my own hand have
subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have
recited word for word. At Rome in the Convent of Minerva, 22d June,
1633. I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand."
It is said that Galileo, as he rose from his knees, stamped on the
ground, and whispered to one of his friends, _E pur si muove_—(It does
move though).
Copies of Galileo's sentence and abjuration were immediately promulgated
in every direction, and the professors at several universities received
directions to read them publicly. At Florence this ceremony took place
in the church of Sta. Croce, whither Guiducci, Aggiunti, and all others
who were known in that city as firm adherents to Galileo's opinions,
were specially summoned. The triumph of the "Paper Philosophers" was so
far complete, and the alarm occasioned by this proof of their dying
power extended even beyond Italy. "I have been told," writes Descartes
from Holland to Mersenne at Paris, "that Galileo's system was printed in
Italy last year, but that every copy has been burnt at Rome, and himself
condemned to some sort of penance, which has astonished me so much that
I have almost determined to burn all my papers, or at least never to let
them be seen by any one. I cannot collect that he, who is an Italian and
even a friend of the Pope, as I understand, has been criminated on any
other account than for having attempted to establish the motion of the
earth. I know that this opinion was formerly censured by some Cardinals,
but I thought I had since heard, that no objection was now made to its
being publicly taught, even at Rome."
The sentiments of all who felt themselves secured against the
apprehension of personal danger could take but one direction, for, as
Pascal well expressed it in one of his celebrated letters to the
Jesuits—"It is in vain that you have procured against Galileo a decree
from Rome condemning his opinion of the earth's motion. Assuredly, that
will never prove it to be at rest; and if we have unerring observations
proving that it turns round, not all mankind together can keep it from
turning, nor themselves from turning with it."
The assembly of doctors of the Sorbonne at Paris narrowly escaped from
passing a similar sentence upon the system of Copernicus. The question
was laid before them by Richelieu, and it appears that their opinion was
for a moment in favour of confirming the Roman decree. It is to be
wished that the name had been preserved of one of its members, who, by
his strong and philosophical representations, saved that celebrated body
from this disgrace.
Those who saw nothing in the punishment of Galileo but passion and
blinded superstition, took occasion to revert to the history of a
similar blunder of the Court of Rome in the middle of the eighth
century. A Bavarian bishop, named Virgil, eminent both as a man of
letters and politician, had asserted the existence of Antipodes, which
excited in the ignorant bigots of his time no less alarm than did the
motion of the earth in the seventeenth century. Pope Zachary, who was
scandalized at the idea of another earth, inhabited by another race of
men, and enlightened by another sun and moon (for this was the shape
which Virgil's system assumed in his eyes), sent out positive orders to
his legate in Bavaria. "With regard to Virgil, the philosopher, (I know
not whether to call him priest,) if he own these perverse opinions,
strip him of his priesthood, and drive him from the church and altars of
God." But Virgil had himself occasionally acted as legate, and was
moreover too necessary to his sovereign to be easily displaced. He
utterly disregarded these denunciations, and during twenty-five years
which elapsed before his death, retained his opinions, his bishopric of
Salzburg, and his political power. He was afterwards canonized.[88]
Even the most zealous advocates of the authority of Rome were
embarrassed in endeavouring to justify the treatment which Galileo
experienced. Tiraboschi has attempted to draw a somewhat subtle
distinction between the bulls of the Pope and the inquisitorial decrees
which were sanctioned and approved by him; he dwells on the reflection
that no one, even among the most zealous Catholics, has ever claimed
infallibility as an attribute of the Inquisition, and looks upon it as a
special mark of grace accorded to the Roman Catholic Church, that during
the whole period in which most theologians rejected the opinions of
Copernicus, as contrary to the Scriptures, the head of that Church was
never permitted to compromise his infallible character by formally
condemning it.[89]
Whatever may be the value of this consolation, it can hardly be
conceded, unless it be at the same time admitted that many scrupulous
members of the Church of Rome have been suffered to remain in singular
misapprehension of the nature and sanction of the authority to which
Galileo had yielded. The words of the bull of Sixtus V., by which the
Congregation of the Index was remodelled in 1588, are quoted by a
professor of the University of Louvain, a zealous antagonist of Galileo,
as follows: "They are to examine and expose the books which are
repugnant to the Catholic doctrines and Christian discipline, and after
reporting on them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority."[90]
Nor does it appear that the learned editors of what is commonly called
the Jesuit's edition of Newton's "Principia" were of opinion, that in
adopting the Copernican system they should transgress a mandate
emanating from any thing short of infallible wisdom. The remarkable
words which they were compelled to prefix to their book, show how
sensitive the court of Rome remained, even so late as 1742, with regard
to this rashly condemned theory. In their preface they say: "Newton in
this third book supposes the motion of the earth. We could not explain
the author's propositions otherwise than by making the same supposition.
We are therefore forced to sustain a character which is not our own; but
we profess to pay the obsequious reverence which is due to the decrees
pronounced by the supreme Pontiffs against the motion of the earth."[91]
This coy reluctance to admit what nobody any longer doubts has survived
to the present time; for Bailli informs us,[92] that the utmost
endeavours of Lalande, when at Rome, to obtain that Galileo's work
should be erased from the Index, were entirely ineffectual, in
consequence of the decree which had been fulminated against him; and in
fact both it, and the book of Copernicus, "Nisi Corrigatur," are still
to be seen on the forbidden list of 1828.
The condemnation of Galileo and his book was not thought sufficient.
Urban's indignation also vented itself upon those who had been
instrumental in obtaining the licence for him. The Inquisitor at
Florence was reprimanded; Riccardi, the master of the sacred palace, and
Ciampoli, Urban's secretary, were both dismissed from their situations.
Their punishment appears rather anomalous and inconsistent with the
proceedings against Galileo, in which it was assumed that his book was
not properly licensed; yet the others suffered on account of granting
that very licence, which he was accused of having surreptitiously
obtained from them, by concealing circumstances with which they were not
bound to be otherwise acquainted. Riccardi, in exculpation of his
conduct, produced a letter in the hand-writing of Ciampoli, in which was
contained that His Holiness, in whose presence the letter professed to
be written, ordered the licence to be given. Urban only replied that
this was a Ciampolism; that his secretary and Galileo had circumvented
him; that he had already dismissed Ciampoli, and that Riccardi must
prepare to follow him.
As soon as the ceremony of abjuration was concluded, Galileo was
consigned, pursuant to his sentence, to the prison of the Inquisition.
Probably it was never intended that he should long remain there, for at
the end of four days, he was reconducted on a very slight representation
of Nicolini to the ambassador's palace, there to await his further
destination. Florence was still suffering under the before-mentioned
contagion; and Sienna was at last fixed on as the place of his
relegation. He would have been shut up in some convent in that city, if
Nicolini had not recommended as a more suitable residence, the palace of
the Archbishop Piccolomini, whom he knew to be among Galileo's warmest
friends. Urban consented to the change, and Galileo finally left Rome
for Sienna in the early part of July.
Piccolomini received him with the utmost kindness, controlled of course
by the strict injunctions which were dispatched from Rome, not to suffer
him on any account to quit the confines of the palace. Galileo continued
at Sienna in this state of seclusion till December of the same year,
when the contagion having ceased in Tuscany, he applied for permission
to return to his villa at Arcetri. This was allowed, subject to the same
restrictions under which he had been residing with the archbishop.
FOOTNOTES:
[79] Delambre quotes this sentence from a passage which is so obviously
ironical throughout, as an instance of Galileo's mis-statement of
facts!—_Hist. de l'Astr. Mod._, vol, i. p. 666.
[80] Page 54.
[81] Galuzzi. Storia di Toscana. Firenze, 1822.
[82] Alidosi was a Florentine nobleman, whose estate Urban wished to
confiscate on a charge of heresy.—_Galuzzi._
[83] S'irrito il Papa, e lo fece abjurare, comparendo il pover uomo con
uno straccio di camicia indosso, che faceva compassione, MS. nella Bibl.
Magliab. Venturi.
[84] The Index is a list of books, the reading of which is prohibited to
Roman Catholics. This list, in the early periods of the Reformation, was
often consulted by the curious, who were enlarging their libraries; and
a story is current in England, that, to prevent this mischief, the Index
itself was inserted in its own forbidden catalogue. The origin of this
story is, that an Index was published in Spain, particularizing the
objectionable passages in such books as were only partially condemned;
and although compiled with the best intentions, this was found to be so
racy, that it became necessary to forbid the circulation of this edition
in subsequent lists.
[85] Giudicassimo esser necessario venir contro di te al rigoroso esame
nel quale rispondesti cattolicamente.
[86] The fate of these documents is curious; after being long preserved
at Rome, they were carried away in 1809, by order of Buonaparte, to
Paris, where they remained till his first abdication. Just before the
hundred days, the late king of France, wishing to inspect them, ordered
that they should be brought to his own apartments for that purpose. In
the hasty flight which soon afterwards followed, the manuscripts were
forgotten, and it is not known what became of them. A French
translation, begun by Napoleon's desire, was completed only down to the
30th of April, 1633, the date of Galileo's first return to Nicolini's
palace.
[87] Page 18.
[88] Annalium Bolorum, libri vii. Ingolstadii, 1554.
[89] La Chiesa non ha mai dichiarati eretici i sostenitori del Sistema
Copernicano, e questa troppo rigorosa censura non usci che dal tribunale
della Romana Inquisizione a cui niuno tra Cattolici ancor piu zelanti ha
mai attribuito it diritto dell'infallibilità. Anzi in cio ancora è d'
ammirarsi la providenza di Dio à favor della Chiesa, percioche in un
tempo in cui la maggior parte dei teologi fermamente credavano che il
Sistema Copernicano fosse all' autorità delle sacre Carte contrario, pur
non permise che dalla Chiesa si proferisse su cio un solenne
giudizio.—Stor. della Lett. Ital.
[90] Lib. Fromondi Antaristarchus, Antwerpiæ, 1631.
[91] Newtoni Principia, Coloniæ, 1760.
[92] Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne.