GALILEO AND THE PROSE WRITERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
In enumerating the Prose Writers of the Seventeenth Century, we are
confronted with the illustrious name of GALILEO GALILEI, which will
continue to be remembered as long as Science is cultivated.
This celebrated man was born at Pisa in 1564, and died at Arcetri, near
Florence, in 1642. He was Professor of Mathematics at the University
of Pisa, and there would be absolutely nothing of note to tell of his
life, had he not happened to come into collision with the Inquisition,
for maintaining, or rather for his method of maintaining, that the
earth revolved round the sun. He was cited to appear before the
Tribunal of the Inquisition, but when he arrived in Rome he was treated
with consideration, and even with distinction. His place of arrest was
the magnificent palace of the Tuscan Ambassador, near the Trinità de'
Monti. But it will be more satisfactory to quote his own statement in a
letter to a priest of his acquaintance, Father Vincenzo Renieri.
"From a youth upwards," he writes, "I meditated the composition of
a Dialogue on the Two Systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus. My chief
inducement was to explain the ebb and flow of the tides by the movement
of the earth. That which first acquainted Rome with my opinions on the
movement of the earth was a long dissertation which I addressed to
Cardinal Orsini, and then I was denounced as a scandalous and impudent
writer. After the publication of my Dialogues, I was summoned to Rome
by the Congregation of the Holy Office I arrived in Rome on the tenth
of February, 1633, and was confined to the delightful palace of the
Tuscan Ambassador on the Trinità de' Monti. Next day I was visited by
Father Lancio, Commissary of the Holy Inquisition. He took me with him
in his carriage. On the way he asked me numerous questions. He was most
zealous in his endeavour to make me repair the scandal I had given to
the whole of Italy by maintaining the shocking doctrine that the earth
revolved round the sun. To all my arguments, drawn from physics and
mathematics, he answered in the words of Scripture: '_Terra autem in
æternum stabit, quia Terra autem in æternum stat._' Occupied in this
conversation, we arrived at the Palace of the Holy Office, situated
to the west of the magnificent Church of St. Peter. I was immediately
presented by the Commissary to Monsignor Vitrici, the Assessor. Two
Dominican Monks were with him. They politely requested me to produce
my arguments before the full Congregation, so that in case I should
be condemned my defence might be heard. The following Thursday I was
presented to the Congregation. I produced my proofs, but unhappily
they were not appreciated, and all my endeavours failed to make them
acceptable. They zealously endeavoured to convince me of the scandal I
had given, and the passage of Scripture was always quoted as a proof of
my guilt. I remembered opportunely an argument drawn from Scripture.
I alleged it, but with little success. I said that it appeared to me
that there were passages in the Bible worded in accordance with the
popular views of Astronomy current in antiquity, and that the passage
which was quoted against me might be conceived in that spirit. I added
that in the Book of Job, chapter xxxvii, v. 18, it is said that the
heavens are as if they were made of metal and bronze. Elihu it is who
utters these words. Thus we clearly see that he speaks according to
the system of Ptolemy, and that system has been proved to be absurd by
modern philosophy and common sense. If, therefore, so much stress is
laid on Joshua stopping the sun, we ought also to consider that passage
where it is said that the heavens are composed of so many skies like
mirrors. The inference seemed to me to be perfectly logical. Still, it
was always slurred over, and I could extract no reply except a shrug of
the shoulders, the usual refuge of those who have made up their minds,
and who are deaf to argument from excess of prejudice.
"Finally, I was obliged, as a good Catholic, to retract my opinion,
and my Dialogue was placed on the Index of forbidden books. After
five months I received permission to leave Rome. Florence was then
visited by the Plague, and as the place of my arrest, I was sent, as
a great favour, to the abode of the dearest friend I had at Siena,
the Archbishop Piccolomini. His company gave me so much pleasure and
contributed so much to my peace of mind, that I resumed my studies,
and after another five months, when the Plague had lost its virulence
in Florence, I was, by the kindness of his Holiness the Pope, allowed
to exchange the confinement of that house for the liberty of a country
retreat which I so vastly enjoy. Towards the beginning of December of
this year, 1633, I returned to the Villa of Belriguardo, and then to
Arcetri, where I am now, enjoying salubrious air in the neighbourhood
of my cherished Florence."
This letter, dated Arcetri, December, 1633, gives a plain unvarnished
account of what took place. It is obvious, from the expressions used
by Galileo, that he thought he was let off with considerable leniency.
We cannot fail to agree with him when we think of Bruno and Vanini,
who, not long before, had been burnt alive by the same Tribunal, and of
Campanella, confined in a dungeon for twenty-seven years.
Thus we see that there is no truth in the popular legend that he was
put to the torture, and there is probably as little in the anecdote
that on rising to his feet after his retractation, he exclaimed,
_"Eppur si muove!"_ Doubtless, if he had uttered those words, he would
have paid heavily for his temerity.
In his retirement at Arcetri he was at liberty to continue unmolested
those researches which have made his name immortal. His invention
of the telescope revealed to him many wonders of the Heavens. He
discovered the Satellites of Jupiter and the Ring of Saturn, although
he did not realise the annular nature of the latter object, a triumph
reserved for Huyghens. He observed the spots on the Sun and the
Mountains of the Moon. His researches in Chemistry enhanced his renown
with many memorable results.
Nor was it only as a man of science that he claimed the admiration of
the world. As a writer, he stands foremost in his age. His prose is
clear, unaffected, graceful, and occasionally eloquent and impressive.
His scientific treatises are models of lucidity. He himself, when
praised for that quality, attributed it in a large measure to his
constant perusal of the works of Ariosto. Clearness, indeed, is the
especial merit of that great poet. In his youth he wrote an essay
to prove the superiority of Ariosto to Tasso. He said Tasso gave us
words, and Ariosto, realities. This assertion may be somewhat sweeping,
but it has a foundation of truth. Still, he admitted that Tasso had
many qualities that please the reader, and that it was only the sharp
scrutiny of criticism which he could not sustain.
The works of Galileo are not very voluminous. First and foremost
in importance, comes the _Dialogue on the Two Systems of Ptolemy
and Copernicus._ His _Saggiatore_ is hardly less important. His
_Problems_ contain descriptions of many experiments, and his Letters
are as remarkable for wit and vivacity as for strength and boldness
of thought. His Essay on the comparative merits of Ariosto and Tasso
has already been mentioned. He took great delight in poetry, and we
are assured by his biographers that he knew by heart many passages
from Virgil, Ovid, Horace, and the Tragedies attributed to Seneca. In
Italian, he derived the greatest pleasure from Ariosto, and next to
him, from Petrarch and Berni. Dante is not mentioned, but it would be
extraordinary if the most profound and graphic of all poets did not
appeal to him, although the vagaries of taste are incalculable. It must
be remembered that in the Seventeenth Century the appreciation of Dante
had sunk to its lowest ebb.
Among those who signed the decree condemning the errors of the
illustrious Galileo, was Cardinal GUIDO BENTIVOGLIO, who, in spite
of that unfortunate circumstance, deserves honourable mention as an
historian and writer of Memoirs. He was employed as Nuncio by several
Popes in Flanders and in France. Gregory XV raised him to the Roman
purple, and when the Conclave met in 1644, after the death of Urban
VIII, there is every reason to believe that he would have been elected
Pope, had he not fallen ill and died on the seventeenth of September.
There is a magnificent portrait of him by Vandyke at Bologna.
He had many qualities of an able, though not of a great, writer. He had
the advantage of seeing and observing much, and the impress of his
experience is discernible in all he wrote. Ranke extols his Memoirs
as giving an attractive picture of his age, and, in truth, he is one
of the few authors, not of French nationality, who approach in merit
the great memoir-writers of France. He also wrote an account of his
missions as Nuncio, numerous Letters, and a History of the War of
Independence of the Netherlands against the despotism of Spain. The
_History_ is a readable and spirited narrative, and the historian is
seldom prejudiced or bitter. Having himself lived so long in Flanders,
he is able to give graphic descriptions of the localities he mentions.
Ambrosoli censures his style for its monotony, but I cannot say I ever
detected that defect. On the contrary, it seems to me to be as flowing
and animated as can be desired. A writer on historical subjects cannot
be expected to indulge in the fanciful digressions of novelists or
essayists. If Bentivoglio had lived to be Pope, he would doubtless have
distinguished his Pontificate in a manner worthy of his abilities.
A greater historian than Bentivoglio appeared in DAVILA, a native of
Padua. In his youth he served in the French army, and then in that
of the Republic of Venice. He was of noble origin, and his ancestors
occupied the post of Grand Constable of the Island of Cyprus when it
was still under the dominion of Venice. They had the privilege of
taking their seat next to the Doge when they appeared in the Grand
Council, and this privilege was accorded to Davila himself, in such
high esteem was he held. In 1630, he published his _History of the
Civil Wars of France,_ the work to which he is indebted for his
literary fame. He was appointed in the following year Commandant of
the garrison of Crema, but on his way from Venice to that town he was
foully murdered in a village named San Michele.
Davila was a man of action rather than of letters, and it is therefore
not surprising if his style is less purely Tuscan than that of
more elegant scholars. But he had great strength of thought, keen
penetration, and no contemptible knowledge of affairs. These qualities,
added to the interesting events he narrates, secured great attention
and applause for his work. He has, however, some defects. He is not
always very skilful in presenting vivid pictures to the imagination and
he sometimes Italianizes the names of persons and places until they
become hardly recognisable. Thus Elboeuf is metamorphosed into Ellebove.
FRA PAOLO SARPI obtained immense reputation, especially in Protestant
countries, for his _History of the Council of Trent_ and his bitter
pamphlets against the Court of the Vatican. In the great contest
between the Republic of Venice and Pope Paul V, he took the part of
his native city with intrepidity not unalloyed by ferocity. He was
undoubtedly a man of great abilities, but his abilities were sharpened
by his rancour and malignity.
Another historian of the Council of Trent, but one who regarded it from
the point of view of the Papal party, was Cardinal SFORZA PALLAVICINO,
one of the most brilliant men that ever entered the Society of Jesus.
He was so amiable and benevolent that Pope Alexander VII used to say of
him "Il Cardinal Pallavicino é tutto amore." He died in 1667. His works
comprise, besides the _History of the Council of Trent,_ a _Treatise
on Christian Perfection,_ an _Essay on Style_ and a _Biography of
Alexander VII._ All these works are remarkable for distinction of
style, although he sometimes indulges too much in pointed antitheses.
He was very unlike Davila in the care and polish he bestowed upon his
compositions.
Another Jesuit, DANIEL BARTOLI, wrote the _History of his Order_ and
the _Lives of Eminent Jesuits_ in a style little short of perfection.
He has indeed been accused of elaborating his phrases until they
ceased to be natural; and yet in spite of his elaboration, he had his
cavillers who pointed out idioms of doubtful correctness, and said
_Questo non si può dire, (this cannot be said.)_ He replied to them in
a witty pamphlet: _The Right and Wrong of the Non Si Può._ "A clever
work," says Fontanini; "but the Author's cleverness would have been
better displayed in avoiding the errors than in defending them with
obstinate ingenuity."
An eminent preacher and divine of the age was FATHER PAUL SEGNERI
whose books of devotion are still used in Catholic countries. He, too,
was a Jesuit, but his style is not quite so good as that of his two
predecessors. It is occasionally too pompous and declamatory; but he
had a fertile and vigorous mind and preached and wrote from his heart.
Another writer, less orthodox, but more celebrated, was GIORDANO
BRUNO. His works, however, although published on the threshold of the
Seventeenth Century, were conceived and written in the Sixteenth. He
was burnt alive for his heresies in the year 1601. For some years
he took refuge in England, and it would have been well for his
prosperity had he stayed there. In these days of greater latitude of
speculation, there appears to be little in his works to bring down
upon him so terrible a penalty, but the provocation hardly given by
the works, seems to have been afforded by the author. He was irritable
and vainglorious, and he knew neither prudence nor discretion. His
great treatise, _Della Causa, Principio ed Uno,_ is an exposition of
Pantheism, but his vague reveries have little foundation in science to
recommend them. He also wrote a Comedy, rather more indelicate than
should emanate from the pen of a philosopher.
CAMPANELLA, a somewhat kindred spirit, though without the latent
Atheism of Giordano Bruno, was a Dominican Friar, a native of Cosenza.
He was suspected of disaffection, perhaps of heresy, and was cooped
up for twenty-seven years in a narrow dungeon. He beguiled his weary
captivity by writing long philosophical works. They are, however, all
in Latin,[1] and therefore do not come within the scope of this volume.
I mention them as a sign of the revival of the long dormant spirit
of science and speculation. Campanella wrote in defence of Galileo's
theory of the rotation of the earth round the sun. Campanella obtained
his liberty in 1629 and retired to France, where he met with some
kindness from Cardinal Richelieu.
The first Edition of the celebrated _Dictionary of the Accademia della
Crusca_ was published in 1613. It is curious that with the universal
attention it aroused, it did not raise the standard of taste and
scholarship, for truth to tell, the average run of inferior writers
produced works incredibly bad.
There was a dearth of really good writers of stories in prose in the
Seventeenth Century. The _Stories_ of CELIO MALASPINI are racy and
amusing, and give a graphic idea of the manners and customs of the
early part of the Century, but they are often indelicate and have
few graces of style to recommend them. TRAJANO BOCCALINI wrote some
vivacious political and literary squibs which had a wide circulation in
an age long before the introduction of newspapers, where alone writings
on such ephemeral topics now appear.
Florence could boast of a select band of philosophers, MAGALOTTI,
VIVIANI, REDI and DATI, but their influence does not seem to have
extended beyond Tuscany. AUTON MARIA SALVINI was a laborious grammarian
and one of the chief compilers of the Dictionary above named.
Probably the most eminent man of letters of the last ten years of the
Seventeenth Century was CRESCIMBENI, the historian of Italian poetry,
and the founder of the Arcadian Academy, still flourishing in Rome.
He was a writer of great talent and judgment, and he was more alive
than his contemporaries to the evils resulting from the exaggerated
metaphors and wild hyperboles introduced by the followers of Marino. He
looked out for a perfect model of poetry, and he found it in the works
of Angelo di Costanzo, and certainly that writer's equable sweetness
and refinement are unruffled by tempestuous passion or towering
sublimity. Crescimbeni might, we think, with greater propriety have
selected Dante, Petrarch, and Ariosto to reform the degraded taste of
the age; but still, the beauties of Costanzo are of a high order, and
the recommendation bore good fruit.
If it cannot be said of any writer of the Seventeenth Century that he
rises to the highest pinnacle of Art, yet, on a review of the whole
period, there remains an impression of much ingenuity and much vigour
of thought.
[Footnote 1: His poems, chiefly Sonnets, are in Italian.]