GALILEO GALILEI.
* * * * *
_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 32s._
THE RENAISSANCE OF ART IN FRANCE. By Mrs. MARK PATTISON. With Nineteen
Steel Engravings.
* * * * *
_2 vols. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 24s._
THE CIVILIZATION OF THE PERIOD OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. By JACOB
BURCKHARDT. Authorized Translation by S. G. C. MIDDLEMORE.
“The whole of the first part of Dr Burckhardt’s work deals
with what may be called the Political Preparation for the
Renaissance. It is impossible here to do more than express a
high opinion of the compact way in which the facts are put
before the reader.... The second volume of Dr. Burckhardt’s
work is, we think, more full and complete in itself, more rich
in original thought, than the first. His account of the causes
which prevented the rise of a great Italian drama is very clear
and satisfying.”—_Saturday Review._
LONDON: C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
GALILEO GALILEI
_AND THE ROMAN CURIA_.
_FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES._
BY
KARL VON GEBLER.
_TRANSLATED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY
MRS. GEORGE STURGE._
[Illustration]
LONDON:
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1879.
LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR.
MADAM,—
It is the desire of every author, every prosecutor of research, that the
products of his labours, the results of his studies, should be widely
circulated. This desire arises, especially in the case of one who has
devoted himself to research, not only from a certain egotism which clings
to us all, but from the wish that the laborious researches of years,
often believed to refute old and generally-received errors, should become
the common property of as many as possible.
The author of the present work is no exception to these general rules;
and it therefore gives him great pleasure, and fills him with gratitude,
that you, Madam, should have taken the trouble to translate the small
results of his studies into the language of Newton, and thus have
rendered them more accessible to the English nation.
But little more than two years have elapsed since the book first appeared
in Germany, but this period has been a most important one for researches
into the literature relating to Galileo.
In the year 1869 Professor Domenico Berti obtained permission to inspect
and turn to account the Acts of Galileo’s Trial carefully preserved
in the Vatican, and in 1876 he published a portion of these important
documents, which essentially tended to complete the very partial
publication of them by Henri de L’Epinois, in 1867. In 1877 M. de
L’Epinois and the present writer were permitted to resuscitate the famous
volume, which again lay buried among the secret papal archives; that
is, to inspect it at leisure and to publish the contents in full. It
was, however, not only of the greatest importance to become acquainted
with the Vatican MS. as a whole, and by an exact publication of it to
make it the common property of historical research; it was at least of
equal moment to make a most careful examination of the material form and
external appearance of the Acts. For the threefold system of paging had
led some historians to make the boldest conjectures, and respecting one
document in particular,—the famous note of 26th February, 1616,—there
was an apparently well-founded suspicion that there had been a later
falsification of the papers.
While, on the one hand, the knowledge gained of the entire contents of
the Vatican MS., for the purpose of my own publication of it,[1] only
confirmed, in many respects, my previous opinions on the memorable trial;
on the other hand, a minute and repeated examination of the material
evidence afforded by the suspicious document, which, up to that time,
had been considered by myself and many other authors to be a forgery
of a later date, convinced me, contrary to all expectation, that it
indisputably originated in 1616.
This newly acquired experience, and the appearance of many valuable
critical writings on the trial of Galileo since the year 1876, rendered
therefore a partial revision and correction of the German edition of this
work, for the English and an Italian translation, absolutely necessary.
All the needful emendations have accordingly been made, with constant
reference to the literature relating to the subject published between
the spring of 1876 and the spring of 1878. I have also consulted several
older works which had escaped my attention when the book was first
written.
May the work then, in its to some extent new form, make its way in the
British Isles, and meet with as friendly a reception there as the German
edition has met with in Austria and Germany.
To you, Madam, I offer my warm thanks for the care with which you have
executed the difficult and laborious task of translation.
Accept, Madam, the assurance of my sincere esteem.
KARL VON GEBLER.[2]
MERAN, _1st April, 1878_.
NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
The Vatican Manuscript alluded to in the foregoing letter, and constantly
referred to in the text, was published by the author in the autumn of
1877, under the title of “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach
der Vaticanischen Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard.
This, with some introductory chapters, was intended to supersede the
Appendix to the original work, and to form a second volume, when a new
German edition should be called for. It did not, however, appear to me
that any purpose would be served by reprinting all the Latin and Italian
documents of the Vatican MS. in this country, as students who wish
to consult them can easily procure them as published in the original
languages in Germany, and I hope for a wider circle of readers than that
composed exclusively of students. I therefore proposed to Herr von Gebler
to give the History, Description, and Estimate of the Vat. MS., etc.,
in an Appendix, together with a few of the more important documents; to
this, with some suggestions, as for instance, that some of the shorter
documents should be given as notes to the text, he fully agreed, with the
remark that I must know best what would suit my countrymen. The Appendix,
therefore, differs somewhat both from the original Appendix and from the
introductory portions of the new volume, for these also were revised for
the Translation.
The translations from Latin and Italian documents have been made from the
originals by a competent scholar, and all the more important letters and
extracts from letters of Galileo have been compared with the Italian. The
Table of Contents, headings to and titles of the chapters, and Index,
none of which exist in the original, have been added by myself.
JANE STURGE.
SYDENHAM, _November, 1878_.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
ABRIDGED FROM THE “AUGSBURGER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG” OF 6TH DECEMBER, 1878.
The author of this work died at Gratz on the 7th of September, 1878. In
devoting a few lines to his memory we have not a long and distinguished
career to describe, for a brief span of life was all that was granted
him, but to the last moment he sought to turn it to the best account.
The present work has enjoyed a wide circulation in Germany, but few of
its readers could have known anything of the author but his name. The
protracted studies which form the basis of it, the skilful handling of
documentary material which seemed to betray the practised historian,
must have suggested a man of ripe years, whose life had been passed in
study, as the author; no one certainly would have sought him among the
young officers of a cavalry regiment, whose tastes generally lie in any
direction rather than that of historical research.
Karl von Gebler was the son of Field-marshal Wilhelm von Gebler, and
was born at Vienna in 1850. Although early destined for the military
career, he laid the foundations of a superior education in the grammar
schools. Having passed through the gymnasium, in 1869 he joined the 7th
regiment of the line as a private, and before long attained the rank of
lieutenant in the 4th regiment of Dragoons. Being an excellent draftsman
and skilled in military surveying, he was often employed on the general’s
staff in drawing maps. In addition to his extensive knowledge of military
affairs, he had many of the accomplishments befitting his calling; he was
an excellent shot and a bold rider. But the duties of a cavalry officer
were soon too limited for his active mind and intellectual tastes, and
he sought also to win his spurs on the fields of literature. He occupied
his leisure in translating the work of a French staff officer, “Success
in War,” to which he made some additions. He also published “The True
Portrait of a Royal Hero of the 18th Century,” in a newspaper; and
finally, “Historic Sayings.”
A night ride, undertaken in the performance of his official duties, from
which he returned at daybreak to exercise at the riding school, brought
on severe hemorrhage and inflammation of the lungs. The two physicians
who attended him gave him up; in a consultation at his bedside, prudently
held in Latin, they gave him twenty-four hours to live. One of them
having taken leave, the other returned to the patient, who, with quiet
humour, greeted him with the classic words, “Morituri te salutant!” The
worthy doctor found, to his horror, that the patient had understood all
that had passed, and had no easy task to persuade him that his case was
not so bad after all. He had, however, in consequence of some local
circumstances, already ordered the coffin.
Gebler’s constitution surmounted the danger; by the spring he was able to
join his parents at Gratz. But his health had sustained so severe a shock
that he was compelled to abandon the military career. His parents removed
to Gries, near Botzen, for the sake of a milder climate on his account.
Here he revived wonderfully; he seemed to have taken a new lease of
life, and devoted himself altogether to literary pursuits. The critical
studies before mentioned of the assumed historic sayings of great men,
and among them of Galileo’s famous dictum, “E pur si muove,” brought him
into closer acquaintance with this hero of science. He accumulated so
large a material for a biographical sketch of the great Italian, that
the limits of an essay seemed too narrow, and he resolved to undertake a
more comprehensive work on the subject, which he thought would fill up
a gap in German literature. In the autumn of 1875 the work, which had
occupied him four years, was completed. It was not a little gratifying
to the young author that one of the first publishers in Germany, Cotta,
of Stuttgard, undertook the publication on very favourable terms, and
brought it out in 1876. It met with great approval, and brought him
into association with many eminent literary men in Italy and Germany.
Galileo’s own country was foremost in recognition of his services. The
academies of Padua and Pisa, and the Accadémia dei Lincei sent him
special acknowledgments, and King Victor Emmanuel rewarded him with the
order of the Crown of Italy.
Before this work was finished he had removed with his father, having
in the meanwhile lost his mother, to Meran, and during the first year
of his residence there his health improved so much that he was able to
take part in social life, and to enlarge the sphere of his labours and
influence. Society in this little town owed much in many ways to the
intellectual and amiable young officer. Whenever a good and noble cause
required support, his co-operation might be reckoned on. In common with
many other lovers of art and antiquity, he took a lively interest in the
preservation and restoration of the Maultasch-Burg, which promises to be
one of the chief sights of Meran. Unhappily he did not live to see the
completion of the work.
With increase of health his zest for work increased also, and he
addressed himself to a great historical task. The subject he selected
was the Maid of Orleans. The preliminary studies were difficult in a
place destitute of all aids to learning. His researches were not confined
to the collection of all the printed material; in 1876 he had planned
to search out the documentary sources wherever they were to be found,
but before this he made close studies in the field of psychology and
mental pathology. The work of Ruf on the subject, the learned chaplain
of a lunatic asylum, attracted his attention, and he entered into
communication with the author. Ruf’s great experience and philosophical
acquirements were of great service to Gebler in his preliminary studies
on Joan of Arc. But the project was not to be carried out. Just as he was
about to write the second chapter, an essay of Berti’s at Rome occasioned
him to enter on fresh studies on Galileo.
Domenico Berti, who had examined the original Acts of Galileo’s trial,
though, as his work shows, very superficially, spoke contemptuously of
the German _savans_, comparing them with blind men judging of colours, as
none of them had seen the original Acts in the Vatican. This had special
reference to the document of 26th February, 1616, which the German
writers on the subject, and Gebler among them, declared to be a forgery.
Being a man of the strictest love of truth, this reproach induced him,
in spite of his health, which had again failed, in May, 1877, to go to
Rome, where he obtained access to the Vatican. For ten weeks, in spite of
the oppressive heat, he daily spent fourteen hours in the Papal Archives,
studying and copying with diplomatic precision the original Acts of
Galileo’s trial. As the result of his labours, he felt constrained to
declare the document in question to be genuine. Actuated only by the
desire that truth should prevail, in the second part of his work, written
at Rome, he without hesitation withdrew the opinion he had previously
advocated as an error.
His first work had made a flattering commotion in the literary world, but
the additional publication called forth a still more animated discussion
of the whole question, which the readers of this journal will not have
forgotten. Gebler took part in it himself, and, then suffering from
illness, wrote his reply from a sick bed.
His sojourn in Rome had sadly pulled him down. On his return home, in
July, 1877, he had lost his voice and was greatly reduced. But in October
of the same year he once more roused himself for a journey to Italy.
The object of the previous one was to follow his hero in yellow and
faded historic papers, but this time the task he had set himself was to
pursue the tracks of Galileo in all the cities and places in any way
connected with his memory. The result of these travels was an article in
the _Deutsche Rundschau_, No. 7, 1878, “On the Tracks of Galileo.” In
this paper Gebler again dispels some clouds in which Galileo’s previous
biographers had enveloped him. We in these less romantic days are quite
willing to dispense with the shudder at the stories of the dungeon, etc.,
and are glad to know that Galileo was permitted to enjoy a degree of
comfort during his detention not often granted to those who come into
collision with the world.
“On the Tracks of Galileo” was Gebler’s last literary work. His strength
of will and mental powers at length succumbed to his incurable malady.
The mineral waters of Gleichenberg, which he had been recommended to
try, did him more harm than good. He wrote thence to a friend, “I am
in a pitiable condition, and have given up all hope of improvement.”
Unfortunately he was right. He had overtasked his strength. His zeal
for science had hastened his end, and he may well be called one of her
victims.
His last days were spent at Gratz, where his boyhood had been passed, and
he rests beside his only brother. Both were the pride and joy of their
father, now left alone.
In appearance Karl von Gebler was distinguished and attractive looking.
No one could escape the charm of the freshness and originality of his
mind, in spite of constant ill health. The refined young student, with
the manners of a man of the world, was a phenomenon to his fellow-workers
in the learned world. We have heard some of them say that they could not
understand how Gebler could have acquired the historian’s craft, the
technical art of prosecuting research, without having had any special
critical schooling.
The writer of these lines will never forget the hours spent with this
amiable and, in spite of his success, truly modest young man in his snug
study. The walls lined with books, or adorned with weapons, betrayed at
a glance the character and tastes of the occupant, while a pendulum clock
dating from the time of Galileo recalled his work on the first observer
of the vibrations of the pendulum to mind. He always liked to wind up the
venerable timepiece himself, and took a pleasure in its sonorous tones.
When I once more entered the study after his death, the clock had run
down, the pendulum had ceased to vibrate, it told the hour no more.
PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.
While Italy and France possess an ample literature relating to Galileo,
his oft-discussed fate and memorable achievements, very little has been
written in Germany on this hero of science; and it would almost seem as
if Copernicus and Kepler had cast the founder of mechanical physics into
the shade. German literature does not possess one exhaustive work on
Galileo. This is a great want, and to supply it would be a magnificent
and thankworthy enterprise. It could only, however, be carried out by a
comprehensive biography of the famous astronomer, which, together with a
complete narrative of his life, should comprise a detailed description
and estimate of his writings, inventions, and discoveries. We do not
feel ourselves either called upon or competent to undertake so difficult
a task. Our desire has been merely to fill up a portion of the gap in
German literature by this contribution to the Life of Galileo, with a
hope that it may be an incentive to some man of learning, whose studies
qualify him for the task, to give our nation a complete description of
the life and works of this great pioneer of the ideas of Copernicus.
We have also set ourselves another task; namely, to throw as much light
as possible, by means of authentic documents, on the attitude Galileo
assumed towards the Roman curia, and the history of the persecutions
which resulted from it. To this end, however, it appeared absolutely
necessary to give, at any rate in broad outline, a sketch of his aims
and achievements as a whole. For his conflict with the ecclesiastical
power was but the inevitable consequence of his subversive telescopic
discoveries and scientific reforms. It was necessary to make the intimate
connection between these causes and their historical results perfectly
intelligible.
In the narration of historical events we have relied, as far as possible,
upon authentic sources only. Among these are the following:—
1. Galileo’s correspondence, and the correspondence relating to him
between third persons. (Albèri’s “Opere di Galileo Galilei.” Vols. ii.,
iii., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xv., and Suppl., in all 1,564 letters.)
2. The constant reports of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, to
his Government at Florence, during and after Galileo’s trial. (Thirty-one
despatches, from August 15th, 1632, to December 3rd, 1633.)
3. The Acts of the Trial, from the MS. originals in the Vatican.
4. The collection of documents published, in 1870, by Professor Silvestro
Gherardi. Thirty-two extracts from the original protocols of the sittings
and decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office.[3]
5. Some important documents published by the Jesuit Father Riccioli, in
his “Almagestum novum, Bononiæ, 1651.”[4]
We have also been careful to acquaint ourselves with the numerous French
and Italian Lives of Galileo, from the oldest, that of his contemporary,
Gherardini, to the most recent and complete, that of Henri Martin, 1869;
when admissible, we have cautiously used them, constantly comparing them
with authentic sources. As the part of the story of Galileo of which
we have treated is that which has been most frequently discussed in
literature, and from the most widely differing points of view, it could
not fail to be of great interest to us to collect and examine, as far as
it lay in our power, the views, opinions, and criticisms to be found in
various treatises on the subject. We offer our warm thanks to all the
possessors of private, and custodians of public libraries, who have most
liberally and obligingly aided us in our project.
One more remark remains to be made. Party interests and passions have, to
a great extent, and with but few exceptions, guided the pens of those who
have written on this chapter of Galileo’s life. The one side has lauded
him as an admirable martyr of science, and ascribed more cruelty to the
Inquisition than it really inflicted on him; the other has thought proper
to enter the lists as defender of the Inquisition, and to wash it white
at Galileo’s expense. Historical truth contradicts both.
Whatever may be the judgment passed on the present work, to one
acknowledgment we think we may, with a good conscience, lay claim: that,
standing in the service of truth alone, we have anxiously endeavoured to
pursue none other than her sublime interests.
KARL VON GEBLER.
MERAN, _November, 1875_.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PART I.
_GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST
CONFLICT WITH THE ROMAN CURIA._
CHAPTER I.
EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES.
Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on
Music.—Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the
Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins to study Medicine.—Goes to
the University of Pisa.—Discovery of the Synchronism of the
Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic
Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of
Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at
Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter to
Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus orbium
Cœlestium” 3
CHAPTER II.
THE TELESCOPE AND ITS REVELATIONS.
Term of Professorship at Padua renewed.—Astronomy.—A New
Star.—The Telescope.—Galileo not the Inventor.—Visit to Venice
to exhibit it.—Telescopic Discoveries.—Jupiter’s Moons.—Request
of Henry IV.—“Sidereus Nuncius.”—The Storm it raised.—Magini’s
attack on Galileo.—The Ring of Saturn.—An Anagram.—Opposition
of the Aristotelian School.—Letter to Kepler 16
CHAPTER III.
REMOVAL TO FLORENCE.
Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic
Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change
the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of
Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant
Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The
Inquisition.—Introduction of Theology into the Scientific
Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence 27
CHAPTER IV.
ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY.
Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about
the Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s Work
on the subject at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess
Christine.—The Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated
Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini
denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop Bonciani’s
attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the
Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd
accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s
favour 42
CHAPTER V.
HOPES AND FEARS.
Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s
Work.—Blindness of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the
Grand Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to
Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.—Caccini
begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican System at Rome.—His
mistake in so doing 59
CHAPTER VI.
THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED
PROHIBITION TO GALILEO.
Adverse “Opinion” of the Inquisition on Galileo’s
Propositions.—Admonition by Bellarmine, and assumed Absolute
Prohibition to treat of the Copernican Doctrines.—Discrepancy
between Notes of 25th and 26th February.—Marini’s
Documents.—Epinois’s Work on Galileo.—Wohlwill first doubts
the Absolute Prohibition.—Doubts confirmed by Gherardi’s
Documents.—Decree of 5th March, 1616, on the Copernican
System.—Attitude of the Church.—Was the Absolute Prohibition
ever issued to Galileo?—Testimony of Bellarmine in his
favour.—Conclusions 76
CHAPTER VII.
EVIL REPORT AND GOOD REPORT.
Galileo still lingers at Rome.—Guiccardini tries to effect
his Recall.—Erroneous idea that he was trying to get the
Decree repealed.—Intrigues against him.—Audience of Pope Paul
V.—His friendly assurances.—His Character.—Galileo’s return to
Florence 91
CHAPTER VIII.
THE CONTROVERSY ON COMETS.
Studious Seclusion.—Waiting for the Correction of the Work
of Copernicus.—Treatise on Tides.—Sends it to Archduke
Leopold of Austria.—The Letter which accompanied it.—The
three Comets of 1618.—Galileo’s Opinion of Comets.—Grassi’s
Lecture on them.—Guiducci’s Treatise on them, inspired
by Galileo.—Grassi’s “Astronomical and Philosophical
Scales.”—Galileo’s Reply.—Paul V.—His Death.—Death of Cosmo
II.—Gregory XV.—“Il Saggiatore” finished.—Riccardi’s “Opinion”
on it.—Death of Gregory XV.—Urban VIII. 98
CHAPTER IX.
MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII.
His Character.—Taste for Letters.—Friendship for Galileo when
Cardinal.—Letters to him.—Verses in his honour.—Publication of
“Il Saggiatore” with Dedication to the Pope.—Character of the
Work.—The Pope’s approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed
Prohibition 108
CHAPTER X.
PAPAL FAVOUR.
Galileo goes to Rome to congratulate Urban VIII. on his
Accession.—Favourable reception.—Scientific discussions
with the Pope.—Urban refuses to Revoke the Decree of 5th
March.—Nicolo Riccardi.—The Microscope.—Galileo not the
Inventor.—Urban’s favours to Galileo on leaving Rome.—Galileo’s
reply to Ingoli.—Sanguine hopes.—Grassi’s hypocrisy.—Spinola’s
harangue against the Copernican System.—Lothario Sarsi’s reply
to “Il Saggiatore.”—Galileo writes his “Dialogues” 114
PART II.
_PUBLICATION OF THE “DIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF
THE WORLD,” AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO._
CHAPTER I.
THE “DIALOGUES” ON THE TWO SYSTEMS.
Origin of the “Dialogues.”—Their popular style.—Significance
of the name Simplicius.—Hypothetical treatment of the
Copernican System.—Attitude of Rome towards Science.—Thomas
Campanella.—Urban VIII.’s duplicity.—Galileo takes his MS. to
Rome.—Riccardi’s corrections.—He gives the _Imprimatur_ on
certain conditions.—Galileo returns to Florence to complete the
Work 127
CHAPTER II.
THE IMPRIMATUR FOR THE “DIALOGUES.”
Death of Prince Cesi.—Dissolution of the Accadémia dei
Lincei.—Galileo advised to print at Florence.—Difficulties and
delays.—His impatience.—Authorship of the Introduction.—The
_Imprimatur_ granted for Florence.—Absurd accusation from the
style of the Type of the Introduction 138
CHAPTER III.
THE “DIALOGUES” AND THE JESUITS.
Publication of the “Dialogues.”—Applause of Galileo’s friends
and the learned world.—The hostile party.—The Jesuits
as leaders of learning.—Deprived of their monopoly by
Galileo.—They become his bitter foes.—Having the _Imprimatur_
for Rome and Florence, Galileo thought himself doubly
safe.—The three dolphins.—Scheiner.—Did “Simplicius” personate
the Pope?—Conclusive arguments against it.—Effect of the
accusation.—Urban’s motives in instituting the Trial 151
CHAPTER IV.
DISCOVERY OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF 1616.
Symptoms of the coming Storm.—The Special Commission.—Parade of
forbearance.—The Grand Duke intercedes for Galileo.—Provisional
Prohibition of the “Dialogues.”—Niccolini’s Interview
with the Pope and unfavourable reception.—Report of it to
Cioli.—Magalotti’s Letters.—Real object of the Special
Commission to find a pretext for the Trial.—Its discovery in
the assumed Prohibition of 1616.—Report of the Commission, and
charges against Galileo 163
CHAPTER V.
THE SUMMONS TO ROME.
Niccolini’s attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope’s
Parable.—The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His grief
and consternation.—His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed
order to come to Rome.—Niccolini’s fruitless efforts
to save him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to
travel.—Castelli’s hopeful view of the case.—Threat to bring
him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to
go.—His powerlessness to protect his servant.—Galileo’s mistake
in leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati 175
CHAPTER VI.
GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME.
Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan
Embassy.—No notice at first taken of his coming.—Visits
of Serristori.—Galileo’s hopefulness.—His Letter to
Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the
Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that
he must appear before the Holy Office.—His dejection at the
news.—Niccolini’s advice not to defend himself 191
CHAPTER VII.
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION.
The first hearing.—Galileo’s submissive attitude.—The events
of February, 1616.—Galileo denies knowledge of a special
Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s certificate.—Either the
Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s ignorance was
feigned.—His conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The
Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—“Opinions” of Oregius,
Inchofer and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the Palace
of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to
Geri Bocchineri.—Change of tone at second hearing hitherto an
enigma.—Now explained by letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr.
Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency 201
CHAPTER VIII.
THE TRIAL CONTINUED.
Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His
hopefulness.—Third hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement
of it with previous events.—Confident hopes of his
friends.—Niccolini’s fears.—Decision to examine Galileo under
threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s audience of the Pope.—Informed
that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be Sentenced,
and would be Imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to
“_locum suum_.”—No evidence that he suffered Torture, or was
placed in a prison cell 217
CHAPTER IX.
THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.
The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican
System had not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible”
authority.—The special Prohibition assumed as fact.—The
Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office
exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—The
Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred
and thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to
show that Galileo had really altered his opinion.—After the
Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’
Monti.—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to
Siena 230
CHAPTER X.
CURRENT MYTHS.
Popular Story of Galileo’s Fate.—His Eyes put out.—“E pur si
Muove.”—The Hair Shirt.—Imprisonment.—Galileo only detained
twenty-two Days at the Holy Office.—Torture.—Refuted in 18th
Century.—Torture based on the words “_examen rigorosum_.”—This
shown to be untenable.—Assertion that the Acts have been
falsified refuted.—False Imputation on Niccolini.—Conclusive
Evidence against Torture.—Galileo not truly a “Martyr of
Science” 249
PART III.
_GALILEO’S LAST YEARS._
CHAPTER I.
GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI.
Arrival at Siena.—Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany
to ask for his release.—Postponed on the advice of
Niccolini.—Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican
System.—Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors
of Italy.—Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate
against the publication of any new Work of Galileo’s,
or new Edition.—Curious Arguments in favour of the old
System.—Niccolini asks for Galileo’s release.—Refusal,
but permission given to go to Arcetri.—Anonymous
accusations.—Death of his Daughter.—Request for permission
to go to Florence.—Harsh refusal and threat.—Letter to
Diodati.—Again at work.—Intervention of the Count de Noailles
on Galileo’s behalf.—Prediction that he will be compared to
Socrates.—Letter to Peiresc.—Publication of Galileo’s Works in
Holland.—Continued efforts of Noailles.—Urban’s fair speeches 267
CHAPTER II.
FAILING HEALTH AND LOSS OF SIGHT.
Galileo’s Labours at Arcetri.—Completion of the “Dialoghi delle
nuove Scienze.”—Sends it to the Elzevirs at Leyden.—Method
of taking Longitudes at Sea.—Declined by Spain and offered
to Holland.—Discovery of the Libration and Titubation of the
Moon.—Visit from Milton.—Becomes blind.—Letter to Diodati.—On a
hint from Castelli, petitions for his Liberty.—The Inquisitor
to visit him and report to Rome.—Permitted to live at Florence
under restrictions.—The States-General appoint a Delegate to
see him on the Longitude question.—The Inquisitor sends word
of it to Rome.—Galileo not to receive a Heretic.—Presents
from the States-General refused from fear of Rome.—Letter to
Diodati.—Galileo supposed to be near his end.—Request that
Castelli might come to him.—Permitted under restrictions.—The
new “Dialoghi” appear at Leyden, 1638.—They founded Mechanical
Physics.—Attract much notice.—Improvement of health.—In 1639
goes to Arcetri again, probably not voluntarily 284
CHAPTER III.
LAST YEARS AND DEATH.
Refusal of some Favour asked by Galileo.—His pious
Resignation.—Continues his scientific Researches.—His
pupil Viviani.—Failure of attempt to renew Negotiations
about Longitudes.—Reply to Liceti and Correspondence with
him.—Last discussion of the Copernican System in reply to
Rinuccini.—Sketch of its contents.—Pendulum Clocks.—Priority
of the discovery belongs to Galileo.—Visit from
Castelli.—Torricelli joins Viviani.—Scientific discourse on his
Deathbed.—Death, 8th Jan., 1642.—Proposal to deny him Christian
Burial.—Monument objected to by Urban VIII.—Ferdinand II. fears
to offend him.—Buried quietly.—No Inscription till thirty-two
years later.—First Public Monument erected by Viviani in
1693.—Viviani directs his heirs to erect one in Santa
Croce.—Erected in 1738.—Rome unable to put down Copernican
System.—In 1757 Benedict XIV. permits the clause in Decree
forbidding books which teach the new System to be expunged.—In
1820 permission given to treat of it as true.—Galileo’s work
and others not expunged from the Index till 1835 299
APPENDIX.
I. HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 319
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 330
III. ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT 334
IV. GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS 341
V. DECREE OF 5TH MARCH, 1616 345
VI. REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION 347
WORKS CONSULTED.[5]
ALBÈRI (Eugenio): “Le opere di Galileo Galilei.” Prima edizione completa
condotta sugli autentici manoscritti Palatini. Firenze, 1842-1856.
*“Sul Processo di Galileo. Due Lettere in risposta al giornale
S’opinione.” Firenze, 1864.
ANONYM: “Der heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei und das astronomische
System des Copernicus.” Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische
Deutschland; herausgegeben von G. Phillips und G. Görres. Siebenter Band.
München, 1841.
“Galileo Galilei. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung für die
Entwickelung der Naturwissenschaft.” Die Fortschritte der
Naturwissenschaft in biographischen Bildern. Drittes Heft.
Berlin, 1856.
“Galileo Galilei.” Die Grenzboten. XXIV. Jahrgang. I. Semester.
Nr. 24. 1865.
*ARDUINI (Carlo): “La Primogenita di Galileo Galilei rivelata dalle sue
lettere.” Florence, 1864.
BARBIER (Antoine Alexandre): “Examen critique et complément des
dictionnaires historiques les plus répandus.” Paris, 1820. Article
Galilée.
*BERTI (Prof. Domenico): “La venuta di Galileo Galilei a Padova. Studii.
Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, dal Novembre
1870 all’ ottobre 1871.” Tomo decimosesto, seria terza, dispensa quinta,
ottava, nono e decima. Venezia, 1870, 1871.
*“Copernico e le vicende del Sistema Copernicano in Italia
nella seconda metà del secolo XVI. e nella prima del secolo
XVII.” Roma, 1876.
“Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei, pubblicato per la
prima volta.” Roma, 1876.
“La Critica moderna e il Processo contro Galileo Galilei.”
(Nuova Antologia, Gennajo, 1877 Firenze.)
BOUIX (L’Abbé): “La condamnation de Galilée. Lapsus des écrivains, qui
l’opposent à la doctrine de l’infaillibilité du Pape.”—Revue des Sciences
ecclésiastiques. Arras-Paris, février et mars, 1866.
CANTOR (Professor Dr. Moritz): “Galileo Galilei.” _Zeitschrift für
Mathematik und Physik._ 9. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. Leipzig, 1864.
“Recensionen über die 1870 erschienenen Schriften Wohlwill’s
und Gherardi’s über den Galilei’schen Process.” _Zeitschrift
für Mathematik und Physik._ 16. Jahrgang. 1. Heft. 1871.
CASPAR (Dr. R.): “Galileo Galilei. Zusammenstellung der Forschungen und
Entdeckungen Galilei’s auf dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft, als Beitrag
zur Geschichte der neueren Physik.” Stuttgart, 1854.
CHASLES (Prof. Philarète): “Galileo Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses
contemporains d’après les documents originaux.” Paris, 1862.
*COMBES (Louis): “Galilée et L’Inquisition Romaine.” Paris, 1876.
DELAMBRE (Jean Baptiste Joseph): “Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne.”
Paris, 1821.
ECKERT (Professor Dr.): “Galileo Galilei, dessen Leben und Verdienste um
die Wissenschaften.” Als Einladung zur Promotionsfeier des Pädagogiums.
Basel, 1858.
EPINOIS (Henri de L’): “Galilée, son procès, sa condamnation d’après des
documents inédits.” Extrait de la Revue des questions historiques. Paris,
1867.
*“Les Pièces du Procès de Galilée, précédées d’un
avant-propos.” Rome, Paris, 1877 v. Palmé société Générale de
Librairie Catholique.
*“La Question de Galilée, les faits et leurs conséquences.”
Paris Palmé, 1878.
FIGUIER (Louis): “Galilée.” Vies des savants illustres du dix-septième
siècle. Paris, 1869.
FRIEDLEIN (Rector): “Zum Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.”
_Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 3. Heft. 1872.
GHERARDI (Prof. Silvestro): “Il Processo Galileo riveduto sopra documenti
di nuova fonte.” _Rivista Europea._ Anno 1. Vol. III. Firenze, 1870.[6]
“Sulla Dissertazione del dott. Emilio Wohlwill. Il processo di
Galileo Galilei.” Estratto della _Rivista Europea_. Firenze,
1872.
*GILBERT (Prof. Ph.): “Le Procès de Galilée d’après les Documents
contemporains.” Extrait de la Revue Catholique tomes I., II. Louvains,
1869.
GOVI (Gilberto): “Intorno a certi manuscritti apocrifi di Galileo.”
Torino, 1869. Estr. dagli Atti della Accadémia delle Scienze di Torino
Vol. V. Adunanza del 21 Nov. 1869.
“Intorno a tre lettere di Galileo Galilei tratte dall’ archivio
dei Gonzaga.” Bollettino di bibliografia e di storia delle
scienze matematiche e fisiche pubblicato da B. Boncompagni.
Tomo III. Roma, 1870.
GOVI (Gilberto): “Il S. Offizio, Copernico e Galileo a proposito di un
opuscolo postumo del P. Olivieri sullo stesso argomento.” Torino, 1872.
*GRISAR (Prof. H. S. J.): “Der Galilei’sche Process auf der neuesten
Actenpublicationen historisch und juristisch geprüft.” _Zeitschrift für
Kath. Theol._ II. Jahrgang, pp. 65-128. Innsbruck.
JAGEMANN: “Geschichte des Lebens und der Schriften des Galileo Galilei.”
Neue Auflage. Leipzig, 1787.
LIBRI: “Galileo Galilei, sein Leben und seine Werke.” Aus dem
Französischen mit Anmerkungen von F. W. Carové. Siegen und Wiesbaden,
1842.
MARINI (Mgr. Marino): “Galileo e l’inquisizione.” Memorie
storico-critiche. Roma, 1850.
MARTIN (Henri Th.): “Galilée, les droits de la science et la méthode des
sciences physiques.” Paris, 1868.
NELLI (Gio. Batista Clemente de): “Vita e commercio letterario di Galileo
Galilei.” Losanna (Firenze), 1793.
OLIVIERI (P. Maurizio-Benedetto Ex. generale dei domenicani e Commissario
della S. Rom. ed Univer. Inquisizione): “Di Copernico e di Galileo
scritto postumo ora per la prima volta messo in luce sull’ autografo per
cura d’un religioso dello stesso istituto.” Bologna, 1872.
PARCHAPPE (Dr. Max): “Galilée, sa vie, ses découvertes et ses travaux.”
Paris, 1866.
*PIERALISI (Sante, Sacerdote e Bibliotecario della Barberiniana): “Urbano
VIII. e Galileo Galilei: Memorie Storiche.” Roma, 1875. Tipografia
poliglotta della L. P. di Propaganda Fide.
*“Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. Galileo Galilei proposte
dall’ autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazione sopra il processo
originale di Galileo Galilei pubblicato da Domenico Berti.”
Settembre, 1876.
REITLINGER (Prof. Edmund): “Galileo Galilei.” Freie Blicke.
Populärwissenschaftliche Aufsätze. Berlin, 1875.
REUMONT (Alfred von): “Galilei und Rom.” Beiträge zur italienischen
Geschichte. 1 Bd. Berlin, 1853.
REUSCH (Professor Dr. F. H.): “Der Galilei’sche Procesz.” Ein Vortrag.
Historische Zeitschrift; herausgegeben von Prof. Heinrich von Sybel. 17.
Jahrgang. 1875. 3. Heft.
REZZI (M. Domenica): “Sulla invenzione del microscopio, giuntavi una
notizia delle Considerazioni al Tasso attribuite a Galileo Galilei.”
Roma, 1852.
*RICCARDI (Prof. Cav. Pietro): “Di alcune recenti memorie sul processo e
sulla condanna del Galilei. Nota e Documenti aggiunti alla bibliografia
Galileiana.” Modena, 1873.
RICCIOLI (P. Jo. Bapt.): “Almagestum novum.” Bonioniae, 1651.
ROSINI (M. Giovanni): “Per l’inaugurazione solenne della statua di
Galileo.” Orazione. Pisa, 1839 (2 Oct).
ROSSI (Prof. Giuseppe): “Del Metodo Galileiano.” Bologna, 1877.
*SCARTAZZINI (Dr. T. A.): “Der Process des Galileo Galilei.” _Unsere
Zeit._ Jahrgang 13. Heft 7 and 18.
*“Il processo di Galileo Galilei e la moderna critica tedesca.”
_Revista Europea_, Vol. IV. Part V., Vol. V. Parts I and II., 1
and 16 Jan. 1878.
*SCHNEEMANN (P. S. J.): “Galileo Galilei und der Römische Stuhl.” Stimmen
aus Maria Laach. Kath. Blättern. Nos. 2, 3, 4, Feb. Mar. April, 1878.
SNELL (Dr. Carl): “Ueber Galilei als Begründer der mechanischen Physik
und über die Methode derselben.” Jena, 1864.
TARGIONI TOZZETTI: “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche in
Toscana.” Firenze, 1780. (Contains in Vol. ii.: “Vita di Galileo scritta
da Nic. Gherardini.”)
VENTURI (Cav. Giambattista): “Memorie e lettere inedite finora o disperse
di Galileo Galilei.” Modena, 1818-1821.
VIVIANI: “Raconto istorico della vita di Galileo Galilei.” (Enthalten im
XV. Bande der Opere di Galileo Galilei. Prima edizione completa. Firenze,
1856.)
VOSEN (Dr. Christian Hermann): “Galileo Galilei und die Römische
Berurtheilung des Copernicanischen Systems.” Broschürenverein Nr. 5.
Frankfurt am M. 1865.
WOHLWILL (Dr. Emil): “Der Inquisitionsprocess des Galileo Galilei.
Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen
Inquisition.” Berlin, 1870.
*“Ist Galilei gefoltert worden? Eine kritische Studie.”
Leipzig, 1877.
“Zum Inquisitionsprocesz des Galileo Galilei.” _Zeitschrift für
Mathematik und Physik._ 17. Jahrgang. 2. Heft. 1872.
*WOLYNSKI (Dott. Arturio): “Lettere inedite a Galileo Galilei.” Firenze,
1872.
*“Relazione di Galileo Galilei colla Polonia esposte secondo i
documenti per la maggior parte non pubblicati.” Firenze, 1873.
“La Diplomazia Toscana e Galileo Galilei.” Firenze, 1874.
PART I.
_GALILEO’S EARLY YEARS, HIS IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES, AND FIRST CONFLICT
WITH THE ROMAN CURIA._
CHAPTER I.
_EARLY YEARS AND FIRST DISCOVERIES._
Birth at Pisa.—Parentage.—His Father’s Writings on
Music.—Galileo destined to be a Cloth Merchant.—Goes to the
Convent of Vallombrosa.—Begins to study Medicine.—Goes to
the University of Pisa.—Discovery of the Isochronism of the
Pendulum.—Stolen Lessons in Mathematics.—His Hydrostatic
Scales.—Professorship at Pisa.—Poor Pay.—The Laws of
Motion.—John de’ Medici.—Leaves Pisa.—Professorship at
Padua.—Writes various Treatises.—The Thermoscope.—Letter to
Kepler.—The Copernican System.—“De Revolutionibus Orbium
Cœlestium.”
The same memorable day is marked by the setting of one of the most
brilliant stars in the firmament of art and the rising of another in the
sphere of science, which was to enlighten the world with beams of equal
splendour. On the 18th February, 1564, Michael Angelo Buonarotti closed
his eyes at Rome, and Galileo Galilei first saw the light at Pisa.
He was the son of the Florentine nobleman, Vincenzo Galilei, and of
Julia, one of the ancient family of the Ammanati of Pescia, and was
born in wedlock, as the documents of the church clearly attest.[7]
His earliest years were spent at Pisa, but his parents soon returned
to Florence, which was their settled home. Here he received his early
education. His father had distinguished himself by his writings on the
theory of music, particularly the mathematical part of it.[8] They were
not merely above mediocrity, but aimed at innovation, and if they did not
achieve reform, it was to be attributed to the conservative spirit then
reigning in Italy, which asserted itself in every department of life, and
especially in the spheres of art and science.
Galileo’s father had no property. His income was but scanty, and the
fates had endowed him with a numerous family instead of with fortune.[9]
Under these untoward circumstances he at first destined the little
Galileo, as is related by Gherardini, his earliest biographer, to a
career by no means distinguished, though advantageous in a material point
of view, and one that conferred much of their wealth on the Florentines,
so that it was held in high esteem—he was to be a cloth dealer. But the
young noble first received the education befitting his station, that is,
a very mediocre teacher instructed him in the Humanities.[10] Fortunately
for the clever young scholar, he was handed over to the pious brethren of
the convent of Vallombrosa for further education. Here he at once made
rapid progress. He acquired great facility in the classics. His thorough
study of the masterpieces of antiquity was of the greatest advantage to
him. He doubtless thereby laid the foundation of the admirable style to
which he afterwards, in some measure, owed his brilliant successes.
Galileo had a great variety of talent. Besides ardent pursuit of the
solid branches of learning, he had considerable skill in drawing and
music, in which he afterwards attained so much perfection that his
judgment was highly esteemed, even by great artists.[11] He played the
lute himself with the skill of a master. He also highly appreciated
poetry. His later essays on Dante, Orlando Furioso, and Gerusalemme
Liberata, as well as the fragment of a play, bear witness to his lively
interest in _belles lettres_. But from his earliest youth he showed
the greatest preference for mechanics. He made little machines with
an ingenuity and skill which evinced a really unusual talent for such
things.[12]
With these abilities his father must soon have arrived at the conclusion
that his son was born for something better than for distributing wool
among the people, and resolved to devote him to science; only it was
necessary that the branch of it to which he turned his attention should
offer a prospect of profit. Medicine was decided on as the most likely
to be lucrative, although it may not seem the one most suited to his
abilities.
On 5th November, 1581, Galileo, then just seventeen, entered the
University of Pisa.[13] Even here the young medical student’s
independent ideas and aims made way for themselves. At that time any
original ideas and philosophical views not derived from the dogmas of
Aristotle were unheard of. All the theories of natural science and
philosophy had hitherto been referred to theology. It had been held
to be the Alpha and Omega of all human knowledge. But now the period
was far advanced in which it was felt to be necessary to cast off the
narrow garments fashioned by religion, though at first the will to
do so exceeded the power. A stir and ferment agitated men’s minds. A
period of storm and stress had begun for the study of nature and the
philosophical speculation so closely connected with it. Men did not as
yet possess energy and ability for direct advance, so they turned with
real fanaticism to ancient learning, which, being independent, and not
based on religious notions, afforded them satisfaction. Under these
circumstances recurrence to the past was real progress.
Unconditional surrender to the ideas of others, entire adoption
of opinions, some of which were not too well verified, might suit
mediocrity, but it could not suffice for the powerful mind of Galileo,
who was striving to find out the truth for himself. The genius of the
young student rebelled fiercely against rigid adherence to an antiquated
standpoint. To the horror of the followers of Aristotle, who were quite
taken aback at such unheard-of audacity, he resolutely attacked in
public disputations many oracular dicta of their great master hitherto
unquestioned, and this even then made him many enemies, and acquired for
him the epithet of “the Wrangler.”[14]
Two circumstances occur during Galileo’s student years, which, in their
main features, are not without historical foundation, although in detail
they bear an anecdotal impress. One, which is characteristic of Galileo’s
observant eye, shows us the student of nineteen devoutly praying in the
Cathedral at Pisa; but he seems to have soon wearied of this occupation,
for he dreamily fixed his eye on the Maestro Possenti’s beautiful lamp,
hanging from an arch, which, in order to light it more readily, had
been moved out of its vertical position and then left to itself. The
oscillations were at first considerable, became gradually less and less,
but notwithstanding the varying distances, they were all performed in
the same time, as the young medical student discovered to a nicety by
feeling his pulse. The isochronism of the vibrations of the pendulum was
discovered![15]
The other story refers to Galileo’s first mathematical studies.
Gherardini relates that he was scarcely acquainted with the elements of
mathematics up to his twentieth year, which, by the by, seems almost
incredible. But while he was diligently studying medicine at Pisa, the
court of Tuscany came there for some months. Among the suite was Ostilio
Ricci, governor of the pages, a distinguished mathematician and an old
friend of the Galilei family; Galileo, therefore, often visited him. One
morning when he was there, Ricci was teaching the pages. Galileo stood
shyly at the door of the schoolroom, listening attentively to the lesson;
his interest grew greater and greater; he followed the demonstration of
the mathematical propositions with bated breath. Strongly attracted by
the science almost unknown to him before, as well as by Ricci’s method
of instruction, he often returned, but always unobserved, and, Euclid in
hand, drank deeply, from his uncomfortable concealment, of the streams
of fresh knowledge. Mathematics also occupied the greater part of his
time in the solitude of his study. But all this did not satisfy his
thirst for knowledge. He longed to be himself taught by Ricci. At last he
took courage, and, hesitatingly confessing his sins of curiosity to the
astonished tutor, he besought him to unveil to him the further mysteries
of mathematics, to which Ricci at once consented.
When Galileo’s father learnt that his son was devoting himself to Euclid
at the expense of Hippocrates and Galen, he did his utmost to divert him
from this new, and as it seemed to him, unprofitable study. The science
of mathematics was not then held in much esteem, as it led to nothing
practical. Its use, as applied to the laws of nature, had scarcely
begun to be recognised. But the world-wide mission for which Galileo’s
genius destined him had been too imperiously marked out by fate for
him to be held back by the mere will of any man. Old Vincenzo had to
learn the unconquerable power of genius in young Galileo, and to submit
to it. The son pursued the studies marked out for him by nature more
zealously than ever, and at length obtained leave from his father to bid
adieu to medicine and to devote himself exclusively to mathematics and
physics.[16]
The unexpected successes won by the young philosopher in a very short
time in the realm of science, soon showed that his course had now been
turned into the proper channel. Galileo’s father, who, almost crushed
with the burden of his family, could with difficulty bear the expense
of his son’s residence at the University, turned in his perplexity to
the beneficence of the reigning Grand Duke, Ferdinand de’ Medici, with
the request that, in consideration of the distinguished talents and
scientific attainments of Galileo, he would grant him one of the forty
free places founded for poor students at the University. But even then
there were many who were envious of Galileo in consequence of his unusual
abilities and his rejection of the traditional authority of Aristotle.
They succeeded in inducing the Grand Duke to refuse poor Vincenzo’s
petition, in consequence of which the young student had to leave the
University, after four years’ residence, without taking the doctor’s
degree.[17]
In spite of these disappointments, Galileo was not deterred, on his
return home, from continuing his independent researches into natural
phenomena. The most important invention of those times, to which he was
led by the works of Archimedes, too little regarded during the Middle
Ages, was his hydrostatic scales, about the construction and use of which
he wrote a treatise, called “La Bilancetta.” This, though afterwards
circulated in manuscript copies among his followers and pupils, was not
printed until after his death, in 1655.
Galileo now began to be everywhere spoken of in Italy. The discovery of
the movement of the pendulum as a measurement of time, the importance
of which was increasingly recognised, combined with his novel and
intellectual treatment of physics, by which the phenomena of nature were
submitted, as far as possible, to direct proof instead of to the _a
priori_ reasoning of the Aristotelians, excited much attention in all
scientific circles. Distinguished men of learning, like Clavius at Rome,
with whom he had become acquainted on his first visit there in 1587,[18]
Michael Coignet at Antwerp, Riccoboni, the Marquis Guidubaldo del Monte,
etc., entered into correspondence with him.[19] Intercourse with the
latter, a distinguished mathematician, who took the warmest interest in
Galileo’s fate, became of the utmost importance to him. It was not merely
that to his encouragement he owed the origin of his excellent treatise
on the doctrine of centres of gravity, which materially contributed to
establish his fame, and even gained for him from Del Monte the name of
an “Archimedes of his time,” but he first helped him to secure a settled
and honourable position in life. By his opportune recommendation in 1589,
the professorship of mathematics at the University of Pisa, just become
vacant, was conferred on Galileo, with an income of sixty scudi.[20]
It is indicative of the standing of the sciences in those days that,
while the professor of medicine had a salary of two thousand scudi, the
professor of mathematics had not quite thirty kreuzers[21] a day. Even
for the sixteenth century it was very poor pay. Moreover, in accordance
with the usage at the Italian Universities, he was only installed for
three years; but in Galileo’s needy circumstances, even this little help
was very desirable, and his office enabled him to earn a considerable
additional income by giving private lessons.
During the time of his professorship at Pisa he made his grand researches
into the laws of gravitation, now known under the name of “Galileo’s
Laws,” and wrote as the result of them his great treatise “De Motu
Gravium.” It then had but a limited circulation in copies, and did not
appear in print until two hundred years after his death, in Albèri’s
“Opere complete di Galileo Galilei.” Aristotle, nearly two thousand
years before, had raised the statement to the rank of a proposition, that
the rate at which a body falls depends on its weight. Up to Galileo’s
time this doctrine had been generally accepted as true, on the mere word
of the old hero of science, although individual physicists, like Varchi
in 1544, and Benedetti in 1563, had disputed it, maintaining that bodies
of similar density and different weight fall from the same height in
an equal space of time. They sought to prove the correctness of this
statement by the most acute reasoning, but the idea of experiment did not
occur to any one. Galileo, well aware that the touchstone of experiment
would discover the vulnerable spot in Aristotelian infallibility, climbed
the leaning tower of Pisa, in order thence to prove by experiment, to the
discomfiture of the Peripatetic school, the truth of the axiom that the
velocity with which a body falls does not depend on its weight but on its
density.[22]
It might have been thought that his opponents would strike sail after
this decisive argument. Aristotle, the master, would certainly have
yielded to it—but his disciples had attained no such humility. They
followed the bold experiments of the young professor with eyes askance
and miserable sophistries, and, being unable to meet him with his own
weapons of scientific research, they eagerly sought an opportunity of
showing the impious and dangerous innovator the door of the _aula_.
An unforeseen circumstance came all at once to their aid in these
designs. An illegitimate son of the half-brother of the reigning Grand
Duke,—the relationship was somewhat farfetched, but none the less ominous
for Galileo—John de’ Medici, took an innocent pleasure in inventing
machines, and considered himself a very skilful artificer. This ingenious
semi-prince had constructed a monster machine for cleaning the harbour of
Leghorn, and proposed that it should be brought into use. But Galileo,
who had been commissioned to examine the marvel, declared it to be
useless, and, unfortunately, experiment fully confirmed the verdict.
Ominous head-shakings were seen among the suite of the deeply mortified
inventor. They entered into alliance with the Peripatetic philosophers
against their common enemy. There were cabals at court. Galileo,
perceiving that his position at Pisa was untenable, voluntarily resigned
his professorship before the three years had expired, and migrated for
the second time home to Florence.[23]
His situation was now worse than before, for about this time, 2nd July,
1591, his father died after a short illness, leaving his family in very
narrow circumstances. In this distress the Marquis del Monte again
appeared as a friend in need. Thanks to his warm recommendation to the
Senate of the Republic of Venice, in the autumn of 1592 the professorship
of mathematics at the University of Padua, which had become vacant, was
bestowed on Galileo for six years.[24] On 7th December, 1592, he entered
on his office with a brilliant opening address, which won the greatest
admiration, not only for its profound scientific knowledge, but for its
entrancing eloquence.[25] His lectures soon acquired further fame, and
the number of his admirers and the audience who eagerly listened to his,
in many respects, novel demonstrations, daily increased.
During his residence at Padua, Galileo displayed an extraordinary and
versatile activity. He constructed various machines for the service
of the republic, and wrote a number of excellent treatises, intended
chiefly for his pupils.[26] Among the larger works may be mentioned his
writings on the laws of motion, on fortification, gnomonics (the making
of sun-dials), mechanics, and on the celestial globe, which attained a
wide circulation even in copies, and were some of them printed long
afterwards—the one on fortification not until the present century;[27]
others, including the one on gnomonics, are unfortunately lost. On the
wide field of inventions two may be specially mentioned, one of which
was not fully developed until much later. The first was his proportional
circle, which, though it had no special importance as illustrative of
any principle, had a wide circulation from its various practical uses.
Ten years later, in 1606, Galileo published an excellent didactic work
on this subject, dedicated to Cosmo de’ Medici, and in 1607 a polemical
one against Balthasar Capra, of Milan, who, in a treatise published in
1607, which was nothing but a plagiarism of Galileo’s work disfigured by
blunders, gave himself out as the inventor of the instrument. Galileo’s
reply, in which he first exhibited the polemical dexterity afterwards
so much dreaded, excited great attention even in lay circles from its
masterly satire.[28] The other invention was a contrivance by which heat
could be more exactly indicated. Over zealous biographers have therefore
hastened to claim for their hero the invention of the thermometer, which,
however, is not correct, as the instrument, which was not intended to
measure the temperature, could not be logically called a thermometer, but
a thermoscope, heat indicator. Undoubtedly it prepared the way by which
improvers of the thermoscope arrived at the thermometer.[29]
Before proceeding further with Galileo’s researches and discoveries, so
far as they fall within our province, it seems important to acquaint
ourselves with his views about the Copernican system. From a letter of
his to Mazzoni, of 30th May, 1597,[30] it is clear that he considered
the opinions of Pythagoras and Copernicus on the position and motion of
the earth to be far more correct than those of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
In another letter of 4th August of the same year to Kepler, he thanks
him for his work, which he had sent him, on the Mysteries of the
Universe,[31] and writes as follows about the Copernican system:—
“I count myself happy, in the search after truth, to have so
great an ally as yourself, and one who is so great a friend
of the truth itself. It is really pitiful that there are so
few who seek truth, and who do not pursue a perverse method
of philosophising. But this is not the place to mourn over
the miseries of our times, but to congratulate you on your
splendid discoveries in confirmation of truth. I shall read
your book to the end, sure of finding much that is excellent
in it. I shall do so with the more pleasure, because _I have
been for many years an adherent of the Copernican system_, and
it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances of
nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly accepted
hypothesis. _I have collected many arguments for the purpose
of refuting the latter_; but I do not venture to bring them to
the light of publicity, for fear of sharing the fate of our
master, Copernicus, who, although he has earned immortal fame
with some, yet with very many (so great is the number of fools)
has become an object of ridicule and scorn. I should certainly
venture to publish my speculations if there were more people
like you. But this not being the case, I refrain from such an
undertaking.”[32]
In an answer from Grätz, of 13th October of the same year, Kepler
urgently begs him to publish his researches into the Copernican system,
advising him to bring them out in Germany if he does not receive
permission to do so in Italy.[33] In spite of this pressing request of
his eminent friend, however, Galileo was not to be induced to bring
his convictions to the light yet, a hesitation which may not appear
very commendable. But if we consider the existing state of science,
which condemned the Copernican system as an unheard of and fantastic
hypothesis, and the religious incubus which weighed down all knowledge
of nature irrespective of religious belief, and if, besides all this,
we remember the entire revolution in the sphere both of religion and
science involved in the reception of the Copernican system, we shall be
more ready to admit that Galileo had good reason to be cautious. The
Copernican cause could not be served by mere partisanship, but only
by independent fresh researches to prove its correctness, indeed its
irrefragability. Nothing but the fulfilment of these conditions formed a
justification, either in a scientific or moral point of view, for taking
part in overturning the previous views of the universe.
Before the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question it, our earth
was held to be the centre of the universe, and about it all the rest
of the heavenly bodies revolved. There was but one “world,” and that
was our earth; the whole firmament, infinity, was the fitting frame to
the picture, upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position
which was truly sublime. It was an elevating thought that you were on
the centre, the only fixed point amidst countless revolving orbs! The
narrations in the Bible, and the character of the Christian religion
as a whole, fitted this conception exceedingly well; or, more properly
speaking, were made to fit it. The creation of man, his fall, the flood,
and our second venerable ancestor, Noah, with his ark in which the
continuation of races was provided for, the foundation of the Christian
religion, the work of redemption;—all this could only lay claim to
universal importance so long as the earth was the centre of the universe,
the only world. Then all at once a learned man makes the annihilating
assertion that our world was not the centre of the universe, but revolved
itself, was but an insignificant part of the vast, immeasurable system
of worlds. What had become of the favoured status of the earth? And this
indefinite number of bodies, equally favoured by nature, were they also
the abodes of men? The bare possibility of a number of inhabited worlds
could but imperil the first principles of Christian philosophy.
The system of the great Copernicus, however, thanks to the anonymous
preface to his famous work, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,”
had not, up to this time, assumed to be a correct theory, but only a
hypothesis, which need not be considered even probable, as it was only
intended to facilitate astronomical calculations. We know now that
this was a gigantic mistake, that the immortal astronomer had aimed
at rectifying the Ptolemaic confusion, and was fully convinced of the
correctness of his system; we know that this unprincipled Introduction
is by no means to be attributed to Copernicus, but to Andreas Osiander,
who took part in publishing this book, which formed so great an epoch
in science, and whose anxious soul thereby desired to appease the
anticipated wrath of the theologians and philosophers. And we know
further that the founder of our present system of the universe, although
he handled the first finished copy of his imperishable work when he was
dying, was unable to look into it, being already struck by paralysis,
and thus never knew of Osiander’s weak-minded Introduction, which had
prudently not been submitted to him.[34]
A few days after receiving a copy of the great work of his genius,
Copernicus died, on 24th May, 1543; and his system, for which he had been
labouring and striving all his life, was, in consequence of Osiander’s
sacrilegious act, reduced to a simple hypothesis intended to simplify
astronomical calculations! As such it did not in the least endanger
the faith of the Church. Even Pope Paul III., to whom Copernicus had
dedicated his work, received it “with pleasure.” In 1566 a second edition
appeared at Basle, and still it did not excite any opposition from the
Church. It was not till 1616, when it had met with wide acceptance among
the learned, when its correctness had been confirmed by fresh facts, and
it had begun to be looked upon as true, that the Roman curia felt moved
to condemn the work of Copernicus until it had been corrected (_donec
corrigantur_).
Having thus rapidly glanced at the opposition between the Copernican
system and the Ptolemaic, which forms the prelude to Galileo’s subsequent
relations with Rome, we are at liberty to fulfil the task we have set
ourselves, namely, to portray “Galileo and the Roman Curia.”