_REMOVAL TO FLORENCE._
Galileo’s Fame and Pupils.—Wishes to be freed from Academic
Duties.—Projected Works.—Call to Court of Tuscany.—This change
the source of his Misfortunes.—Letter from Sagredo.—Phases of
Venus and Mercury.—The Solar Spots.—Visit to Rome.—Triumphant
Reception.—Letter from Cardinal del Monte to Cosmo II.—The
Inquisition.—Introduction of Theology into the Scientific
Controversy.—“Dianoja Astronomica.”—Intrigues at Florence.
Galileo’s fame, especially through his telescopic discoveries, and partly
also through the exertions of his noisy opponents, had long extended
beyond the narrow bounds of Italy, and the eyes of all central Europe
were directed to the great astronomer. Numbers of pupils flocked to him
from all countries, so that no lecture room in Padua was large enough to
hold them. There were some distinguished personages among them, such as
the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the
princes of Alsace, Mantua, etc., who mostly came to attend the lectures
of the versatile master on fortification. It is, however, another fable
of over zealous biographers to state that even Gustavus Adolphus,
the hero of the thirty years’ war, went to school for some months to
Galileo.[57]
This close occupation, with lectures and private lessons of all kinds,
took him too much away from his own studies, and after twenty years’
professorship Galileo longed for a post in which he could prosecute
his own researches, and devote himself to the completion of his works,
free from academic duties. A letter from Padua, even in the spring of
1609,[58] shows his longing for this salaried leisure. But he is aware
that the republic can never offer him such a post, “for it would not be
suitable to receive a salary from a free state, however generous and
magnanimous, without serving the public for it; because if you derive
benefit from the public, you have the public to please, and not a mere
private person.” He also mentions that he can only hope for such a favour
from some absolute sovereign; but it must not be supposed that he wishes
for an income without doing anything for it; he was in possession of
various inventions, was almost daily making new ones, and should make
more if he had the necessary leisure. Galileo adds that it has always
been his intention “to offer them to his own sovereign and natural lord
before any other, that he may dispose of them and the inventor according
to his pleasure; and if it seemed good to his serene highness to accept
it, to present him not only with the jewel but with the casket also.”
This first attempt of Galileo’s, however, to gain a footing at the court
of Tuscany seems to have been unsuccessful. At any rate in the extant
correspondence of this period there is not a word more on the subject;
and a few months later, after the construction of the telescope, he
thankfully accepted the chair of mathematics at Padua offered to him for
life by the republic. But this invention and the consequent discoveries
had meanwhile acquired such vast importance, and had, as we have seen,
raised such a storm in the whole educated world, that it now appeared
very desirable to the court of Tuscany to attach to itself for ever the
man on whom the eyes of scientific Europe were fixed.
The first steps towards this end were taken when Galileo went to Florence
in the Easter recess of 1610 to show his telescopic discoveries to Cosmo
II., especially the stars which bore the name of the reigning house.
We afterwards find Galileo entering eagerly into the negotiations which
followed. In the letter to Vinta before mentioned, of May 7th, 1610,
he presses for a decision, for, he says, observing that day after day
goes by, he was determined to set a definite purpose before him in the
ordering of the life that may be left to him, and to devote all his
powers to perfect the fruits of his previous efforts and studies, from
which he might look for some fame. He then mentions the conditions on
which he at present serves the republic, perhaps in order that they might
be guided by it at Florence; but what he lays most stress on is that it
is of the utmost moment to him that leisure should be assured him for
the completion of his labours, by his being freed from the obligation to
give public lectures; but it will always confer on him the highest honour
to give lectures to his sovereign, to whom also he will dedicate all his
writings.
The same letter is also of the highest interest as giving us an insight
into the scientific projects he was then cherishing. He communicates to
the Tuscan secretary of state the works the completion of which lies so
near his heart. He says:—
“The works which I have to finish are chiefly two books _de
systemate, seu constitutione universi_, a vast project full
of philosophy, astronomy, and geometry; three books _de motu
locali_, an entirely new science, for no other inquirer,
ancient or modern, has discovered any of the wonderful
phenomena which I show to be present in natural and induced
motion; I may therefore with perfect justice call it a new
science discovered by me from its first principles; three
books on mechanics, two relating to the demonstration of the
principles and fundamental propositions, one containing the
problems; although others have treated of the same subject,
what has been hitherto written upon it is neither as to extent
nor in other respects a fourth part of what I am writing. I
have also various smaller works in view on matters connected
with nature, such as _de sono et voce_, _de visu et coloribus_,
_de maris æstu_, _de compositione continui_, _de animalium
motibus_, and others. I am also thinking of writing some books
for the soldier, not only to cultivate his mind, but to teach
him by select instruction all those things connected with
mathematics which it would be an advantage to him to know, as,
for instance, castrametation, military tactics, fortification,
sieges, surveying, estimate of distances, artillery, the use of
various instruments, etc.”[59]
We regard with astonishment the wonderful versatility which we find
displayed in Galileo’s works. And amongst them are not only all the
larger ones announced in the above letter; his important telescopic
discoveries and his ceaselessly active mind led him far to surpass the
bounds he had set himself, for he was the first to infuse conscious life
into the slumbering idea of the Copernican system.
This memorable letter of Galileo’s soon brought the court of Tuscany
to a decision. Fourteen days later, 22nd May, Vinta wrote to him, as a
preliminary, that the Grand Duke seemed well disposed to recall him to
his native country and to grant all his wishes.[60] He promised to inform
Galileo as soon as it was all settled. On 5th June he wrote that Cosmo
II. was willing to nominate him as first philosopher and mathematician
of the University of Pisa, with an annual stipend of 1000 Florentine
scudi, without any obligation to live at Pisa or to give lectures. Vinta
requested Galileo to let him know whether he agreed to these conditions,
in order that he might have the necessary application drawn up in
Galileo’s name, as well as the decree and rescript; the time of their
publication shall be left to Galileo, and meanwhile all shall be kept
secret.[61] Galileo wished particularly that nothing should be known at
Venice of these negotiations, which did not place his gratitude to the
republic which had shown him so much favour in the best light, until all
was decided and therefore irrevocable.
Having declared himself entirely satisfied with the proposed conditions,
in a letter to the secretary of state, the only alteration being that he
should like not only to be first mathematician at Pisa, but also first
mathematician and philosopher to the Grand Duke himself,[62] the decree
summoning him to the court of Tuscany in this twofold capacity was issued
on 12th July, 1610.
Notwithstanding all the great advantages which this new post secured to
him, it was a very bad exchange for Galileo from the free republican
soil to the doubtful protection of a princely house which, although very
well disposed towards him, could never offer so decided an opposition
to the Roman curia as the republic of Venice. It was indeed the first
step which precipitated Galileo’s fate.[63] In the Venetian republic
full liberty of doctrine was really enjoyed, in religious Tuscany it was
only nominal. In Venice politics and science were secure from Jesuitical
intrigues; for when Pope Paul V. thought proper to place the contumacious
republic under an interdict in April, 1606, the Jesuit fathers had been
compelled to quit the soil of Venice “for ever.”[64] In Tuscany, on the
contrary, where they felt quite at home, their influence weighed heavily
on everything affecting their own interests, and especially therefore
on politics and science. Had Galileo never left the pure, wholesome
air of the free city for the stifling Romish atmosphere of a court, he
would have escaped the subsequent persecutions of Rome; for the republic
which, not long before, had been undaunted by the papal excommunication
of their doge and senate, would assuredly never have given up one of its
university professors to the vengeance of the Inquisition.
At the beginning of September, 1610, Galileo, to the no small displeasure
of the Paduans, left their university, at which eighteen years before
he had found willing reception and support when his longer tarriance
at Pisa had become impossible; deserted his noble friends, Fra Paolo
Sarpi, Francesco Sagredo, and others; and proceeded to the capital of
the court of Tuscany on the lovely banks of the Arno, where at first,
it is true, much honour was done him, but where afterwards envy,
jealousy, narrowness, ill will, and fanaticism combined together to his
destruction. One of his most devoted friends, Francesco Sagredo, foresaw
it. When Galileo left Venice he was in the East, in the service of the
republic, and did not return till the spring of 1611, when he wrote
a remarkable letter to his friend at Florence. After having heartily
expressed his regret at not finding Galileo on his return home, he
states his doubts about the step his friend had taken. He asks, among
other things, “where will he find the same liberty as in the Venetian
territory? And notwithstanding all the generous qualities of the young
ruler, which permitted the hope that Galileo’s merits will be justly
valued, who can promise with any confidence that, if not ruined, he may
not be persecuted and disquieted on the surging billows of court life,
by the raging storms of envy?” It is evident from another passage in the
letter that Galileo’s behaviour had made a bad impression at Venice,
where they had not long before raised his salary to a thousand florins,
and conferred his professorship on him for life; towards the end of the
letter Sagredo lets fall the ominous words that he “was convinced _that
as Galileo could not regain what he had lost_, he would take good care to
hold fast what he had gained.”[65]
Only a month after Galileo’s arrival at Florence he made a fresh
discovery in astronomy which eventually contributed to confirm the
Copernican theory, namely, the varying crescent form of the planet Venus.
With this the important objection to the new system seemed to be removed,
that Venus and Mercury did not exhibit the same phases of light as the
moon, which must be the case if the earth moved, for they would vary
with her position in the universe. Galileo communicated this appearance,
which entailed conclusions so important, and which he therefore wished
to investigate more thoroughly before making it known, to his friend and
correspondent Julian de’ Medici at Prague, in an alphabetical enigma, as
in the case of the singular appearance of Saturn. It was as follows:
“Hæc immatura a me jam frustra leguntur o y.”[66]
Having fully convinced himself by nearly three months’ observations
that Venus and Mars exhibited phases similar to those of the moon, he
made it known in two letters of 30th December[67] to Father Clavius, at
Rome, and to his former distinguished pupil Benedetto Castelli, abbot of
the congregation of Monte Cassino, in Brescia; and in a letter of 1st
January, 1611, he sent the following solution of the anagram to Julian
de’ Medici:—
“Cynthiæ figuras æmulatur mater amorum.”
In this letter he draws the important conclusions, first that none of the
planets shine by their own light, and secondly “that necessarily Venus
and Mercury revolve round the sun; a circumstance which was surmised of
the other planets by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, and their followers,
but which could not be proved by ocular demonstration, as it could now
in the case of Venus and Mercury. Kepler and the other Copernicans may
now be proud to have judged and philosophised correctly, and it may well
excite disgust that they were regarded by the generality of men of book
learning as having little understanding and as not much better than
fools.”[68]
At this time Galileo was also eagerly occupied with a phenomenon which
was to be a further confirmation of the Copernican view of the universe,
the spots on the sun. By attentively observing their motions on the
sun’s disk he afterwards discovered the sun’s motion on its own axis,
a fatal blow to the Ptolemaic system. Although to science it may be
quite indifferent whether Galileo, or Fabricius, or the Jesuit father
Scheiner first espied the spots on the sun (for they all lay claim to the
discovery), for us it has its importance, because the bitter contention
between Galileo and Scheiner on the subject materially contributed to set
the stone rolling which, in its fall, was no less disastrous to the moral
greatness of Galileo than to the erudition of Rome.
In consideration of the intense interest excited by Galileo’s
“epoch-making” discoveries, the Roman curia, which still held it to be
one of its most important duties to guard mankind as much as possible
from precocious knowledge, was of course eager to learn more about them,
and above all, of the conclusions which the discoverer drew from them.
It must also have appeared of great importance to Galileo to acquaint
the Roman _savans_ and dignitaries of the Church with his scientific
achievements, for the authority and influence then exercised by them over
the free progress of science made their opinions of the utmost moment
to him. They must, if possible, be first made to see the premises with
their own eyes, that they might afterwards be able to comprehend and
assent to the conclusions. Galileo clearly saw this, as appears from a
letter of 15th January, 1611, to Vinta[69] (who was then with the court
at Pisa), in which he urgently begs permission for a visit to the papal
residence. The request was not only immediately granted, but the court
placed a litter at his disposal, undertook to defray all his expenses,
and directed the Tuscan ambassador at Rome to prepare quarters for him
at the embassy and to entertain him during the whole of his stay.[70]
Meanwhile, however, Galileo was attacked by an illness which delayed his
journey for nearly two months. On 22nd March he received a cordial letter
of introduction[71] from Michel Angelo the younger to Cardinal Barberini,
afterwards Urban VIII., and on the next day he set out provided with his
most convincing arguments, namely several excellent telescopes.
He was received with the greatest honour. His triumphs were really
extraordinary, so great that they were sure to secure for him numerous
personal enemies in addition to the opponents of his doctrines. He
exhibited the oft discussed appearances to cardinals and learned men
through the telescope, and, whenever he could, dispelled their doubts by
the incontrovertible evidence of their own eyes. People could not refuse
to believe this, and Galileo’s success in the papal city was complete. Of
still greater importance, however, was the opinion given on 24th April
by four scientific authorities of the Roman College, on the character
“of the new astronomical discoveries of an excellent astronomer,” at the
request of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This commission, consisting of
the learned fathers Clavius, Griemberger, Malcotio, and Lembo, confirmed
what they had long denied and ridiculed, convinced by the evidence of
their own senses of the truth of the facts maintained by Galileo.[72] By
this opinion of the papal experts his discoveries received, to a certain
extent, the sanction of the Church, and became acknowledged truths. The
care with which the mention of Galileo’s name is avoided both in the
request and the opinion is remarkable.
Attentions of all sorts were heaped upon the astronomer. Pope Paul V.
granted him a long audience and graciously assured him of his unalterable
good will, which however did not remain quite unaltered in the sequel.
The highest dignitaries of the Church testified their admiration; the
Accadémia dei Lincei (of the Lynxes), founded six years before by Prince
Cesi, made the renowned guest a member; when he took his departure at the
beginning of June he left behind him in the metropolis of catholicism as
many sincere friends and admirers as envious foes, the fate of all really
great men.
A letter from Cardinal del Monte of 31st May, 1611, to Cosmo II., best
shows how successful Galileo’s visit to Rome was. He writes with real
enthusiasm:—
“Galileo has during his stay at Rome given great satisfaction,
and I think he must have felt it no less himself, for he had
the opportunity of showing his discoveries so well that to all
clever and learned men in this city they seemed no less true
and well founded than astonishing. Were we still living under
the ancient republic of Rome, I verily believe there would have
been a column on the Capitol erected in his honour. It appeared
to me to be my duty to accompany his return with this letter,
and to bear witness to your Highness of the above, as I feel
assured that it will be agreeable to you, since your Highness
entertains such gracious good will towards your subjects, and
to distinguished men like Galileo.”[73]
But the watchful Inquisition had already directed its attention to
the man who had made such portentous discoveries in the heavens. How
far this had gone we unfortunately do not exactly know. The only well
authenticated indication we possess is the following notice in the
protocols of the sittings of the Holy Congregation: “Feria iii. die,
17 Maii, 1611. Videatur an in Processu Doctoris Cæsaris Cremonini sit
nominatus Galilaeus Philosophiæ ac Mathematicæ Professor.”[74] This is
the first time that the name of Galileo occurs in the papers of the
Congregation of the Holy Office, and it was in the midst of the applause
which greeted him in the eternal city. Whether, and in what way, this
official query was answered is not to be found in the documents of the
Inquisition. But it looks ominous that there should be an inquiry about a
connection between Galileo and Cremonini who was undergoing a trial. The
causes and course of the trial of Cremonini by the Inquisition are not
yet known. All that is known is that he was Professor of the philosophy
of Aristotle at the University of Padua; and it appears from the letters
of Sagredo to Galileo, that his lectures and writings had given rise to
suspicions of atheism. For the rest, Cremonini was all his life one of
Galileo’s most decided enemies.
The very triumphs of Galileo and his telescopic discoveries were
the causes, to a great extent, of those ceaseless and relentless
persecutions which were to restrict his labours and embitter his life.
The Aristotelians perceived with rage and terror the revolutionary
discoveries of this dangerous innovator were surely, if slowly, gaining
ground. Every one of them, with its inevitable logical consequences,
pulled down some important stone in the artistic structure of their views
of nature; and unless some measures were taken to arrest the demolition,
it was clear that the venerable edifice must fall and bury the inmates
beneath the ruins. This must be averted at any price, even at the price
of knowledge of the acts of nature. If Galileo’s reformed physics offered
no point of attack, his astronomy did; not indeed in the honourable
contest of scientific discussion, but by bringing theology into the field
against science.
Galileo had never openly proclaimed his adoption of the earth’s double
motion, but the demonstration of his telescopic observations alone
sufficed to make it one of the burning questions of the day. What were
the phases of Venus and Mercury, the motions of the solar spots, and
above all Jupiter and his moons, this little world within our large
one, as Galileo afterwards called it himself,[75] but telling proofs of
the truth of the Copernican theory? The question of the two systems had
been hitherto an exclusively scientific one. How else could the famous
philosopher and astronomer Nicholas of Casa, who taught the double motion
of the earth in the fifteenth century, have gained a cardinal’s hat?
How could the German, Widmanstadt, have explained his theory, which was
based upon the same principles, to Pope Clement VII. in 1533? How could
learned men like Celio Calganini, Wurteis, and others, have given public
lectures on the subject in Italy in the second half of the sixteenth
century? Neither Casa, however, nor Widmanstadt, Calganini, Wurteis, nor
even Copernicus, had ventured openly to declare war with the school of
Aristotle, nor to overthrow by the crushing evidence of experiment the
dogmas of natural science based upon philosophy and _a priori_ arguments
alone. These learned men had been tolerated because they fought with the
same weapons as the followers of Ptolemy, logic and philosophy. They did
not possess the powerful lever of direct evidence, because they were
not acquainted with the telescope. But Galileo, with his fatal system
of demonstration by observation of nature, was far too dangerous a foe.
Peripateticism was no match for the home thrusts of arguments obvious
to the senses, and its defenders were well aware that if they would not
yield their position they must call in some other ally than mere science.
And they adopted the means best adapted for putting a temporary drag on
the wheels of truth, and for ruining Galileo; in order to prop up the
failing authority of Aristotle they called in the inviolable authority of
Holy Scripture!
This dragging of the Bible into what had previously been a purely
scientific controversy, a proceeding which proved so fatal to Galileo,
must not however, as has been done by several authors, be attributed
solely to party considerations or even personal motives. This is
absolutely false. Greatly as these factors were concerned in it, it must
be admitted that at first they were only incidentally mixed up with it.
The multitude of the learned, who still adhered entirely to the old
system of the universe, and regarded the theories of Copernicus (not yet
based on ocular demonstration) as mere fantasies, were really aghast at
the telescopic discoveries of Galileo which threatened to overturn all
their previous beliefs. The learned, and still more the semi-learned,
world of Italy felt the ground tremble beneath their feet; and it seemed
to them as if the foundations of all physics, mathematics, philosophy,
and religion, were, with the authority of Aristotle, which had reigned
for two thousand years, being borne to the grave. This did not present
itself to them as progress but as sacrilege.
A young fanatic, the monk Sizy (the same who seven years later was broken
on the wheel for political crimes at Paris), was the first to transfer
what had been a purely scientific discussion to the slippery arena of
theology. At the beginning of 1611 he published at Venice a work called
“Dianoja Astronomica”[76] in answer to the “Sidereus Nuncius,” in which
he asserted that the existence of the moons of Jupiter was incompatible
with the doctrines of Holy Scripture. He appropriately dedicated his
book to that semi-prince of the blood, John de’ Medici, who was known
to be the mortal enemy of Galileo. The author, as we learn from his own
work, was one of those contemptible men who carefully abstained from even
looking through a telescope, although firmly convinced that the wonders
announced by Galileo were not to be seen. Galileo did not vouchsafe
to defend himself from this monkish attack any more than from Horky’s
libel the year before. He contented himself with writing on the back of
the title page of the copy still preserved in the National Library at
Florence the following lines from Ariosto:—
“Soggiunse il duca: Non sarebbe onesto
Che io volessi la battaglia torre,
Di quel che m’ offerisco manifesto,
Quando ti piaccia, innanci agli occhi torre.”[77]
But Galileo’s envious foes at once consorted with the, at all events,
honourable fanatics of the old school, and eagerly seized the opportunity
of pursuing their miserable designs “to the glory of God and imperilled
religion.” It was in Florence itself, in the palace of the Tuscan
Archbishop Marzimedici, who had once studied under Galileo at Pisa,
that secret consultations were held, presided over by this prelate, how
the inconvenient philosopher and his revolutionary system might best be
ruined. They even then went so far as to request a preacher to hurl at
Galileo from the pulpit the accusation, more dangerous than any other
in the sixteenth century, that he was attacking the Bible with his
doctrines. But for this time these pious gentlemen had gone to the wrong
man, for the priest, seeing through the foul purpose of the commission,
declined it.
Galileo had not the slightest knowledge of the secret conspiracy which
was plotting against him, and was first roused from the security into
which he had been lulled by the brilliant success of his visit to Rome
by a letter from his friend there, Cigoli the painter, of 16th December,
1611.[78] But he did not at first attach to these communications the
importance they deserved, and it was not until several months afterwards
that he addressed himself to Cardinal Conti, who was very friendly
to him, to ask how far the Holy Scriptures did really favour the
Aristotelian views of the universe, and whether the Copernican system
contradicted them.
Conti answered him in a letter of 7th July, 1612,[79] that the statements
of Holy Scripture were rather against the Aristotelian principle of
the unchangeableness of the heavens than in favour of it, for all the
fathers had held the contrary opinion. But the case was different with
the doctrine of the earth’s revolution round the sun, as held by the
Pythagoreans, Copernicus and others. This certainly did not seem to agree
with Holy Scripture, unless it was assumed that it merely adopted the
customary mode of expression. But, added the cardinal, that was a method
of interpretation to be employed only in case of the greatest necessity.
Diego di Zuñiga had indeed explained in this way, conformably with the
Copernican opinions, the passage in which Joshua commanded the sun to
stand still; but the explanation was not generally admitted.
Father Lorini also, professor of ecclesiastical history at Florence,
afterwards a ringleader of the base intrigues against Galileo and an
informant against him, wrote to him 5th November, 1612,[80] to deny a
report that he had publicly preached against Galileo. He only confessed
to having given it as his opinion, in a conversation about the two
systems, that the View of this _Ipernic_, or whatever his name might
be, appeared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Galileo wrote in a
letter of 5th January, 1613,[81] to Prince Cesi: “The good man is so
well acquainted with the author of these doctrines that he calls him
_Ipernic_. You can see how and by whom poor philosophy suffers.” It
appears also from the same letter that Galileo was now well aware of the
intrigues being carried on against him in Florence, for he says among
other things: “I thank you and all my dear friends very much for your
anxiety for my protection against the malice which is constantly seeking
to pick quarrels even here, and the more so since the enemy is so near at
hand; but as they are but few in number, and their ‘league,’ as they call
it among themselves, is but of limited extent, I laugh at it.”