_ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY._
Treatise on Floating Bodies.—Controversy with Scheiner about
the Solar Spots.—Favourable reception of Galileo’s work
on the subject at Rome.—Discussion with the Grand Duchess
Christine.—The Bible brought into the controversy.—Ill-fated
Letter to Castelli.—Caccini’s Sermon against Galileo.—Lorini
denounces the Letter to the Holy Office.—Archbishop Bonciani’s
attempts to get the original Letter.—“Opinion” of the
Inquisition on it.—Caccini summoned to give evidence.—Absurd
accusations.—Testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti in Galileo’s
favour.
While the storm which was to burst over Galileo’s head was thus slowly
gathering, he was making important progress in the departments of physics
and mechanics.
His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important
results.[82] In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic
philosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating
or partial immersion of bodies in water depended chiefly on their
form, for by his approved method of studying the open book of nature
he clearly showed the error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid
the foundations of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old
school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of course; but their
polemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of antiquated wisdom had
in their impotence mostly to content themselves with wretched sophisms as
opposed to Galileo’s hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the
authority of Aristotle.
The combatants who took the field with various writings to defend
the Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were
the professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle
Colombo, in 1612, and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered
by Benedetto Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the
National Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity for his
opponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune.
Although professing to be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to
belong to the Greek Non-Uniat church, which entailed the loss of his
professorship at the University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to
answer Palmerini, but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not
wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The lame objections
of the other two received a brilliant refutation in a work published in
1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in the National Library
at Florence, which is mostly in Galileo’s handwriting, it is evident that
he was the real author.[83]
During the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the
treatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy
with the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of
mathematics at Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of
their discovery. In three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there
in 1612) he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym of “Apelles,”
the earliest observation of these appearances, and explained them
conformably to the traditional opinions. He propounded the ingenious idea
that these spots were a multitude of little planets, passing over the
sun’s disk as they revolved round the earth. By this clever explanation
he secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed
himself the decided foe of Galileo. Challenged to do so by Welser,
Galileo replied in three letters addressed to him, in which “Apelles”
came off but poorly.[84] Galileo convincingly refuted his opponent’s
explanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his own right to the
priority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made
it known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner’s, were published
in March, 1613, under the title “History and Explanation of the Solar
Spots,”[85] with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a dedication to his
illustrious friend Salviati, of the “Accadémia dei Lincei.”
The publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was
the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican
system. This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these
essays. The controversy on the two systems came more and more to the
front. And yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem
at first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical
circles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals Maffeo Barberini[86]
(afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and Federigo Borromeo,[87] thanking
Galileo in the most friendly terms for sending them his work, and
expressing their sincere admiration for the researches described in it.
And Battista Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of
Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a similar letter
of thanks,[88] not only fully endorsed these opinions, but expressed his
firm belief that they would in time be universally acknowledged, although
now they had many opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable
character, and partly from the envy and obstinacy of those who had from
the first maintained the contrary view.
The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less
friendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics at the
papal residence. Father Castelli, who in October of the same year was
called to the chair of mathematics at this university, reports in a
letter of 6th November,[89] in which he tells Galileo what reception
he had met with from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of
the university, Mgr. d’Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his first
interview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of the earth, or
even to take occasion in any digression to mention it as probable!
An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate cause of turning
the controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo. One
day in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were guests
at the Grand Duke’s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. The
conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena of the Medicean
stars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia, professor
of physics at the university, was constrained with a heavy heart to
confirm, in answer to a question of the Grand Duke’s mother, Christine.
Castelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo’s splendid
discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master
his displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that
all Galileo’s telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth,
only the double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay impossible,
as the Holy Scriptures were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then
over, and Castelli took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace when
he saw Christine’s porter hastening after him and calling him back. He
obeyed, and found the whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke’s
apartments. Christine now began, after a few introductory remarks, to
attack the Copernican doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli
at first made some humble attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into
the controversy; but as this was of no avail he resolutely took the
theological standpoint, and defended the modern views of the universe
so impressively and convincingly that nearly all present, even the
Grand Duke and his consort, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone
made any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause of the
unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion.
Castelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but remarked
expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand
Duchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear
his replies.[90]
This then was the provocation to that famous letter of Galileo’s to
his friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological
digressions occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended
for publication, was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents,
and to form the groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been
related it will be seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo
that it was he who first introduced the theological question into the
scientific controversy about the two systems is entirely unwarranted.
On the contrary, these explanations to Castelli, of 21st December, bear
telling testimony to the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the
Scriptures involved in a purely scientific discussion, and that the right
of deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He sharply
defines the relation in which the Bible stands to natural science,
marking the limits which it can only pass at the expense of the healthy
understanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully admits that the
Scriptures cannot lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold good of
all their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions,
nay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always interpret the Bible
in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must attribute
to God hands, feet, and ears, human feelings such as anger, repentance,
hatred, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future.
“As therefore,” continues Galileo, “the Holy Scriptures in many places
not only admit but actually require a different explanation from what
seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be
reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like
nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by
the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands;
it was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate
itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which
apparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is
inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and
modes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and
never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to
me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before
our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should
be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands
of words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of
Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature.”
Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself
intelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even
its main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God
which are unlike His character and even opposed to it, who will maintain
that in speaking incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes to
clothe its real meaning in words literally true? Proceeding on the
principle that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo
goes on to draw the following conclusions.
“Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is
the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to
find out the real meaning of its statements, in accordance with the
conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the
clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the
Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons
given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the
literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that
_all_ interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of
wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a
way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature
the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of
our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to man’s
understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be known in
the world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best not to
add, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation
and the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are
in no danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against them,
especially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who,
although quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are
obviously destitute of those faculties which are needed, I will not say
for the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations
by which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.
I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended
to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation,
and which being far above man’s understanding cannot be made credible
by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit.
But that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and
understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us
in any other way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire
for ourselves by means of those faculties, _that_ it seems to me I am not
bound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the
Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and
this is precisely the case with astronomy, of which there is so little
that the planets are not even all enumerated.”
Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a
scientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his opponents, who,
feeling that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had
entrenched themselves behind an unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds
to discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were
fond of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern
views and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries with
their own weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally,
and God really arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua’s
prayer, and thus prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the
impossibility, of the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican
agrees with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes
on, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west to east, and the
daily one from east to west. Being diametrically opposed to each other,
they cannot both be the sun’s own motions. The annual motion is the one
which belongs to it; the other originates in the _primum mobile_, which
carries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions day
and night. If therefore God desired to prolong the day (supposing the
Ptolemaic system to be the right one) He must have commanded, not the
sun but the _primum mobile_, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the
Bible that God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the
heavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained them to
be, or the literal meaning must be departed from, and we must conclude
that the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God commanded the sun to stand
still, meant the _primum mobile_, but, accommodating themselves to the
comprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand the rising and
setting of the sun, said just the opposite of what they would have said
to scientifically educated people. Galileo also says that it was highly
improbable that God should have commanded the sun alone to stand still,
and have allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature
would have been deranged by it without any occasion, and his belief
was that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the whole system of the
universe, at the expiration of which all the heavenly bodies, undisturbed
in their mutual relations, could have begun to revolve again in perfect
order: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like
irony.
At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the
passage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar
spots the revolution of the sun on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it
is also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature,
the heart of the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with
certainty, is the source of light to the planets revolving round it, but
also lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a
revolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal motion on its own axis, it
would certainly suffice merely to stop the sun in his course, in order
to bring the whole system to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day
without disordering nature.[91]
Castelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to the Grand
Duchess Christine’s objections, and took care to give it a wide
circulation by means of numerous copies. Galileo’s enemies, however,
eagerly grasped the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their
hands by his friend. They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which
exactly adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo’s emphatic
opinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific controversy
into the reproach that he assailed the universal authority of the Bible;
by making Joshua’s miracle the subject of his disquisitions he laid
himself open to the cutting remark that the statements of Holy Scripture
must be protected from the arbitrary interpretations of profane laymen.
Gherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely
unaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged about the system
that Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened
to bring the matter before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified
by being informed that the founder of that system was not any man then
living in Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before,
and that his work had been dedicated to Pope Paul III., and had been
graciously accepted by him.
Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in
Father Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right tool for setting on foot
the long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse of the
pulpit, for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And
as the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared
as Galileo’s first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon
against the astronomer and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent,
1614, in the church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his
wit by selecting as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter
of Joshua and the first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: _Viri
Galilæi quid statis aspicientes in cœlum_: “Ye men of Galilee, why
stand ye gazing up into heaven?” Astronomy was thus happily introduced
into the pulpit. The furious preacher asserted that the doctrine taught
by Galileo in Florence, of the earth’s revolution round the sun, was
quite irreconcilable with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly
contradicted several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning
of which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, as he
further asserted that no one was permitted to interpret the Bible in any
other sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as good as denounced
the doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a coarse attack on
mathematicians in general, whose science he called an invention of the
devil; and with a wish that they should be banished from all Christian
states, since all heresies proceeded from them.
As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi
Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for his learning, who was all
his life an admirer of Galileo, told him in a letter of 10th January,
1615,[92] how heartily he regretted this miserable exhibition. He said,
among other things: “I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which
has taken place, and the more so because the author of it is a brother of
my order; for, unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities
(_tutte le bestialità_) which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and
do actually commit.” This sentence has caused all Galileo’s biographers
who mention this letter, with the exception of Nelli,[93] to conclude
that Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a glance at
the _Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum_, etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif
and Echard, would have shown them that from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin
Secco, of Pavia, was general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.[94]
Perhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the
Dominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.[95]
Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the
insult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But
Prince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any
steps were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the
affair and to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal
Bellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told him
(Cesi) that _he held the opinion to be heretical, and that the principle
of the earth’s double motion was undoubtedly contrary to Holy Scripture_.
In this complicated state of affairs the prince recommended that several
mathematicians should complain of the public insults to the science of
mathematics and its disciples. But he gave another express warning to
leave the Copernican system entirely alone, or they might take occasion
at Rome to consult whether the further spread of this opinion was to
be permitted or condemned. Cesi added that in that case it would very
likely be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there,
and its opponents were generally hated; besides, it was very easy to
prohibit and suspend.[96]
Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently
allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus to all the
later persecutions of Galileo.
The questionable merit of having brought Galileo’s affairs before
the tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend
of Caccini, and brother of the same order. Galileo’s fatal letter to
Castelli had fallen into his hands; and when, later on, thanks to
Caccini’s zeal, a great ferment began about it in monkish circles at
Florence, Lorini was moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a
copy of it secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement,
which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the Congregation
of the Index, is couched in a most artful and miserable style. The
denunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention Galileo by name
(for he still had powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of
the Church), only speaks of the “Galileists” in general, “who maintain,
agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and the
heavens stand still.” He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus,
in order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question.
Lorini goes on to say: “all the fathers of this (his own) devout convent
of St. Mark find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or
presumptuous, as when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture
are indefinite; that in discussions about natural phenomena the lowest
place must be assigned to them; that the commentators have often been
mistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should
not be mixed up with anything but matters of religion; that in nature
philosophical and astronomical evidence is of more value than holy and
Divine (which passages your reverence[97] will find underlined by me in
the said letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when
Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only understand that the
command was addressed to the _primum mobile_, as this itself is the sun.”
In these statements Lorini perceives great peril for the Church; he is
indignant “that they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures
after their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation
of the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy Scriptures
appear to be entirely opposed to.... They tread the entire philosophy of
Aristotle, of which scholastic philosophy has made so much use, under
foot,” he exclaims: “in short, to show how clever they are, they (the
Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter them abroad in
our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its own
good spirit and the watchfulness of our august rulers.” He feels moved
to inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and
that if any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures.
After this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: “I, who hold that all
those who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians,
but a little over wise and self conceited in their opinions, declare
that I am actuated by nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred
cause.” After this assurance he begs that this letter of his, (“I do not
say the enclosed letter,”) he hastens to add in a parenthesis, “may be
kept secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion between
servant and master,” and not as a legal deposition.[98] In conclusion, he
expressly mentions the celebrated sermon of Caccini, probably in order
that he might be called as a witness against Galileo, an object which,
as we shall see, was attained.
In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called
upon at once to institute a secret inquiry about the astronomer. As
Lorini had only been able to show a copy of Galileo’s letter to Castelli
in confirmation of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be
of great importance to obtain possession of the original, written and
signed by Galileo. To attain this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the
principle that “the end sanctifies the means.” Cardinal Mellini, under
date of 26th February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to
write to the Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were
to procure that document “in a skilful manner.” On the very next day the
order was despatched.[99]
It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short
stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco
Bonciani. He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With
this end in view he began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken
aback by such an exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions,
particularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it would
be to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his ruin, for those
opinions (to say nothing of their folly) were dangerous, repulsive,
and mischievous, for they were directly opposed to Holy Scripture. The
philosophical arguments with which the archbishop tried to convert
Castelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax in the profound remark
that as all things (_creatura_) had been created for the use and benefit
of man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a star.[100]
After giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the same
for Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the
world the folly of that opinion. But, in order to do it successfully,
he must first acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo’s arguments;
and, therefore (and now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently begs
Castelli to let him see Galileo’s apologetic letter.
Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli’s possession, for he had
returned it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive
the trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo
of the request and warmly to second it.[101] But Galileo had suspicions,
and delayed to reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two
letters to Rome, of 8th and 28th of March,[102] that Castelli was
convinced that he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and
as the common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo had
not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks “whether he shall be more open with
Castelli?” But this time cunning did not attain its end; at the repeated
urgency of Castelli,[103] Galileo at last sent him a mere copy without
signature, and with the express reservation that he was not to let it go
out of his hands. From a letter of Castelli’s[104] to Galileo we learn
that in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop
in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically concealed his
annoyance at the failure of his intrigue, and put a good face on it, for
Castelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly
praised Galileo’s demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics present
the modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed.
So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo’s
criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for
his opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in
the document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they
looked ill, they were capable of being taken in a good sense, and were
not of that nature that they could be said to deviate from Catholic
doctrine.[105]
Meanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of 19th March,
to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially well informed about
Galileo’s errors.[106] He appeared before the holy tribunal the very
next day, and eloquently poured forth his accusations; but, although
upon oath, he did not adhere very strictly to truth. For not only did he
denounce the opinion of Copernicus as _quasi_ heretical, being opposed
to all scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of many
passages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines were to be found
both in the letter to Castelli and in the purely scientific treatise
on the solar spots, but added the far more serious charge that he had
heard that Galileo maintained the three following propositions: “God is
not a self existent being, but an accident; God is sentient because the
Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be performed by the
saints are not real miracles.” He further says that Galileo is at any
rate “suspicious in religious matters,” because he belongs to “a certain
Accadémia dei Lincei,” and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi
at Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions from
real facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of heresy out of
an academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety, and to place
Galileo’s religion in doubt on account of his scientific correspondence
with magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost
like madness.[107]
In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the
testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman,
Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the
same year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper
but a bad listener. Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple
of the Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with
Ximenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition
concerning the nature of the Godhead, but it originated entirely in
scholasticism and had nothing to do with Galileo. Caccini, listening
behind a partition, caught something of the conversation; and, thinking
that Attavanti was a well instructed follower of Galileo, and was
merely repeating what he had taught him, explained the fragments of
the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these stupid
accusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and Attavanti
that neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo, except
that he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.[108]
After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of
Caccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry
into the “History and Explanation of the Solar Spots.”[109] This, and the
oft discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which
Galileo’s enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological
error.