_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.
The Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo’s active propagandism,
even among the learned world of Rome, and by his brilliant defence of the
new system, now hastened to bring to a conclusion the transactions which
had been going on for a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th
February, 1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were not
judges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) and required
them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo’s
work on the solar spots:—
I. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place.
II. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not immovable, but
moves, and also with a diurnal motion.[136]
In accordance with the papal decree, these theologians met four days
afterwards, at 9 a.m. on 23rd February, and published the result of their
deliberations the next day, as follows:—
The first proposition was unanimously declared to be false and absurd
philosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly
contradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many passages, both
if taken in their literal meaning and according to the general
interpretation and conceptions of the holy Fathers and learned
theologians.
The second proposition was declared unanimously “to deserve the like
censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least
erroneous in the faith.”[137]
The Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against Galileo as the
chief advocate of the Copernican system, as follows:—
“Thursday, 25th February, 1616. The Lord Cardinal Mellini
notified to the Reverend Fathers the Assessors and the
Commissary of the Holy Office, that the censure passed by the
theologians upon the propositions of Galileo—to the effect
particularly that the sun is the centre of the world, and
immovable from its place, and that the earth moves, and also
with a diurnal motion—had been reported; and His Holiness has
directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the
said Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the said opinion;
and in case of his refusal to obey, that the Commissary is to
intimate to him, before a notary and witnesses, a command to
abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion
and doctrine, and even from discussing it; and if he do not
acquiesce therein, that he is to be imprisoned.”[138]
This is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended to look like an
official report on the course of the proceedings ordained above. Every
unbiassed reader will expect to find in it either that Galileo refused to
obey the admonitions of the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of
the Inquisition then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo
immediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition
would not have had to interfere. Instead of this we find the following
document, couched half in a narrative tone, half like the report of a
notary:—
“Friday, the 26th.—At the Palace, the usual residence of the
Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been summoned
and brought before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in presence
of the Most Revd. Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of the order of
preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said
Cardinal warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion, and
admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before
me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine being
still present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary
commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope,
and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish
altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the
world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth
to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or
in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in
the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced
in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid,
in presence of Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of
Cyprus, and Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy
of Rottz, in the diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said
Cardinal’s house, witnesses.”[139]
The discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February is obvious:
that says that the Pope had ordered that Cardinal Bellarmine should
admonish Galileo to renounce the opinions of Copernicus, and only _in
case he should refuse_, was the Commissary to issue the order to him to
abstain from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here in
the report of the 26th we read, that “immediately after” the admonition
of the cardinal, the Commissary issued this stringent order, and with the
significant modification, “nor to hold, teach, or defend it in any way
whatsoever.” In this report of the proceedings it is not expressly stated
whether Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording of
the report, it is almost impossible that he could have done so, since it
represents that the Cardinal’s admonition was followed immediately by the
_absolute_ prohibition from the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure
was by no means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would rather
have been an arbitrary deviation from it.
Until within the last ten years, in all the works, great or small, which
treat of Galileo’s trial, we find this absolute prohibition which he was
said to have received related as an established historical fact. It was
the sole legal ground on which the indictment was based against Galileo
sixteen years later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by
an ostentatious appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document had been
seen by any of the authors who wrote so confidently of the stringent
prohibition of 1616, which confirmed its historical truth. And yet it
could but exist among the inaccessible archives relating to the trial
of Galileo, since the Inquisitors relied upon it in 1633, and it was
the pole and axis of the famous trial. And what the world had accepted
in good faith on the somewhat doubtful veracity of the Inquisition was
at length, apparently confirmed by the testimony of Mgr. Marino Marini,
prefect of the Vatican Archives. In that year he published at Rome a
book entitled, “Galileo e l’Inquisizione, Memorie storico-critiche,”
which, as the author stated, was founded upon the original documents
of the trial. It actually contained many “extracts” from the original
protocols; and founded upon documentary materials accessible only to
the author, it was encircled with the convenient halo of inviolability.
And for nearly twenty years no serious objection was raised to it. Many
historians did shake their heads and say that the work of the right
reverend gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition
as one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by the author’s
high-flown assertion that “the entire publication of the documents would
only redound to the glory of the Inquisition,”[140] but drily remarked
that it was really a great pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid
an opportunity to slip of performing a great service alike to history
and the Church, while the fragments produced were of little value to
either one or the other. None of this served to refute a single sentence
of the apology in question. It became, on the contrary, notwithstanding
its obvious partizanship, the chief source for subsequent narratives
of the trial. And it could not fail to be so; for even taking this
partizanship into account, how could the dates given be doubted? Could
any one suspect a misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did suspicions
of an arbitrary use and distortion of the documents at the author’s
command seem justified? Assuredly not. Besides, the papal archivist
appealed with apparent scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although,
therefore, the light thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed
to be one-sided, the correctness of his facts in general admitted of no
doubt. Among these the special prohibition of 1616 played a conspicuous
part. It is laid before the reader as beyond all question, and fully
confirmed by documents. The author, however, prudently refrained from
publishing these “documents” verbatim,—the reports of the Vatican MS. of
25th and 26th February. The discrepancy between them would then have come
to light. That was to be avoided, and so Marini, by the approved method
of rejecting all that did not suit his purpose, concocted from the two
reports a story of the assumed prohibition to Galileo so precise as to
leave nothing to be desired.[141]
In 1867 Henri de L’Epinois surprised the learned world with his work,
“Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation d’après des Documents inédits.” He
reproduced for the first time in full the most important documents which
had been at Marini’s command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he
had used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th and 26th
February verbatim. But the story of the prohibition of 1616 had so firmly
rooted itself in history, that neither Epinois himself nor the next
French historian, Henri Martin, who published a comprehensive work on
Galileo based on the published documents, thought of disturbing it.
It was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, in Germany
and Galileo’s own country, simultaneously and independently, of the
authenticity of the prohibition of 1616. In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill
who first shook this belief after careful and unbiassed investigation
of the Roman MS. published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: “Der
Inquisitions Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen
Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen Inquisition.” (The Trial of
Galileo Galilei. An Examination into its Legal Foundation by the Acts
of the Roman Inquisition.) And just when German learning was seeking
to prove by keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual
narrative, the document was published in Italy which raised Wohlwill’s
conjectures to certainty.
Up to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment resist the
cardinal’s admonition, but submitted at once, could only be drawn, as
it was drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the wording of the report of
the proceedings of 26th February, 1616, partly from Galileo’s sincere
Catholic sentiments, for he was to the end, from conviction, a true son
of the Church. However much there might be to justify the conclusion,
therefore, it was founded only on probability, was confirmed by no
documents, and was therefore open to assault. It was attacked by
Friedlein in a review of Wohlwill’s brochure.[142] But when Friedlein
was trying to prove that Galileo must have resisted the cardinal’s
admonitions, and only submitted to the peremptory threats of the official
of the Inquisition, the document had been already published in Italy
which placed the question beyond doubt. This is an extract of the
protocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 3rd
March, 1616, and forms part of the collection of documents published by
Professor Silvestro Gherardi in the _Rivista Europea_, 1870. It is as
follows:—
“_3rd March, 1616._
“The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo
Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of the
Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon (deserendam)
[disserendam (discuss) was the word originally written] the
opinion he has hitherto held, that the sun is the centre of
the spheres and immovable, and that the earth moves, and had
acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of
the Index having been presented, prohibiting and suspending
respectively the writings of Nicholas Copernicus (De
Revolutionibus orbium cœlestium....) of Diego di Zuñiga on Job,
and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite Friar—His Holiness
ordered this edict of prohibition and suspension respectively,
to be published by the Master of the Palace.”[143]
This document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater importance
than merely for the evidence it affords that Galileo at once submitted
to the Cardinal’s admonition; it permits the conclusion, almost to a
certainty, that a proceeding like that described in the note of 26th
February never took place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal
Bellarmine was giving a report of the proceedings of 26th February at a
private sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office under the personal
presidency of the Pope. His report agrees precisely with the papal
ordinance of 25th February: he had admonished Galileo to give up the
Copernican doctrines, and he had consented. This was to all appearance
the end of the business. The cardinal does not say a word about the
stringent proceedings said to have taken place in his presence before
notary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would have been of far
greater importance than the first. It may perhaps be said that it was
not the cardinal’s business to report the doings of the Commissary of
the Inquisition. But the objection is not valid; for in the first place
the conditions did not exist which would have justified the interference
of the Commissary, and in the second, his report would certainly also
have been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th February
were reported. But in the note of 3rd March there is not a trace of the
report of Brother Michael Angelo Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however,
so incredible that no communication should be made to the Congregation
about the most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, and
that Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the slightest reference
to it in his report, that this document of 3rd March, 1616, discovered
by Professor Gherardi, would be sufficient of itself to justify the
suspicion that the course of the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was
not at all that reported in the note relating to it in the Vatican MS.,
but was in accordance with the papal ordinance of 25th February, and
ended with the cardinal’s admonition.
Let us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree better with
this suspicious note. Two days after the sitting of 3rd March, in
accordance with the order of Paul V., the decree of the Congregation of
the Index on writings and books treating of the Copernican system was
published. It ran as follows:—
“And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said
Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false
and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture—of the motion of the
earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is also taught by
Nicholas Copernicus in _De Revolutionibus orbium Cœlestium_,
and by Diego di Zuñiga in (his book on) Job, is now being
spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a
certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled, _Letter of
the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the
opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the
motion of the earth, and the stability of the sun, and the new
Pythagorean system of the world, at Naples, printed by Lazzaro
Scorriggio, 1615_: wherein the said father attempts to show
that the aforesaid doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the
centre of the world, and of the earth’s motion, is consonant
with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in
order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further
to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has
decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus
orbium_, and Diego di Zuñiga, on Job, be suspended until they
be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo
Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and
that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be
prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns,
and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the
present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and
with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal
of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March,
1616.”[144]
In this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, a
distinction is drawn between two classes of writings: those which
advocate the positive truth of the Copernican system—which are absolutely
interdicted and condemned; and those to which, by some modifications, a
hypothetical character can be given—these are to be suspended until the
needful corrections have been made. This indicated the precise attitude
which the Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican system.
As a mere working hypothesis it was not dangerous to the Roman Catholic
religion; but as irrefragable truth it shook its very foundations. They
were, therefore, determined at Rome that it should not make way as
truth—it was to be tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a
mathematical hypothesis, the use of which was obvious even to the Romish
_savans_, it might be allowed to stand. The cardinal’s admonition and
the decree are in logical agreement with this intention. Galileo was to
“renounce” the opinions of Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain
them as established fact; as a hypothesis, like the rest of the world he
might retain them. But according to the document of 26th February, entire
silence was enjoined upon Galileo upon the subject of the double motion
of the earth, for in the injunction neither to hold, teach, or defend
it in any way (_quovis modo_), the hypothetical treatment was obviously
included.
Perhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the most
distinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of the Copernican
system, who by his telescopic discoveries had made the controversy a
burning question of the day. But this conjecture does not stand the test
of close investigation, for Galileo’s work on the solar spots, which was
based upon the sun’s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of
forbidden or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings of the curia
against him at that period, the friendly feeling for him personally, of
powerful patrons in the Church, is obvious, and it makes any specially
rigorous action against him very improbable. We have also other
indications that this categoric prohibition to Galileo had not then been,
_de facto_, issued.
His letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. We cannot
expect to find in them precise information about the proceedings of
26th February, as it was contrary to the rules of the Inquisition to
make public its secret orders, under the severest penalties; but they
contain no trace of the deep depression which would have been caused by
the stringent orders of the Holy Office against him personally. On the
contrary, he writes on the 6th March (the day following the issue of the
decree) to Picchena: “I did not write to you, most revered sir, by the
last post, because there was nothing new to report; as they were about to
come to a decision about that affair which I have mentioned to you _as a
purely public one, not affecting my personal interests_, or only so far
as my enemies very inopportunely want to implicate me in it.” He goes on
to say that he alludes to the deliberations of the Holy Office about the
book and opinions of Copernicus; and mentions with evident satisfaction,
that the purpose of Caccini and his party to have that doctrine denounced
as heretical and contrary to the faith had not been attained, for the
Holy Office had simply stated that it did not agree with Holy Scripture,
and therefore only prohibited the books which maintained, _ex professo_,
that the Copernican doctrine was not contrary to the Bible. Galileo
then tells him more particularly what the decree contained, and that
the correction of the works of Copernicus and Zuñiga was entrusted to
Cardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations will be
confined to such passages as aim to prove the agreement of the modern
system with Scripture, and “here and there a word, as when Copernicus
calls the earth a star.” He adds: “I have, as will be seen from the
nature of the case, no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said
before, have troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn me into
it.” He means by this that the prohibition to try and make the doctrine
of the double motion square with Scripture was indifferent to him; he
would never have concerned himself with theology if he had not been
driven to it. He then goes on: “It may be seen from my writings in what
spirit I have always acted, and I shall continue to act, so as to shut
the mouth of malice, and to show that my conduct in this business has
been such that a saint could not have shown more reverence for the Church
nor greater zeal.”[145]
In the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo repeats what
he has said about the correction of the work of Copernicus, and says
emphatically that it is clear that no further restrictions will be
imposed. From a reply from Galileo’s faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters
unfortunately not extant, it is evident that he had by no means expressed
himself as cast down by the issue of the affair. Sagredo writes in the
best of spirits: “Now that I have learnt from your valued letters the
particulars of the spiteful, devilish attacks on and accusations against
you, and the issue of them, which entirely frustrates the purposes of
your ignorant and malicious foes, I, and all the friends to whom I have
communicated your letters and messages, are quite set at rest.”[146]
It is clear, then, from Galileo’s correspondence, that he took the decree
of the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks with satisfaction of the
trifling alterations to be made in Copernicus’s work. How could the man,
who was forbidden to “hold, teach, or defend” the repudiated doctrine “in
any way,” write in this style?
A document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating to these
transactions, is of the utmost importance to the assertion that no such
prohibition had ever been issued to Galileo. After the publication of
the decree of 5th March he remained three months at Rome. His enemies
took advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been obliged
formally to recant, and absolutely to abjure his opinion. Galileo
seems to have been indignant at this; he pacified his adherents who
sent anxious inquiries to their master, and complained bitterly of the
unscrupulousness of his enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were
too bad. But in order to confute these calumnies and guard himself
against them in future, before leaving Rome he begged a certificate from
Cardinal Bellarmine to prove the falsity of this perfidious fiction. This
dignitary consented, and wrote the following declaration:—
“We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is
calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our
hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance,
and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare,
that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, either in our
hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or anywhere
else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him,
neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him; but
only the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by
the sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to
him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to
Copernicus, that the earth moves round the sun, and that the
sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move
from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and
therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we
have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this
26th day of May, 1616.”[147]
Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and
that of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks,
“the secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the
expense of truth,”[148] it would not have put forth so downright a lie
in _optima forma_ as the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed
prohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of
the Inquisition. This prohibition might easily have been passed over in
silence, while the calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the
cardinal was not content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had
“only” been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the
Index about the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine’s
glaringly contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it
not only entirely accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also
with Bellarmine’s report of the proceedings of 26th February in the
private sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the
cardinal certified nothing more nor less than what had actually taken
place. It leads therefore to the following conclusions:—
1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal’s
admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine.
2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him.
3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616,
is therefore untrue.
These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of
historical events will confirm them step by step, while it can by
no means be made to tally with the assumed strict injunction of the
Commissary-General. Next however, the question immediately arises,
Through whose means did the falsehood get into the acts of the trial,
and was it _bona_ or _mala fide_? Historical research can only partially
answer this question. All these notifications were entered by a notary
of the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, 1616, also. Did
he, perhaps merely from officious zeal, enter a note of an official
proceeding as having actually taken place, which undoubtedly was to have
taken place under certain circumstances, but in their absence did not
occur, or even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal
instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power which had long
been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the failure for the time
of its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters for future
use by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge
of the motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; as
however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or independent
falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in probability
that we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo’s
enemies,[149] which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its
purpose.
Wohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long been of opinion
that this note originated, not in 1616, but in 1632, in order to legalise
the trial of Galileo. But after having repeatedly and very carefully
examined the original acts of the trial, preserved among the papal
secret archives, we were compelled to acknowledge that the material
nature of the document entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent
falsification.[150] The note was not falsified in 1632; no, in 1616
probably, with subtle and perfidious calculation, a lie was entered which
was to have the most momentous consequences to the great astronomer.