_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.
Scarcely any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation of his
character and aims in his own trenchant utterances as Urban VIII. When
shown the marble monuments of his predecessors, he proudly observed that
he “would erect iron ones to himself.” And the fortress of Castelfranco
on the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort
Urbino), the new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the Vatican
Library turned into an arsenal, the new manufactory of arms at Tivoli,
and finally the costly harbour of Civita Vecchia, are so many silent
testimonies to the cherished desire of this _pontiff_ to transform the
eternal city into an inviolable symbol in stone of the temporal power
of the Pope, and to accredit himself as a true mediæval vicegerent of
Christ with the two-edged sword of the world. His athletic physique
and iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of his ideas. In his
self-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel with the Sacred College,
saying that he “knew better than all the cardinals put together,” and
boldly set himself above all ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard
of reason that “the sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the
decrees of a hundred dead ones.” And finally, to leave his flock, the
Christian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral humility, he
revoked the resolve of the Romans never again to erect a monument to a
Pope in his lifetime, saying, “such a resolution could not apply to a
Pope like himself.”
The desire for unlimited temporal power rises like a column out of the
life of Urban VIII. Still it is not destitute of the embellishments of
art, poetry, and love of learning. It is no fiction that this imperious
pontiff found pleasure in turning passages of the Old and New Testaments
into Horatian metre, and the song of Simeon into two sapphic strophes!
His numerous and often cordial letters to Galileo bear witness also of
his interest in science and its advocates; but if these scientific or
poetic tastes clashed for a moment with the papal supremacy, the patron
of art and science had to give place at once to the ecclesiastical ruler,
who shunned no means, secret or avowed, of making every other interest
subservient to his assumption of temporal and spiritual dominion.
It is simply a psychological consequence of these traits of character,
that arbitrary caprice, the twin brother of despotic power, often played
an intolerable part in his treatment of those who came in contact with
him.[178]
This then was the character of the new head of the Catholic Church, on
whom Galileo placed great hopes for the progress of science in general,
and the toleration of the Copernican system in particular, though they
were to result in bitter disappointment. Yet to all appearance he was
justified in hailing this election, for not only was Urban VIII. a
refreshing contrast to his immediate predecessors, who cared little for
art or science, but as Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, he had for years shown
the warmest friendship for and interest in Galileo.
Many letters from this dignitary to Galileo which have come down to us
bear witness to this.[179] Thus he wrote to him from Bologna on 5th June,
1612: “I have received your treatise on various scientific questions,
which have been raised during my stay here, and shall read them with
great pleasure, both to confirm myself in my opinion, _which agrees with
yours_, and, with the rest of the world, to enjoy the fruits of your rare
intellect.”[180] The words, “in order to confirm,” etc., have led some
not very careful writers to conclude that, at all events when cardinal,
Urban VIII. was a follower of Copernicus. But this is quite beside the
mark. For the work in question was the one on floating bodies, with
which, though the Peripatetics got the worst of it, neither Ptolemy or
Copernicus had anything to do. A little more attention would have saved
Philarete Chasles and others from such erroneous statements.
Another letter to Galileo from the cardinal, 20th April, 1613, after the
publication of his work on the solar spots, shows the interest he took in
the astronomer and his achievements. He writes:—
“Your printed letters to Welser have reached me, and are very
welcome. I shall not fail to read them with pleasure, again and
again, which they deserve. This is not a book which will be
allowed to stand idly among the rest; it is the only one which
can induce me to withdraw for a few hours from my official
duties to devote myself to its perusal, and to the observation
of the planets of which it treats, if the telescopes we have
here are fit for it. Meanwhile I thank you very much for your
remembrance of me, and beg you not to forget the high opinion
which I entertain for a mind so extraordinarily gifted as
yours.”[181]
But the cardinal had not confined himself to these assurances of esteem
and friendship in his letters, but had proved them by his actions in 1615
and 1616, by honestly assisting to adjust Galileo’s personal affairs
when brought before the Inquisition. And Maffeo Barberini attributed the
success then achieved in no small degree to his own influence, and used
even to relate with satisfaction when Pope, that he had at that time
assisted Galileo out of his difficulties. But here we must remind those
authors who represent Barberini, when cardinal, as a Copernican, in order
to paint his subsequent attitude as Pope in darker hues than history
warrants, that although in 1615 and 1616 he exerted himself for Galileo
personally, he in no way sought to avert the condemnation of the system.
In 1620, however, Barberini gave Galileo a really enthusiastic proof of
his esteem. He celebrated his discoveries in some elegant and spirited
verses, in which astronomy was allied with morality, and he sent them to
Galileo, under date of 28th August, with the following letter:—
“The esteem which I always entertain for yourself and your
great merits has given occasion to the enclosed verses. If
not worthy of you, they will serve at any rate as a proof of
my affection, while I purpose to add lustre to my poetry by
your renowned name. Without wasting words, then, in further
apologies, which I leave to the confidence which I place in
you, I beg you to receive with favour this insignificant proof
of my great affection.”[182]
When this dignitary, who was generally regarded as a friend and protector
of science, had ascended the papal chair, the “Accadémia dei Lincei”
hastened to dedicate “Il Saggiatore” to his Holiness, in order to spoil
the sport of the author’s enemies beforehand.
To the annoyance of Galileo’s opponents and delight of his friends,
by the end of October, 1623, “Il Saggiatore” appeared. This work
is a masterpiece of ingenuity; for the author not only dexterously
avoids falling into the snares laid for him by Father Grassi, but
prepares signal defeats for him. Galileo takes his attack on him,
“The Astronomical and Philosophical Scales,” paragraph by paragraph,
throws light on each, and disputes or confutes it. And it is done in so
sparkling and spirited a style, and the reasoning, pervaded by cutting
sarcasm, is so conclusive, that “Il Saggiatore” certainly deserves to be
called a model of dialectic skill. Our limits preclude going further
into its scientific contents. For our purpose it will suffice to say
that Galileo took occasion in it to lash many errors in Grassi’s work
unmercifully, and thereby incurred the eternal hatred of the all powerful
Jesuit party. Thus it was to a great extent the purely scientific
“Saggiatore” which subsequently conjured up the tragic element in
Galileo’s fate.
Another interesting point in the work is the way in which Galileo replies
to Grassi’s interpellations about the system of the universe. Admirable
as is the ingenuity with which he performs this ticklish task, one
cannot sympathise with the denial of his inmost convictions. He parries
the provocations of his adversary by demonstrating that the Ptolemaic
and Copernican doctrines had nothing to do with the controversy about
comets, and that this question was only raised by “Sarsi” in order to
attack him (Galileo). He adds the ambiguous remark: “As to the Copernican
hypothesis, I am fully convinced that if we Catholics had not to thank
the highest wisdom for having corrected our mistake and enlightened our
blindness, we should never have been indebted for such a benefit to
the arguments and experiences of Tycho.”[183] He then shows that the
Copernican system, “which, as a pious Catholic, he considers entirely
erroneous and completely denies,” perfectly agrees with the telescopic
discoveries, which cannot be made to agree at all with the other systems.
But since, in spite of all this caution, a defence of the new system
might have been detected in these statements, Galileo hastens to the
conciliatory conclusion, that since the Copernican theory is condemned
by the Church, the Ptolemaic no longer tenable in the face of scientific
research, while that of Tycho is inadequate, some other must be sought
for.
Notwithstanding all this fencing, however, no one can fail to see in
“Il Saggiatore” an underhand defence of the Copernican system, as is
evident from the passages quoted. Such a vague discussion of it as this,
however, did not compromise Galileo according to the decree of 5th March,
1616; but “Il Saggiatore” would have directly contravened the assumed
absolute injunction to silence on that system of 26th February, and
Galileo would certainly not have ventured to write in this style if the
Commissary-General of the Holy Office had, in 1616, solemnly forbidden
him to discuss the said doctrine in any way whatever (_quovis modo_).
This is another proof that this famous prohibition was not issued to
Galileo in the form in which it occurs in the archives of 26th February.
“Il Saggiatore” was, indeed, denounced to the Inquisition in 1625,
by Galileo’s opponents, as containing a concealed endorsement of the
Copernican system, and a motion was made in the Congregation of the Holy
Office to prohibit it, or at any rate to have it corrected; but it was
not carried, and the party only prepared a defeat for themselves. In
consequence of the denunciation, a cardinal was charged to investigate
the matter, and to report upon it. He selected Father Guevara, General
of the Theatines, to assist him, who, after careful examination of
the work in question, spoke in high praise of it, recommended it most
warmly to the cardinal, and even gave him a written statement, in which
he explained that the opinion of the earth’s motion, even if it had
been maintained, would not have appeared to him a reason for condemning
it.[184] Even Urban VIII., who, we must suppose, was perfectly acquainted
with the proceedings of 1616, does not appear to have had any scruples
about “Il Saggiatore,” for he had it read aloud to him at table,
immediately after its publication,[185] and, as Galileo was assured,
enjoyed it highly.[186]