But much importance does not seem to have been attached to this

certificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, Niccolini

expressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical authorities at

Florence should receive extreme orders.[317] Castelli also, in a letter

of 25th December, urged his old master to set out.[318] But in this,

as in all his letters of this period, he shows that he had no idea of

the real moment to Galileo of the proceedings going on at Rome, and he

was altogether ill informed about the course things were taking.[319]

Probably great reserve was maintained towards this faithful adherent

of Galileo, who was also to be his advocate. Castelli always consoled

him with the assurance that, to the best of his belief, the final

decision of the holy tribunal would never be against him.[320] Even in

his letter of 25th December, Castelli says that he only considers it

necessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, because he entertained a

singular notion that Galileo’s cunning persecutors desired nothing more

than that he should not come to Rome, in order that they might decry

him as an obstinate rebel; for he had not committed any crime against

the Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was not

very sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before by giving up the

original of the celebrated letter of Galileo’s to him of 21st December,

1613.

On 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his despatch of

26th December were realised. On that day a papal mandate was issued to

the Inquisitor of Florence, which said that neither his Holiness nor

the Holy Congregation could or would tolerate such evasions; it must

therefore be proved whether Galileo’s state was really such that he

could not come to Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness and the

Holy Congregation would therefore send a commissioner, with a physician,

to Florence, who would visit Galileo and make a true and trustworthy

report on his condition, and if he were in a state to travel, bring him a

prisoner in irons to Rome (_carceratum et ligatum cum ferris_). If, out

of consideration for his health, or other danger to life, his coming must

be postponed, as soon as he had recovered and the danger was over, he was

to be brought a prisoner in irons to Rome. The document concluded with

the remark that the papal commissioner and the physician would travel at

Galileo’s expense, because he had not obeyed the command to appear at

Rome when his condition would have permitted it.[321]

To avert these extreme measures from being actually carried out, the

Grand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo on 11th January, 1633, that he

(Ferdinand) took a sincere interest in the affair, and regretted that he

was unable to spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he

should obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might perform the

journey more comfortably, he would place one of the grand ducal litters

and a trustworthy guide at his disposal, and would also permit him to

stay at the house of the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would,

within a month, be released from Rome.[322]

The pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face of the

Roman hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign does not dare to

protect the philosopher—the greatest of whom Italy can boast—from papal

persecution, but was obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition.

It must not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then only

twenty-two, because he had been brought up in the strictest Romish

fashion by the two Grand Duchesses and Cioli, acted otherwise than any

other Italian ruler would have done in the like situation. Not one of

them would have had courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome,

to put an energetic veto on a papal mandate like this. The Venetian

Republic, in which it had been established as an axiom by Paolo Sarpi

that “the power of rulers is derived immediately from God, and spiritual

as well as temporal things are subject to it,” was the only State of

Italy which would have asserted its sovereignty and would never have

delivered up one of its officials to the Roman will. Galileo now

suffered a bitter penalty for his former thankless conduct to the Free

State. The grand ducal orders had to be unconditionally obeyed; and as

any further delay might entail the worst consequences, Galileo fixed 20th

January for his departure.[323]

Before setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he addressed a

long letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate in the parliament of

Paris, Elia Diodati (not to be confounded with Johannes Diodati, the

translator of the Bible), who corresponded with the most learned men

of the time, and took a lively interest in Galileo’s studies and fate.

Some parts of this letter show how well this strictly theistic, or

more properly, Roman Catholic _savant_, knew how to bring the modern

astronomy into agreement with Christian philosophy and the Bible, and

this from real conviction, for this letter to his friend at Paris was

quite private. From this we may conclude that even his celebrated

demonstrations to Father Castelli, of 21st December, 1613, and the still

more elaborate ones to the Grand Duchess Christine, 1615, were the result

of honest conviction, and were not, as his enemies maintained, mere

dialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and the Copernican theory

into agreement. We give these interesting passages of the letter as well

as those which refer to Galileo’s unhappy situation:—

“I am sorry that the two books of Morin[324] and Fromond[325]

did not reach me till six months after the publication

of my ‘Dialogues,’ because otherwise I should have had an

opportunity of saying much in praise of both, and of giving

some consideration to a few particular points, especially to

one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished

that Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and

that he should pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which

seem to me very uncertain) to establish its truth. It will

really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, he raises

astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human

sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great

curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of

much mind, I could have wished not to see him fall into, in my

opinion, a grave though wide-spread error; namely, in order

to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls scornful

jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still

more unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy

Scripture, and at length goes so far as to call those views

on these grounds nothing less than heretical. That such a

proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very

easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun,

the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order

and motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations

of God. If asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would

answer, the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is

therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the same

God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never uses words

which appear to be contrary to things as they really are, and

are only so used to accommodate them to the understandings of

rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would reply,

in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of

Scripture, which, in a hundred passages, says things for the

above reason, that if taken literally, are not only heresies,

but blasphemies, since they impute to God, anger, repentance,

forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, whether God,

in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding of the

multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which

is God’s handmaid, and is not changeable at man’s desire, has

not always observed, and does not still maintain, her usual

course in respect to motion, form, and relative positions of

the various parts of the universe—I am certain that he would

answer, the moon has always been spherical, although for a

long period the people thought she was flat; he would say,

in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate

itself to the comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so,

why, in our search for knowledge of the various parts of the

universe, should we begin rather with the words than with the

works of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than

the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled that the

opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards,

demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should

prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have

brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary,

the works are indisputably proved to vary from the literal

meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures the second

place, no detriment to Scripture results from this. Since, in

order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, even to God

Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose that

in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such

strict laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations,

out of regard for the ignorance of the masses, which are

opposed to fact? If it be true that the earth moves and the sun

stands still, it is no detriment to Holy Scripture, since it

speaks of things as they appear to the people.

“Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning,

I wrote a letter[326] of some length, in which, supported by

the authorities of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed

what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in

questions of natural science, and I proposed that in future

it should not be brought into them. As soon as I am in less

trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less trouble,

because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been

summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited

the circulation of my ‘Dialogues.’ I hear from well-informed

parties that the Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest

quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the

Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin. And all this

although, in order to obtain the _imprimatur_, I went in person

to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of the

Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding,

and omitting, and even after he had given it the _imprimatur_,

ordered that it should be examined again at Florence. The

reviser here, finding nothing else to alter, in order to show

that he had gone through it carefully, contented himself

with substituting some words for others, as, for instance,

in several places, ‘Universum’ for ‘Nature,’ ‘quality’ for

‘attribute,’ ‘sublime spirit’ for ‘divine spirit,’ excusing

himself to me for it by saying that he foresaw that I should

have to do with fierce foes and bitter persecutors, as has

_indeed come to pass_.”[327]

CHAPTER VI.

_GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME._

Galileo reaches Rome in February, 1632.—Goes to the Tuscan

Embassy.—No Notice at first taken of his Coming.—Visits

of Serristori.—Galileo’s Hopefulness.—His Letter to

Bocchineri.—Niccolini’s Audience of the Pope.—Efforts of the

Grand Duke and Niccolini on Galileo’s behalf.—Notice that

he must appear before the Holy Office.—His Dejection at the

News.—Niccolini’s Advice not to defend himself.

On 20th January this palsied old man set out, borne in a litter, on his

arduous journey to Rome.[328] Near Ponte a Centino, on the frontiers of

the States of the Church, in the unhealthy flats of the vale of Paglia,

he had to submit to a long quarantine, which, in spite of Niccolini’s

repeated efforts, had only been shortened two days.[329] He could not

resume his journey for twenty days, but arrived at length, on 13th

February, at Rome, in good preservation, and alighted at the hotel of

the Tuscan Embassy, where he was most kindly received by Niccolini.

On the next day Niccolini informed Cioli that “Signor Galilei arrived

yesterday evening in good health at this house.” He mentioned further

that Galileo had already called on Mgr. Boccabella, not as an official

personage, as he had resigned his office of assessor to the Holy Office

a fortnight ago, but as a friend who showed great interest in his fate,

and to take his advice as to the conduct to be observed. Galileo had

already introduced himself to the new assessor. Niccolini concluded his

despatch by saying that to-morrow, in the course of the forenoon, he

would introduce Galileo to Cardinal Barberini, and ask him for his kind

mediation with his Holiness, and beg him, in consideration of Galileo’s

age, his reputation, and his ready obedience, to allow him to remain at

the hotel of the embassy, and not to be taken to the Holy Office.[330]

This request was tacitly granted for the time being, and afterwards

officially confirmed. To Galileo’s great surprise, no notice was

taken of his presence at Rome for some time. Cardinal Barberini gave

him a friendly hint, not at all _ex officio_, that he had better

keep very retired in the ambassador’s house, not receive any one,

nor be seen out of doors, as any other conduct might very likely be

to his disadvantage.[331] Of course the _savant_, anxious as he was,

scrupulously obeyed the admonition, and awaited the event in quiet

retirement, though with great impatience. Not the smallest instruction

was issued by the Holy Office; to all appearance it did not in the least

concern itself about the arrival of the accused which it had urged so

strenuously. But it was appearance only. For only two days after he

came, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor to the Holy Office (the same to whom

a year before Count Magalotti had, by Galileo’s wish, presented one of

the eight copies of the “Dialogues” brought to Rome), called several

times on Galileo, but always said expressly that his visits were entirely

of a private character and originated with himself. But as he always

discussed Galileo’s cause very particularly, there is good reason to

think that he was acting under orders from the Holy Office, who wanted to

discover the present sentiments and defensive arguments of the dreaded

dialectician, that they might act accordingly at the trial,—a measure

entirely in accordance with the traditional practice of the Holy Office.

Niccolini put this construction on the Monsignore’s visits,[332] but

not so Galileo. For although he perceived that in all probability

they were “approved or suggested by the Holy Congregation,” he was far

from thinking any evil, and was delighted that this officer of the

Inquisition, his “old friend and patron,” should “cleverly give him an

opportunity of saying something by way of expressing and confirming his

sincere devotedness to the holy Church and her ministers,” and that he

apparently listened to it all with great approval.[333] He thinks this

course pursued by the Inquisition “may be taken to indicate the beginning

of mild and kindly treatment, very different from the threatened

cords, chains, and dungeons;”[334] indeed, while he assumes that these

conferences are held at the instigation of the authorities, “and for the

purpose of gaining some general information,” he thankfully acknowledges

“that in this case they could not proceed in any way more favourable to

him or less likely to make a sensation.”[335] However, in the sequel

he was to discover soon enough, that they cared nothing whatever about

making a sensation at Rome, and that even in this respect they did not

spare him in the least.

At this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. On 19th

February he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance the threatened storm

had passed, so that he did not allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck

were inevitable, and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the

more so as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy billows he—

“Was taking his course with modest sail set.”[336]

This instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo “to be always

ready to obey and to submit to whatever was ordered, for this was the

only way to allay the irritation of one who was so incensed, and who

treated this affair as a personal one.”[337] It is clear that by this

personal persecutor no other than Urban VIII. can be intended.

The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo’s of

25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special

attention. It is as follows:—

“We” (Niccolini and Galileo) “hear at last that the many and

serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have

been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty

in getting rid when the grounds of my defence have been heard,

which are meanwhile being gradually brought, in the best way

that circumstances allow, to the knowledge of some of the

higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen freely

to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So

that in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for.”[338]

A despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of two days later explains the nature

of this chief accusation:—

“Although I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo’s

affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can

learn the main difficulty consists in this—that these gentlemen

maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to discuss the

question nor to converse about it. He says, on the contrary,

that those were not the terms of the injunction, which were

that _that doctrine was not to be held nor defended_. He

considers that he has the means of justifying himself, because

it does not at all appear from his book that he does hold

or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as a settled

question, as he merely adduces the reasons _hinc hinde_. The

other points appear to be of less importance and easier to get

over.”[339]

It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is evident from

Niccolini’s report above—from the first decidedly denies ever having

received an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory _in any way_;

all that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is,

_all that he knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and

with the decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616_. Accordingly he

does not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of the authorities,

and thinks that he can prove it even from the book itself.

On 27th February the Tuscan ambassador had a long audience of the Pope,

officially announced Galileo’s arrival at Rome, and expressed the hope

that as he had shown his readiness to submit to the papal judgment

and the enlightened opinion of the Congregation, the Pope would now

be convinced of his devout reverence for spiritual things, especially

in reference to the matter in hand. The Pope found it convenient not

to take any notice of this indirect question, and replied that he had

shown Galileo a special and unusual favour in allowing him to stay at

Niccolini’s house instead of in the buildings of the Holy Office; and he

had only done so because he was a distinguished official of the Grand

Duke’s, and it was out of respect for his Highness that he had granted

this exceptional favour to his subject. In order to enhance its value,

Urban also told the ambassador that even a noble of the house of Gonzaga,

a relative of Ferdinand’s, had not only been placed in a litter and

brought under escort to Rome by command of the Holy Office, but had been

taken at once to the Castle and kept there for a long time, until the

trial was ended. Niccolini hastened to acknowledge the greatness of the

favour, expressed his warmest thanks for it, and ventured to plead that

in consideration of Galileo’s age and infirm health the Pope would order

that the trial should come on soon, so that he might return home as soon

as possible. Urban replied that the proceedings of the Holy Office were

generally rather tedious, and he really did not know whether so speedy

a termination could be looked for, as they were still engaged with the

preliminaries of the trial. Urban had by this time become warm, and went

off into complaints of Ciampoli and the rest of his evil counsellors;

he also remarked that although Galileo had expressly stated in his

“Dialogues” that he would only discuss the question of the double motion

of the earth hypothetically, he had, in adducing the arguments for it,

spoken of it as settled, and as if he agreed with it. In conclusion the

Pope said: _Moreover, Galileo had acted contrary to the injunction given

him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine in the name of the Holy Congregation._

Niccolini mentioned in defence of Galileo all that he had told him about

this accusation, but the Pope adhered obstinately to his opinion. The

ambassador came away from this audience with the scant consolation that,

at all events, Urban’s personal embitterment against Galileo was a little

appeased.[340] We may remark here that what the Pope said about the

proceeding of 26th February, 1616, is just as inaccurate as Riccardi’s

communication to Niccolini was at that time.[341]

Both Niccolini and the Grand Duke were unwearied in their good offices

for Galileo. The former urgently commended his case to Cardinal Antonio

Barberini, senr., who said he was exceedingly well disposed to Galileo,

and regarded him as a very eminent man; but added that it was a dangerous

question, which might easily introduce some fantastic religious doctrines

into the world, and especially at Florence, where men’s wits were so

subtle and over curious.[342] The Grand Duke, at Galileo’s request, sent

letters of introduction to the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio (the

well-known statesman and historian), who, as Niccolini had learnt, were

members of the Congregation.[343] Ferdinand also thanked the Pope, in an

official letter through Cioli to Niccolini, for the favour of allowing

Galileo to stay at the embassy, ending with a request that the business

might be concluded as soon as possible.[344]

When Niccolini delivered this message to Urban on 13th March, he told

him that it would be absolutely necessary to summon Galileo to the Holy

Office as soon as the trial came on, because it was the usage and it

could not be departed from. Niccolini again urged Galileo’s health, his

age, and willingness to submit to any penalties; but Urban replied,

“It would not do to act otherwise. May God forgive Galileo for having

intruded into these matters concerning new doctrines and Holy Scripture,

when it is best to keep to universally recognised opinions. May God help

Ciampoli, also, about these new notions, as he seemed to have a leaning

towards them, and to be inclined to the modern philosophy.” The Pope

then expressed his regret at having to “subject Galileo, who had been

his friend, with whom he had often held confidential intercourse, and

eaten at the same table, to these annoyances; but it was in the interests

of religion and faith.” Niccolini remarked, that when Galileo was heard

he would be able, without difficulty, to give satisfactory explanations

of everything; to which Urban replied: “He would be heard when the time

came; but there was one argument which had never been answered, namely,

that God was omnipotent, and therefore everything was possible to Him;

but if so, why should we impose any necessity upon Him?” This was, as we

know, the argument brought forward by Urban in his intimate conversation

with Galileo in 1624, and which at the end of the “Dialogues” he had

put into the mouth of Simplicius as originating “with a very exalted

and learned personage.” Niccolini prudently replied that he did not

understand these matters, but he had heard it said of Galileo that he

did not hold the doctrine of the earth’s double motion as true, but said

that it could not be denied that as God could have created the world in

a thousand ways, He could have created it in this way. Urban replied

with some irritation: “It is not for man to impose necessity upon God.”

Niccolini, who saw that the Pope was getting angry, tried to pacify

him by saying that Galileo was here on purpose to obey and to recant

everything which could be injurious to religion. He then adroitly turned

the subject, and returned to the request that his Holiness would have

compassion on Galileo, and allow him to remain at the embassy. Urban

merely replied that he would have special apartments assigned to Galileo,

the best and most comfortable in the Holy Office. With this Niccolini had

to be content.

In concluding the despatch of 13th March to Cioli, in which he reported

this interview, he says:—[345]

“When I returned home I told Galileo in part the conversation

with his Holiness, but not for the present, that it was

intended to summon him to the Holy Office, because I am

convinced that this news would cause him the deepest concern,

and he would be in the greatest anxiety till the time came. I

have thought all the more that it was best to act thus, as no

further particulars are as yet known about his citation; for

the Pope told me in reference to the speedy settlement of the

business, that he did not know what hope there was of it, but

that all that was possible would be done.”

Meanwhile, Ferdinand II., in spite of the increasingly unpromising

aspect of affairs, continued indefatigably to sustain his ambassador’s

efforts. The latter and Galileo, in two letters of 19th March,[346]

asked the Grand Duke to send letters of recommendation to the eight

other cardinals who composed the Holy Congregation, like those he had

sent to their eminences Bentivoglio and Scaglia, lest they should feel

themselves slighted, and the Grand Duke readily granted the request.[347]

The prelates, however, received these letters with mixed feelings, and

excused themselves from answering them, as it was forbidden them in their

capacity as members of the Holy Office; some even hesitated to receive

the letters at all, and it was not till Niccolini pointed out that

Cardinal Barberini and others had received them, that they consented to

do so.[348] These letters had evidently produced the happiest effect

with the Cardinals Scaglia and Bentivoglio. They united, as Niccolini

reported on the 19th to Cioli, in protecting Galileo. Scaglia even read

the celebrated “Dialogues,” and, which was more to the purpose, that he

might, with the help of Castelli,[349] who was best qualified to do it,

explain the offending passages in a conciliatory spirit.

All this time Galileo, as is evident from his letters, was entertaining

the most confident hopes of the favourable issue of his cause, and

the final triumph of truth over falsehood.[350] Neither he nor his

indefatigable friends, Niccolini and Castelli, could, it is true, learn

anything definite about the actual state of the trial. The members of

the Congregation, who alone could have given any information, kept the

secrets of the Inquisition very close, as indeed they were bound to do

under the heaviest penalties. The month of March passed by before the

Holy Tribunal opened any direct official intercourse with Galileo. April

was now come, and with it the storm which had been so long gathering

burst over his head.

On the 7th, Niccolini went to Cardinal Barberini by his desire, and was

informed on behalf of the Pope and the Congregation, that, in order to

decide Galileo’s cause, they could not avoid citing him to appear before

the Holy Office, and as it was not known whether it could be all settled

in the course of two hours, perhaps it would be necessary to detain him

there. Barberini continued that “out of respect for the house in which

Galileo had been staying, and for Niccolini as grand ducal ambassador,

and in consideration of the good understanding which had always existed

between his Highness and the papal chair, especially in matters relating

to the Inquisition, they had not failed to inform him (Niccolini) of

this beforehand, not to be wanting in respect for a prince so zealous

for religion.” After Niccolini had warmly thanked the cardinal for the

attention shown by the Pope and the Congregation to the Grand Duke, and

to himself as his ambassador, he pleaded Galileo’s age and health,—he

had again been suffering severely from a fresh attack of the gout,—and

finally the deep grief he would feel, and earnestly begged that his

eminence would consider whether it would not be possible to permit him

to return every evening to sleep at the embassy. As to secrecy, the

strictest silence might be enjoined on him under threat of the severest

penalties. But the prelate was not of opinion that such a permission was

to be expected; he proffered, however, every comfort for Galileo that

could be desired, and said that he would neither, as was customary with

accused persons, be treated as a prisoner, nor be placed in a secret

prison; he would have good rooms, and perhaps even the doors would not be

locked.

Niccolini reported this notification to Cioli on 9th April,[351] and

added the following interesting information:—

“This morning I also conversed with his Holiness on the

subject, after having expressed my thanks for the communication

made to me; the Pope again gave vent to his displeasure that

Galileo should have discussed this subject, which appears to

him to be very serious, and of great moment to religion. Signor

Galileo thinks, nevertheless, that he can defend his statements

on good grounds; but I have warned him to refrain from doing

so, in order not to prolong the proceedings, and to submit

to what shall be prescribed to him to believe respecting the

motion of the earth. He has fallen into the deepest dejection,

and since yesterday has sunk so low that I am in great concern

for his life.”

From this, then, we learn that up to 8th April Galileo was still

intending to defend his opinions before the Holy Tribunal; and that it

was only on the urgent expostulation of the ambassador, whom he knew

to be his sincere friend, that he gave up all idea of opposition, and

resolved upon entire and passive submission. How hard it was for him to

yield is evident from the concluding sentence of Niccolini’s despatch.

CHAPTER VII.

_THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION._

The First Hearing.—Galileo’s submissive Attitude.—The Events

of February, 1616.—Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special

Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s Certificate.—Either the

Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s Ignorance was

feigned.—His Conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The

Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—Opinions of Oregius,

Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the Palace

of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri

Bocchineri.—Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an

Enigma.—Now explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr.

Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency.

On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first

hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General

of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the

fiscal attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all

his answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of

shortening the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive

acquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to

form a correct judgment of his depositions before the dread tribunal.[352]

According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to

the accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether

he knows or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that

he supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He

was then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, “Dialogo di

Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” which treats of the two systems of the world,

as entirely his own; to which he replied after a close examination of

the copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written

by himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes

to know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason.

He deposed that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he

had heard that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions,

and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter,

in order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This

deposition seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case;

for we know that he went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the

one hand, to frustrate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini,

Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the threatened

prohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his scientific demonstrations.

The motive of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact

that he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the

admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of

5th March.

The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own

accord, or in consequence of a summons. “_In the year 1616 I came of my

own accord to Rome, without being summoned_,” was the decided answer.

The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time

with several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these

conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he

might instruct them about Copernicus’s book, which was difficult for

laymen to understand, as they specially desired to acquaint themselves

with the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis.

The Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.

_Galileo_: “Respecting the controversy which had arisen on

the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the

earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the

Index, that such an opinion, considered as an established

fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible

as a conjecture (_ex suppositione_), as it was held by

Copernicus.”[353]

_Inquisitor_: “Was this decision then communicated to you, and

by whom?”

_Galileo_: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index

was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.”

_Inquisitor_: “You must state what his Eminence Cardinal

Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether

he said anything else on the subject, and what?”

_Galileo_: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that

the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a

conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence

was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as

a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same

Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini,

provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in

which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that your reverence

and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with

speaking _ex suppositione_, and not with certainty.’ This

letter of the cardinal’s is dated 12th April, 1615.[354] It

means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely,

must not be either held or defended.”

Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616,

and communicated to him.

_Galileo_: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal

Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if

adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must

neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held

hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance

with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal

Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the

Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is

opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith

submit a copy.”[355]

_Inquisitor_: “When the above communication was made to you,

were any other persons present, and who?”

_Galileo_: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to

me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some

Dominican fathers were present, but I did not know them, and

have never seen them since.”

_Inquisitor_: “Was any other command communicated to you on

this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any

one else, and what?”

_Galileo_: “I remember that the transaction took place as

follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning,

and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the

ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[356]

But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican

opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must not be

held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those

Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came

afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present

when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be

held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should

not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not

remember it, for it is several years ago.”

_Inquisitor_: “If what was then said and enjoined upon you as a

command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?”

_Galileo_: “I do not remember that anything else was said or

enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what

was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what

I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way

disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held

nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun

is stationary.”

The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him

before witnesses contained: “that he must neither hold, defend, nor teach

that opinion in any way whatsoever.”[357] Will he please to say whether

he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.

_Galileo_: “_I do not remember that the command was intimated

to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally_; and I remember

that the command was, _not to hold nor defend_. It may be

that, ‘and _not to teach_’ was also there. I do not remember

it, neither the definition ‘in any way whatsoever’ (_quovis

modo_), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about

it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as

a few months later I received the certificate now produced,

of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in

which the injunction given me, _not to hold nor defend_ that

opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions

of the said injunction which have just been made known to me,

namely, _not to teach_, and _in any way_, I have not retained

in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the

said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a

reminder.”

Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the

injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the

Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal

Bellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a

_command_ was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware;

but true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: “It

may be, but I do not remember it.” But the Inquisitor treats the issue

of the “command” as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may

have appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the

decree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it

was issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption

of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo “that this command issued to

him before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend,

nor teach that opinion.” Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any

way whatever” and “nor teach,” sound new, entrenches himself behind

his stereotyped answer, “I do not remember it.” Then he appeals to the

certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which

does not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query

_who_ intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: “Cardinal

Bellarmine.” He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the

cardinal’s communication as the _command_. Galileo’s depositions do not

contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of

26th February reports), after the cardinal’s communication, any further

instruction was given him by the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in

the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial

before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important

proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo’s memory. There are but

two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo

cannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.

Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter

supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume

with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen,

and whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo

would only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if

it would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the

advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no

means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen—supposing him to

make false depositions—from the Inquisitor’s questions that he had the

protocol of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction

be in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his

cause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has pointed out that it would

have been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed

ignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner,

never contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo’s depositions. His

simplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of

falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course

of the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his difficult part.

While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption

of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more

weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he

knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all

Galileo’s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the

seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the strongest evidence

for the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the

letters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no

trace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses

his satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an

entire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again

mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains open. And

the attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new

system is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the

Index of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with

the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office.

This is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published

in the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise on the tides to the

Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican

theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get

the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought,

more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special

prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same

date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican

theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues” themselves,

in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the

published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would

have infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system.

We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements,

in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the

Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold,

teach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does

not take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted

on the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for

example, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th

February, 1616, and confront them with the accused. And as no attempt is

made to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply

taken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say

the least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using,

without any close examination, a paper as a valid document on the trial,

which was destitute of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely,

the signatures of the accused, of the notary and witnesses, and in spite

of three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments

are needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from

mere carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared

that he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by

Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after

the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission

to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he

afterwards had printed?

_Galileo_: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not

ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine,

because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting

contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold,

defend, or to teach the said opinion.”

The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what

way, Galileo had received permission to print the “Dialogues.” Galileo

briefly relates the whole course of the negotiations which preceded

the printing. As his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it

is not reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking

permission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about

the command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy

Congregation?

_Galileo_: “I did not say anything about that command to the

Master of the Palace when I asked for the _imprimatur_ for the

book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything, because

I had no scruples about it; for I have neither maintained

nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and the sun

is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated

the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the

arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.”

With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the

first hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath

on subjects connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in

the private residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings

of this tribunal. Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and

Niccolini’s reports) kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he

wrote to Geri Bocchineri:—

“Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have

been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of

the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the

spacious apartments. My health is good, for which, next to God,

I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and his wife,

who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and far more than I

require.”[358]

[Illustration]

Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the

meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about

him, and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy

Office.[359] No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence

between Galileo and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend

and patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions,

without exciting any observation.[360]

While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing

but favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him,

nothing was left undone to find the best method of effecting his moral

ruin. At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on,

his faithful friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed

in theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not

recalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned, had left the

city.[361]

Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the

Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias

Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius

declared that “in the book superscribed ‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’

the doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is

stationary is _maintained_ and _defended_.” Inchofer’s statements (he

drew up two) declared that “Galileo had not only taught and defended

that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it,

and even held it to this day.” Both these attestations were supported by

a memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted

from the “Dialogues.”[362] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his

book had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the

universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that

in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth’s

motion round the sun.

Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses

his view that Galileo, by the publication of his “Dialogues,” had

infringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to

hold the Copernican Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or

speaking, in respect to _teaching_ and _defending_, and it was very

suspicious that he _held_ it.

In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the

“Dialogues,”[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo

had stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only

as a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical

language, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.

Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special

prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it

both as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the

suspicion of holding it.[364]

By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as decided. His

transgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the

special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of

his guilt there could be no question—neither could there be any of the

penalty.

The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been

so essential to the old man’s health,[365] combined with great mental

agitation, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to

Geri Bocchineri:—

“I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen

hours with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my

experience, will last as much longer. A little while ago I had

a visit from the commissary and the fiscal who conduct the

inquiry. They have promised and intimated it as their settled

intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am able to get up

again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I place

more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to

me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather

upon surmises than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my

innocence and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now

hope it more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will

conclude.”[366]

The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has

hitherto astounded all those who have studied this famous trial; for

while at the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied

having defended the Copernican system in his “Dialogues,” and even

asserted that he had done just the contrary, at the second hearing,

almost without waiting for the Inquisitor’s questions, he makes a humble

declaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a penitent confession

that he had defended it in his book. The cause of this change in Galileo

is explained by a most interesting letter from the Commissary-General

of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at

that time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco

Barberini. This letter of 28th April, 1633, first published in full by

Pieralisi, the learned librarian of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have

so often quoted, is as follows:[367]—

“In compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday

informed the most eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of

Galileo’s cause, the position of which I briefly reported.

Their Eminences approved of what has been done thus far,

and took into consideration, on the other hand, various

difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case,

and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has

in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the

book written by him; since in consequence of this denial there

would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure

and less regard to the other considerations belonging to

this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that

the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat

extra-judicially with Galileo, in order to render him sensible

of his error, and bring him, if he recognises it, to a

confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first sight

too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing

this object by merely adopting the method of argument with

him; but upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made

the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might

be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday

afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed

between us, by God’s grace I attained my object, for I brought

him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised

that he had erred, and had gone too far in his book. And to all

this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who

experienced great consolation in the recognition of his error,

and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested,

however, a little time in order to consider the form in which

he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as

its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner

indicated.

I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence

with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for

I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied

that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point

that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will

maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal leniently

with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will

recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences

of satisfaction herein desired. To-day I think of examining

him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as

I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to

question him with regard to his intention, and to impose

the prohibitions upon him; and that done, he might have the

house[368] assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your

Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.

Rome, 28th April, 1633.

Your Eminence’s humble and most obedient servant,

FRA VINCᵒ DA FIRENZUOLA.”

The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola

proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo’s

indisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the

truth, after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then

began the following melancholy confession:—

“In the course of some days’ continuous and attentive

reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of

the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen

years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the

Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach ‘in any

manner,’ the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the

motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred

to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three years I

had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to

my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen

from my pen anything from which a reader or the authorities

might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, but

also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had

contravened the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the

kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about

my servant, I succeeded in procuring a copy of my book, and

having procured it I applied myself with the utmost diligence

to its perusal, and to a most minute consideration thereof. And

as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented

itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another

author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to

me set forth in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real

purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments

adduced on the false side, and which it was my intention to

confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel

conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. Two

arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the solar

spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide—which in

truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of

force and power than ought to have been imparted to them by

one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to

refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold

them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as

excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to

my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that

when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the

object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in

the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form, and

should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent,—not

contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,—I resorted to that

of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard

to his own subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than

the generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false

propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all this,

although with Cicero ‘_avidior sim gloriae quam satis est_,’

if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt

I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make

an apparent show of that force of which they are really and

essentially devoid. My error, then, has been—and I confess

it—one of vainglorious ambition, and of pure ignorance and

inadvertence.

This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this

particular, and which suggested itself to me during the

re-perusal of my book.”[369]

After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed

immediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But

he must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial

of his inmost convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had

desired in his extra-judicial interview, further than the Inquisition

itself required. He did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the

“error” into which he had fallen in writing his “Dialogues” sufficient.

The Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution publicly

to correct it. He therefore returned at once to the court where the

sacred tribunal was still sitting, and made the following undignified

proposition:—

“And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and

do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of

the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—if there

shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a

clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready to do so: and there

is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in the

work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again

after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of

nature, connected with the matter discoursed of at their

meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or

two other ‘days,’ I promise to resume the arguments already

adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has

been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual

method as by the blessing of God may be supplied to me. I

pray, therefore, this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good

resolution, and to enable me to put it in effect.”[370]

It is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of science; and

yet the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific

convictions for which he had striven and laboured for half a century,

who even proposes in a continuation of his monumental work on the two

chief systems of the world to annihilate all the arguments therein

adduced for the recognition of the only true system, can never be

absolved by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and

insincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the century the opening of

which had been ominously marked by the funeral pile of Giordano Bruno,

and but eight years before, the corpse of Marc’Antonio de Dominis,—the

famous Archbishop of Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of

the Engelsburg during his trial before the Inquisition,—had, after the

sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting place and

publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical writings.

CHAPTER VIII.

_THE TRIAL CONTINUED._

Galileo allowed to return to the Embassy.—His

Hopefulness.—Third Hearing.—Hands in his Defence.—Agreement

of it with previous Events.—Confident Hopes of his

Friends.—Niccolini’s Fears.—Decision to examine Galileo under

threat of Torture.—Niccolini’s Audience of the Pope.—Informed

that the Trial was over, that Galileo would soon be sentenced,

and would be imprisoned.—Final Examination.—Sent back to

“_locum suum_.”—No Evidence that he suffered Torture or was

placed in a Prison Cell.

On the day on which the second hearing had taken place, at Firenzuola’s

suggestion to the Pope, Galileo was permitted, in consideration of his

age and infirmities, to return to the hotel of the Tuscan ambassador,

on oath not to leave it, not to hold any intercourse with any one but

the inmates of the house, to present himself before the Holy Office

whenever summoned, and to maintain the strictest silence about the

course of the trial.[371] On the very next day Niccolini wrote to Cioli

with great satisfaction: “Signor Galileo was yesterday sent back to

my house when I was not at all expecting him, and although the trial

is not yet ended.”[372] The Tuscan Secretary of State replied on 4th

May, with the curt observation: “His Highness was much pleased at the

liberation of Signor Galileo,” and immediately adds the ill-humoured and

unworthy remark: “It appears to me that I must remind your Excellency

that when I wrote to you to entertain Signor Galileo at the embassy, the

time specified was one month, and the expenses of the remaining time

must fall upon himself.”[373] Niccolini replied with ill-concealed

indignation: “It would not become me to speak of this subject to Galileo

while he is my guest; I would rather bear the expense myself, which only

comes to fourteen or fifteen scudi a month, everything included; so that

if Galileo should remain here the whole summer, that is six months, the

outlay for him and his servant would amount to about from ninety to a

hundred scudi.”[374]

Galileo, who had no idea that his generous protector, Niccolini, had even

had to go into unpleasant questions about his support, was entertaining

the most confident hopes of a successful and speedy termination of

his trial. Although his letters of this period are unfortunately not

extant,[375] we see from the answers of his correspondents what sanguine

accounts he sent them. Geri Bocchineri wrote on 12th May:

“I have for a long time had no such consolatory news as

that which your letter of the 7th brought me. It gives me

well-founded hopes that the calumnies and snares of your

enemies will be in vain; and in the end, the annoyances

involved in the defence, maintenance, and perhaps even

increase, of your reputation, can be willingly borne, as

you undoubtedly have borne them, since you have gained far

more than you have lost by the calamity that has fallen upon

you! My pleasure is still more enhanced by the news that you

expect to be able to report the end of the affair in the next

letter.”[376]

But many a post day was to pass over, many a letter from Galileo to be

received, before his trial was to come to the conclusion he so little

anticipated.

On 10th May he was summoned for the third time before the Holy Tribunal,

where Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition,

informed him that eight days were allowed him in which to write a defence

if he wished to submit one. But Galileo handed it in _at once_,[377]

from which we may conclude that he had been informed of this proceeding

beforehand. It was as follows:—

“When asked if I had signified to the Reverend Father, the

Master of the Sacred Palace, the injunction privately laid

upon me, about sixteen years ago, by order of the Holy Office,

not to hold, defend, or ‘in any way’ teach the doctrine of the

motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, I answered

that I had not done so. And not being questioned as to the

reason why I had not intimated it, I had no opportunity to add

anything further. It now appears to me necessary to state the

reason, in order to demonstrate the purity of my intention,

ever foreign to the employment of simulation or deceit in

any operation I engage in. I say, then, that as at that time

reports were spread abroad by evil-disposed persons, to the

effect that I had been summoned by the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine

to abjure certain of my opinions and doctrines, and that I had

consented to abjure them, and also to submit to punishment for

them, I was thus constrained to apply to his Eminence, and

to solicit him to furnish me with an attestation, explaining

the cause for which I had been summoned before him; which

attestation I obtained, in his own handwriting, and it is

the same that I now produce with the present document.[378]

From this it clearly appears that it was merely announced to

me that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus of the motion

of the earth and the stability of the sun must not be held

or defended, and ... [Here the MS. is defaced] beyond this

general announcement affecting every one, any other injunction

in particular was intimated to me, no trace thereof appears

there. Having, then, as a reminder, this authentic attestation

in the handwriting of the very person who intimated the command

to me, I made no further application of thought or memory with

regard to the words employed in announcing to me the said order

not to hold or defend the doctrine in question; so that the

two articles of the order—in addition to the injunction not to

‘hold’ or ‘defend’ it—to wit, the words ‘nor to teach it’ ‘in

any way whatsoever’—which I hear are contained in the order

intimated to me, and registered—struck me as quite novel and as

if I had not heard them before; and I do not think I ought to

be disbelieved when I urge that in the course of fourteen or

sixteen years I had lost all recollection of them, especially

as I had no need to give any particular thought to them,

having in my possession so authentic a reminder in writing.

Now, if the said two articles be left out, and those two only

be retained which are noted in the accompanying attestation,

there is no doubt that the injunction contained in the latter

is the same command as that contained in the decree of the

Sacred Congregation of the Index. Whence it appears to me that

I have a reasonable excuse for not having notified to the

Master of the Sacred Palace the command privately imposed upon

me, it being the same as that of the Congregation of the Index.

Seeing also, that my book was not subject to a stricter

censorship than that made binding by the decree of the Index,

it will, it appears to me, be sufficiently plain that I adopted

the surest and most becoming method of having it guaranteed

and purged of all shadow of taint, inasmuch as I handed it

to the supreme Inquisitor at the very time when many books

dealing with the same matters were being prohibited solely in

virtue of the said decree. After what I have now stated, I

would confidently hope that the idea of my having knowingly

and deliberately violated the command imposed upon me, will

henceforth be entirely banished from the minds of my most

eminent and wise judges; so that those faults which are seen

scattered throughout my book have not been artfully introduced

with any concealed or other than sincere intention, but have

only inadvertently fallen from my pen, owing to a vainglorious

ambition and complacency in desiring to appear more subtle than

the generality of popular writers, as indeed in another ...

[MS. defaced] deposition I have confessed: which fault I shall

be ready to correct by writing whenever I may be commanded or

permitted by your Eminences.

Lastly, it remains for me to pray you to take into

consideration my pitiable state of bodily indisposition, to

which, at the age of seventy years, I have been reduced by ten

months of constant mental anxiety and the fatigue of a long

and toilsome journey at the most inclement season—together

with the loss of the greater part of the years of which,

from my previous condition of health, I had the prospect.

I am persuaded and encouraged to do so by the clemency and

goodness of the most eminent lords, my judges; with the hope

that they may be pleased, in answer to my prayer, to remit

what may appear to their entire justice ... to such sufferings

as adequate punishment—out of consideration for my declining

age, which too, I humbly commend to them. And I would equally

commend to their consideration my honour and reputation,

against the calumnies of ill-wishers, whose persistence in

detracting from my good name may be inferred from the necessity

which constrained me to procure from the Lord Cardinal

Bellarmine the attestation which accompanies this.”[379]

This touching appeal to the mercy of the judges of the Holy Office can

scarcely be read without feelings of the profoundest pity for the unhappy

old man, who, in the evening of his days, felt compelled by dread of the

stake to deny his scientific convictions.

In looking at the defence in a judicial light, in spite of mistrust in

the truthfulness of the accused, for which there is some justification,

it must be allowed that his statements about the proceedings of sixteen

years before, agree entirely with all his letters and actions from 1616

to 1632. In view of this state of the case, Galileo’s remark in his

defence that “he had received that certificate from the very person who

had intimated the command to him,” possesses increased significance. His

whole defence is intended to convince the judges that the two particulars

“not to teach” and “in any way” were unknown to him up to the day of his

first hearing, or, as he says, to avoid direct contradiction, “he had

lost all recollection of them.” He obviously thinks that the gravity

of the indictment lies in these words. But he seems to be absolutely

ignorant of their having been issued to him after the previous admonition

of the Cardinal, by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, with

the threat that “otherwise they would proceed against him in the Holy

Office,” indeed, by the above remark he decidedly contradicts it.

Apologists of the Inquisition at any price, of the stamp of Mgr. Marini,

do not fail to adopt the only means left to them, and call Galileo’s

defence “childish evasions unworthy of so great a man, which are sure

signs of guilt.”[380] We are of opinion, on the contrary, that the

confident hopes of a favourable issue of his trial, by which, as appears

from the replies of his correspondents and Niccolini’s despatches,

Galileo was animated up to the last moment, by no means comport with

consciousness of guilt.

After his defence had been received, and the same obligations imposed on

him on oath as after the second hearing, he was allowed to return to the

embassy. The nearer the time approached when the old man’s illusions were

to be dispelled, the more sanguine was the intelligence he sent to his

friends. He reminds one of a consumptive patient, full of hope when in

the last stage of his disorder. Galileo receives in reply to his letters

the congratulations of his friends on the, as they suppose, doubtless

favourable issue of his trial. Cardinal Capponi writes on 21st May, that

he had never expected anything else.[381] Bocchineri, Guiducci, Agguinti,

Cini, and others heartily express their satisfaction;[382] the Archbishop

of Siena, Ascanio Piccolomini, Galileo’s devoted friend, invites him, in

expectation of his speedy dismissal from Rome, to come and see him at

Siena, that he may await the extinction of the plague at Florence.[383]

Galileo accepts the friendly invitation, and informs Bocchineri that

he intends to go to Siena immediately after the end of the trial.[384]

Archbishop Piccolomini even offers his impatiently expected guest a

litter for the journey.[385] A favour granted to Galileo just at the

last, on the urgent solicitation of Niccolini, and quite unheard of in

the annals of the Inquisition, might have increased these confident

hopes. He was permitted to take the air for the sake of his health in

the gardens of the Castle of Gandolfo, to which, however, he was always

conveyed in a half-closed carriage, as he was not to be seen in the

streets.[386]

Niccolini, however, did not share the hopes of his famous guest, and for

very good reasons. He had had an audience, on 21st May, of the Pope and

Cardinal Barberini, who had told him in answer to his inquiries when the

trial might be expected to end, that it would probably be concluded in

the congregation to take place in about a fortnight. After reporting this

in his despatch to Cioli of 22nd May, Niccolini continues: “I very much

fear that the book will be prohibited, unless it is averted by Galileo’s

being charged, as I proposed, to write an apology. Some ‘salutary

penance’ will also be imposed upon him, as they maintain that he has

transgressed the command communicated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine in

1616. I have not yet told him all this, because I want to prepare him for

it by degrees, in order not to distress him. It will also be advisable to

observe silence about this in Florence, that he may not hear it from his

friends there; and the more so, as it may turn out otherwise.”[387] It

was indeed “to turn out otherwise,” but in a way that even Niccolini did

not in the least suspect.

A momentary lull now took place in Galileo’s trial—the preparation for

the great catastrophe that was to take all the world by surprise. Sultry

silence reigned for four weeks. No one, not even Niccolini, could learn

anything about the progress of the affair; the thunderbolt had already

fallen which was to crush the accused before it was known to anyone

beyond the Holy Congregation. His fate had been sealed in a private

meeting of it presided over by the Pope. Unfortunately we have no written

notes of the proceedings of this highly interesting sitting. From two

documents, which agree entirely in essentials, we simply know what the

decrees were which minutely prescribed the final proceedings to be taken

against Galileo. One of these documents is derived from the Vatican

collection of the acts of Galileo’s trial; the other is reproduced in

Gherardi’s collection of documents, and belongs to the MS. originals of

the decrees drawn up in the sittings of the Holy Congregation in the

archives of the Inquisition.

It is decreed in both documents[388] which agree almost verbatim: To try

Galileo _as to his intention, and under threat of torture_; if he kept

firm, he was to be called upon to recant before a plenary assembly of

the Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned to imprisonment according

to the judgment of the Holy Congregation, and ordered in future not

to discuss, either in writing or speaking, the opinion that the earth

moves and the sun is stationary, nor yet the contrary opinion, under

pain of further punishment for contumacy; further, the work, “Dialogo di

Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” was to be prohibited. And in order to make this

known everywhere, copies of the sentence were to be sent to all papal

envoys, and all inquisitors into heretical crimes, and specially to the

Inquisitor of Florence, who was to proclaim it in a full conclave of the

Congregation, and read it publicly to a majority of the professors of

mathematics summoned for the purpose.

It is noteworthy that it was expressly decreed that Galileo was to be

enjoined, “nor yet to discuss the contrary opinion,” the Ptolemaic.

They obviously accredited the clever dialectician with the skill, under

pretext of defending the old system, of demonstrating exactly the

contrary. It therefore seemed most prudent to impose absolute silence on

him on this delicate subject.

Two days after the course of the proceedings had been secretly determined

on, the Pope gave audience to Niccolini, who once more came to beg for

a speedy termination of the trial. Urban VIII. said that it had already

been terminated, and that within the next few days Galileo would be

summoned before the Holy Office to hear his sentence. The ambassador,

who was terrified at this unexpected intelligence, hastened to implore

his Holiness, out of respect for his Highness the Grand Duke, to mollify

the severity which the Holy Congregation might perhaps have thought it

necessary to exercise; and added obligingly that the great complaisance

shown to the Grand Duke in the matter of Galileo was fully appreciated,

and that the Grand Duke was only awaiting the end of the business to

express his gratitude in person. The Pope replied, with equal suavity,

that his Highness need not take this trouble, as he had readily granted

every amelioration to Galileo out of affection for him; but as to his

cause, they could do no less than prohibit that opinion, because it

was erroneous and contrary to Holy Scripture, dictated _ex ore Dei_;

as to his person, he would, according to usage, be imprisoned for a

time, _because he had transgressed the mandate issued to him in 1616_.

“However,” added Urban, “after the publication of the sentence we will

see you again, and we will consult together so that he may suffer as

little distress as possible, since it cannot be let pass without some

demonstration against his person.” In reply to Niccolini’s renewed urgent

entreaties that his Holiness would extend his accustomed mercy to the

pitiable old man of seventy, the Pope said that “he would at any rate be

sent for a time to some monastery, as for instance, St. Croce; for he

really did not know precisely what the Holy Congregation might decree

(?!), but it was unanimous and _nemine discrepante_ in intending to

impose a penance on Galileo.”

The very same day the ambassador sent a detailed despatch about this

audience to Cioli,[389] and remarked at the end that he had simply

informed Galileo of the approaching end of the trial, and of the

prohibition of his book, but had said nothing about the personal

punishment, in order not to trouble him too much at once; the Pope had

also enjoined this, that Galileo might not distress himself yet, and

“because perhaps in the course of the proceedings things might take a

better turn.”

Galileo’s trial now proceeded strictly according to the programme settled

by the Congregation of the Holy Office under the papal presidency. On the

evening of Monday, 20th June, Galileo received a summons from the Holy

Office to appear the next day.[390] In this final hearing the accused

was to be questioned, under threat of torture, about his intention, that

is, as to his real conviction concerning the two systems. On the morning

of the 21st Galileo appeared before his judges. After he had taken the

usual oath, and had answered in the negative the query whether he had any

statement to make, the examiner began as follows:—

Interrogated whether he holds or has held, and how long ago, that the sun

is the centre of the world and that the earth is not the centre of the

world, and moves, and also with a diurnal motion;

He answered: “A long time ago, _i.e._, before the decision of the Holy

Congregation of the Index, and before the injunction was intimated to me,

I was indifferent, and regarded both opinions, namely, that of Ptolemy

and that of Copernicus, as open to discussion, inasmuch as either one or

the other might be true in nature; but after the said decision, assured

of the wisdom of the authorities, I ceased to have any doubt; and I held,

as I still hold, as most true and indisputable, the opinion of Ptolemy,

that is to say, the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun.”

Being told that from the manner and connection in which the said opinion

is discussed in the book printed by him subsequently to the time

mentioned—nay, from the very fact of his having written and printed

the said book, he is presumed to have held this opinion after the time

specified; and being called upon to state the truth as to whether he

holds or has held the same;

He answered: “As regards the writing of the published dialogue, my motive

in so doing was not because I held the Copernican doctrine to be true,

but simply thinking to confer a common benefit, I have set forth the

proofs from nature and astronomy which may be adduced on either side;

my object being to make it clear that neither the one set of arguments

nor the other has the force of conclusive demonstration in favour of

this opinion or of that; and that therefore, in order to proceed with

certainty we must have recourse to the decisions of higher teaching, as

may be clearly seen from a large number of passages in the dialogue in

question. I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold

the condemned opinion, and have not held it since the decision of the

authorities.”

Being told that from the book itself and from the arguments adduced on

the affirmative side,—namely, that the earth moves and that the sun is

immovable,—it is presumed, as aforesaid, that he holds the opinion of

Copernicus, or at least that he held it at that time; and that therefore,

unless he make up his mind to confess the truth, recourse will be had

against him to the appropriate remedies of the law;

He answered: “I do not hold, and have not held this opinion of Copernicus

since the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it; for the

rest, I am here in your hands,—do with me what you please.” Being once

more bidden to speak the truth, otherwise recourse will be had to

torture, the terrified old man answered with the resignation of despair:

“I am here to obey, and I have not held this opinion since the decision

was pronounced, as I have stated.”

In the protocol of the trial the concluding sentence follows immediately

after this last answer of Galileo’s: “And as nothing further could be

done in execution of the decree (of 16th June), his signature was

obtained to his deposition, and he was sent back to his place.”[391]

There is not in this document, nor in any other extant, the slightest

trace that torture was actually applied to Galileo, as has long and

even recently been fabled. Since the publication of it by Epinois

has acquainted us with the decree of 16th June, none such can be

expected ever to be found. In that decree the course of the final legal

proceedings was precisely indicated. But it was only the _threat_ of

torture that was prescribed, after which recantation and sentence of

imprisonment were to follow. The execution of this threat, then, would

have been a gross, and under the circumstances, incredible violation of

the decrees of the Holy Office itself. Moreover, the assumed torture of

Galileo is opposed, as we shall see by and by, to various historical

facts. When the whole course of the trial is unrolled before our eyes, we

shall go more deeply into the region of fable and malicious fabrication.

But as we pursue the path of history, we come upon an error which Mgr.

Marini’s peculiar mode of interpretation has given rise to. He takes the

concluding words of the protocol of the trial of 21st June, “remissus

fuit ad locum suum,” to mean that Galileo was sent back to the Tuscan

embassy.[392] Now, it is indisputable, from a despatch of Niccolini’s to

Cioli of 26th June, 1633, that after the hearing of the 21st June, the

accused was detained in the buildings of the Holy Office, and did not

leave them till the 24th.[393]

We have no information whatever as to the treatment he met with this time

in the buildings of the Holy Office. Was he put into the apartments he

had occupied before, or was he confined in a prisoner’s cell? From the

considerate treatment in outward things which Galileo met with during his

trial at Rome, it may perhaps be concluded _that he never was thrown into

the dungeons of the Inquisition_.

CHAPTER IX.

_THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._

The Sentence in full.—Analysis of it.—The Copernican

System had not been pronounced heretical by “Infallible”

Authority.—The Special Prohibition assumed as Fact.—The

Sentence illegal according to the Canon Law.—The Holy Office

exceeded its powers in calling upon Galileo to recant.—The

Sentence not unanimous.—This escaped notice for two hundred

and thirty-one Years.—The Recantation.—Futile attempts to

show that Galileo had really altered his Opinion.—After the

Sentence, Imprisonment exchanged for Banishment to Trinita de’

Monti.—Petition for leave to go to Florence.—Allowed to go to

Siena.

On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1633, in the forenoon, Galileo was conducted

to the large hall used for melancholy proceedings of this kind, in the

Dominican Convent of St. Maria sopra la Minerva, where, in the presence

of his judges and a large assemblage of cardinals and prelates of the

Holy Congregation, the following sentence was read to him:—

WE, Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia;

Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasia, detto d’Ascoli;

Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio;

Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona;

Fra Antonio Barberino detto di S. Onofrio;

Laudivio Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di

S. Sisto;

Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi;

Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna, Verospi,

chiamato Prete;

Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e

Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi;

by the grace of God, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,

Inquisitors General, by the Holy Apostolic see specially

deputed, against heretical depravity throughout the whole

Christian Republic.

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,

Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615

denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false

doctrine taught by many, that the sun is the centre of the

world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and also with

a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught

the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain

mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having

printed certain letters, entitled “On the Solar Spots,” wherein

you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to

the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to

time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures

according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon

produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter,

purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple,

and in this divers propositions are set forth,[394] following

the hypothesis of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true

sense and authority of Holy Scripture:

This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding

against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went

on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of

his Holiness and of the most eminent Lords Cardinals of this

supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the

stability of the sun and the motion of the earth were by the

theological “Qualifiers” qualified as follows:

The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world

and does not move from its place is absurd and false

philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly

contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world

and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal

motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and

theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with

you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before his

Holiness on the 25th February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord

Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the

said false doctrine, and, in the event of your refusal, that an

injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the

Holy Office, to give up the said doctrine, and not to teach it

to others, nor to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing

your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be

imprisoned. And in execution of this decree, on the following

day, at the Palace, and in the presence of his Eminence, the

said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished

by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was intimated to you by

the Father Commissary of the Holy Office for the time before a

notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the

said false opinion, and not in future to defend or teach it in

any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon

your promising to obey you were dismissed.

And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly

rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave

prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy

Congregation of the Index, prohibiting the books which treat of

this doctrine, and declaring the doctrine itself to be false

and wholly contrary to sacred and divine Scripture.

And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year

at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the

author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the

Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and the

Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards

informed that through the publication of the said book, the

false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability

of the sun was daily gaining ground; the said book was taken

into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a

patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been

imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said

opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be

so, although in the said book you strive by various devices

to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in

express terms as probable: which however is a most grievous

error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been

declared and defined to be contrary to Divine Scripture:

Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office,

where, being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book

to be written and published by you. You confessed that you

began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago,

after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you

requested licence to print it, without however intimating to

those who granted you this licence that you had been commanded

not to hold, defend, or teach in any way whatever the doctrine

in question.

You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in

various places drawn up in such a form that the reader might

fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side

are rather calculated by their cogency to compel conviction

than to be easy of refutation; excusing yourself for having

fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your

intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue, and

by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to

his own subtleties, and in showing himself more clever than

the generality of men, in devising, even on behalf of false

propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.

And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare

your defence, you produced a certificate in the handwriting

of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by

you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against

the calumnies of your enemies, who gave out that you had

abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which

certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had

not been punished, but merely that the declaration made by

his Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the

Index, had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that

the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of

the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore

cannot be defended or held. And as in this certificate there

is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely,

the order not “to teach” and “in any way,” you represented

that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or

sixteen years you had lost all memory of them; and that this

was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested

permission to print your book. And all this you urged not

by way of excuse for your error, but that it might be set

down to a vainglorious ambition rather than to malice. But

this certificate produced by you in your defence has only

aggravated your delinquency, since although it is there stated

that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have

nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its

probability; nor does the licence artfully and cunningly

extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify

the command imposed upon you.

And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full

truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary

to subject you to a rigorous examination, at which (without

prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you, and

set forth as above, with regard to your said intention) you

answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and

maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together

with your confessions and excuses above mentioned, and all that

ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the

underwritten final sentence against you:—

Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus

Christ and of His most glorious Mother, and ever Virgin Mary,

by this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the

counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology

and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these

writings, in the cause and causes presently before us between

the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor

Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and you Galileo

Galilei, the defendant, here present, tried and confessed as

above, of the other part,—we say, pronounce, sentence, declare,

that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in

process, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself

in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of

heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which

is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that

the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from

east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the centre

of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as

probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary

to Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred

all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the

sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular,

against such delinquents. From which we are content that you

be absolved, provided that first, with a sincere heart, and

unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid

errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary

to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be

prescribed by us.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and

transgression may not remain altogether unpunished, and that

you may be more cautious for the future, and an example to

others, that they may abstain from similar delinquencies—we

ordain that the book of the “_Dialogues of Galileo Galilei_” be

prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during

our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance, we enjoin that

for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven

penitential Psalms.

Reserving to ourselves full liberty to moderate, commute, or

take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and

penance.

And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, condemn

and reserve, in this and any other better way and form which we

can and may lawfully employ.

So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce.

F. Cardinalis de Asculo.

G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.

Fr. Cardinalis de Cremona.

Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.

B. Cardinalis Gypsius.

Fr. Cardinalis Verospius.

M. Cardinalis Ginettus.[395]

Before proceeding to narrate the consequences of this sentence to the

culprit (namely, his recantation and punishment), this seems to be the

place to subject this memorable document to a critical review, to show

how far the sentence pronounced on Galileo had a legal basis, even

on Romish principles. To this end it will be necessary to follow the

construction of the sentences step by step, for only in this way can a

correct opinion be formed of the accordance of this cunningly devised

structure with the actual state of things.

The sentence begins with a condensed historical review of the

transactions of 1615, obviously based on the denunciations of Lorini,

and the evidence of Caccini of 20th March, 1615. Immediately afterwards

follows the well-known opinion of the theological Qualifiers on the

principles of Copernicus. This is plainly to justify the measures taken

in consequence by the ecclesiastical authorities against his doctrine and

its most distinguished advocate. For immediately after follows, first a

recapitulation of the report registered in the Vatican MS. of the events

of 25th and 26th February, 1616, and then the decree of the Congregation

of the Index of 5th March, 1616, “by which those books were prohibited

which treat of the aforesaid doctrine, and the same was declared to

be false and entirely contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture.” The

sentence then comes to the occasion of the trial of Galileo, namely, his

“Dialogues,”—and states: firstly, that by this book he had transgressed

the special prohibition of 1616;[396] secondly, that his statement

therein, which is almost incredible, that he had left the Copernican view

undecided and as only _probable_, is a “gross error,” since a doctrine

cannot in any way be probable (_probalis_) which has already been found

and declared to be “contrary to Holy Scripture.”

The first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, which treated

the note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic document, is certainly

correct; the second, even according to the maxims of Rome, is not to

the purpose. According to these maxims a proposition can only be made

into a dogma by “infallible” authority, namely, by the Pope speaking _ex

cathedra_, or by an Œcumenical Council; and on the other hand, it is

only by the same method that an obligation can be laid upon the faithful

to consider an opinion heretical. But a decree of the Congregation of

the Index does not entail the obligation; for, although by virtue of

the authority conferred on it, it can enforce obedience and inflict

punishment, its decrees are not “infallible.” They can, however, be

made so, according to ecclesiastical views, either by the subsequent

express confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as supreme head

of the Christian Catholic Church; or by the decree of the Congregation

being originally provided with the clause: “_Sanctissimus confirmavit

et publicari mandavit._” But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is neither

confirmed by a subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special

formula; and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the

opinion of Copernicus to be “false and contrary to Holy and Divine

Scripture,” it might still be considered as undecided, and even probable,

because the decree might be fallible, and did not entail the obligation

to adopt its sentence as an article of faith.[397] This must also have

been the view of the ecclesiastical authorities of the censorship, who

had given Galileo’s book the _imprimatur_, and thereby, as H. Martin

justly remarks,[398] relieved the author of responsibility, not in

anything relating to the assumed special prohibition, but concerning the

accordance of the work with the published decree. Point 2, therefore,

seems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The sentence now gives a brief

_résumé_ of the confessions made by Galileo during the examination,

which are employed to confirm his guilt. The twofold reproach is

urged against him, as of special weight, that he began to write his

“Dialogues” after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he said

nothing about it in obtaining the _imprimatur_ of the censors; thus the

special prohibition was treated as an established fact—on the one hand,

his disobedience to an injunction of the ecclesiastical authorities

was proved, and on the other, the _imprimatur_ was obtained on false

pretences, and was null and void.

After a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so unedifying to

posterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, the sentence proceeds

to the discussion of an authentic document which formed the chief defence

of the accused: the certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine.

The authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult

task to perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability of the “note”

of 26th February, 1616—this main support of the whole indictment—and by

no means to make this attestation appear at variance with the actual

circumstances, or it would have become an important argument in favour

of the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for the accusation

had to be found in the words of the certificate itself. And thus we

find this document, which, as Wohlwill pertinently remarks,[399] by the

words “but only” directly denies the assumed stringent prohibition of

1616, singularly enough, thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers,

forming a weighty argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: “But

this certificate,” it says, “produced by you in your defence, has only

aggravated your delinquency; since although it is there stated that the

said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared

to discuss and defend it, and to argue its probability.”

But as here they again had to refer to the protecting _imprimatur_ of

the ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: “nor does the licence,

artfully and cunningly extorted by you, avail you anything, since you did

not notify the command imposed upon you.”

One cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the attestation of

Cardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, “the command imposed” did not

exist, and of course could not be communicated by Galileo to the censors.

In the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, a passage is

dexterously interwoven, which ascribes the decree of 5th March, 1616, to

the Pope; while, as we know, it belongs officially to the Congregation

alone. The words are these: “But merely that the declaration made by

his Holiness (_fatta da nostro Signore_), and published by the Holy

Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you.”

Undoubtedly Pope Paul V. wished the decree made and privately instigated

it, as Urban VIII. did the sentence against Galileo; and in this sense

the former may be attributed to the one and the latter to the other,

and the condemnation of the Copernican theory to both. But in this they

acted as private persons, and as such they were not (nor would they now

be), according to theological rules, “infallible.” The conditions which

would have made the decree of the Congregation, or the sentence against

Galileo, of dogmatic importance, were, as we have seen, wholly wanting.

Both Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of

the papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a

scientific controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their

sanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken,

at their instigation, by the Congregation “to suppress the doctrine of

the revolution of the earth.” Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman

Catholic posterity can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were

in error “as men” about the Copernican system, but not “as Popes.” For

us there remains the singular deduction, that the sentence on Galileo

rests again and again, even on the principles of the ecclesiastical court

itself, on an illegal foundation.

After a brief mention of the rigid examination of 21st June, the

sentence comes to formulate the judgment more particularly. According to

this Galileo is, (1) “in the judgment of this Holy Office, vehemently

suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine

which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures ... and

that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been

declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture;” (2) and that

consequently he has incurred all the censures and penalties imposed in

the sacred canons against such delinquents. “From which we are content

that you be absolved, provided that first you abjure, curse, and detest

the aforesaid errors and heresies in the form to be supplied by us.”

Point 1, according to Romish regulations about making an opinion an

article of faith, in its relation to heresy appears to be illegal and

incorrect. Galileo had not laid himself open to suspicion of heresy

because he had inclined to a doctrine discovered to be contrary to

Scripture by the fallible Congregation of the Index. Point 2 must also,

therefore, be illegal, which says that Galileo had “consequently”

incurred all the censures and penalties adjudged to such criminals by the

canon law.

Galileo could never have been legally condemned on suspicion of heresy

from his “Dialogues.” In the first place, because neither he nor any

other Catholic was bound by the decree of 5th March, 1616, to regard

the confirmation of the old system or the rejection of the new as an

article of faith; in the second place, because the _imprimatur_ of the

ecclesiastical authorities relieved him from all responsibility. But he

could be condemned for disobedience to the assumed special prohibition of

26th February, 1616. In the sentence this forms the only legal basis of

the indictment and condemnation. How far this prohibition is historically

credible, we think we have sufficiently demonstrated in the course of our

work.

And when we consider the penalties which follow from this sentence, based

partly upon incorrect, and partly upon false accusations, we find that

the Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to recant with a threat of other

and severer penalties, _far exceeded its powers_. The Holy Tribunal

was empowered to punish the “disobedience” of the philosopher with

imprisonment and ecclesiastical penances, and to forbid him to discuss

the opinion in writing or speaking, but it had no authority to extort

from Galileo, or any one else, such a confession on an opinion which had

not been defined by “infallible” authority.

This is openly admitted even by high theological authority: “_In fact

an excess of authority and an injustice did take place_;” “but,” the

reverend gentleman hastens to add, “certainly not from malice, but from a

mistake,”[400]—a lenient opinion which we are unable to share.

Whether any scruples were expressed, or any dissentient voices heard

in this ecclesiastical court about the manifold illegalities in the

proceedings against the famous accused, we do not know, no notes having

come down to us of the private discussions and transactions of the Holy

Tribunal. But there is one fact which leads us to conclude that all the

judges did not consent to this procedure, and that the sentence was not

unanimous: _at the head of the sentence ten Cardinals are enumerated as

judges, but the document is signed by seven only, and besides this there

is the express remark: “So we, the undersigned cardinals, pronounce”_!

Singularly enough, two hundred and thirty-one years passed by, during

which much that is valuable was written about Galileo, and a great deal

more that was fabulous, before this significant circumstance was noticed

by any author. The merit of having first called attention to it belongs

to Professor Moritz Cantor, in 1864.[401] The three cardinals who did

not sign were, Caspar Borgia, Laudivio Zacchia, and Francesco Barberini,

the Pope’s nephew, whom we have repeatedly found to be a warm patron and

protector of Galileo.

Professor Berti offers as an explanation of the absence of the three

signatures, that the Congregation in the name of which the sentence was

passed consisted of ten members, but that at the last sitting seven only

were present, so that seven only could sign, and adds, as it appears to

us unwarrantably, “that it by no means follows that the three absentees

were of a contrary opinion.”[402]

Pieralisi does not find the matter so simple, and devotes seven large

pages to account for the absence of the three prelates from the

Congregation. “Cardinal Borgia,” he says, “was on very bad terms with

Urban VIII., because he had addressed the Pope in a loud voice in a

consistory, and the Pope had imperiously told him to be quiet and to

go away.”[403] But it has been proved that even after this scene the

cardinal appeared at the consistories up to 12th February, 1635, although

there were complaints that he took walks in Rome instead of attending

the sittings of the Propaganda and the Holy Office. But it is not likely

that this cardinal, whose name stands at the head of the sentence,

would have absented himself from the final sitting without some good

reason. Pieralisi thinks that he was more friendly to Galileo than the

other cardinals, an opinion for which there is no evidence and which

proves nothing. Even Pieralisi confesses that he can find no reason for

the absence of Cardinal Zacchia, but assigns the following motive for

that of Cardinal Francesco Barberini: “He probably wished to uphold the

right enjoyed by the cardinal nephews, and afterwards by the secretaries

of state, of sometimes abstaining from voting in order to reserve to

themselves greater freedom in the treatment of public, private, and

political affairs.” The insufficiency of this explanation is too obvious

to need comment. Pieralisi himself comes to the conclusion that these

dignitaries did not wish to append their signatures to the famous

sentence, which is much the same thing as the conjecture that they did

not agree to it.

In accordance with this sentence, certainly not passed unanimously by

the members of the Holy Tribunal, which forms one of the foulest blots

in the melancholy annals of the Inquisition, Galileo was compelled

immediately after hearing it to make the following degrading recantation,

humbly kneeling, before the whole assembly:—

“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei,

Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before

this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and

Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against heretical

depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic, having

before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy Gospels

swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by God’s

help will for the future believe, all that is held, preached,

and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But

whereas—after an injunction had been judicially intimated to

me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether

abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the

world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre of

the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or

teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said

doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said

doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture—I wrote and printed

a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned,

and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favour, without

presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have

been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected

of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that

the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the

earth is not the centre and moves:—

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences,

and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion,

reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and

unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid

errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect

whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that

in future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in

writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar

suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or

person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy

Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the place where

I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfil and observe

in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall

be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of

my contravening, (which God forbid!) any of these my promises,

protestations, and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains

and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons

and other constitutions, general and particular, against such

delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which

I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and

bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof

I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of

my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the

Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.”[404]