It then happened in the following year, 1820, that Canon Joseph Settele,

professor of optics and astronomy at the Archive-gymnasium at Rome,

wrote a lesson book, “Elementi d’astronomia,” in which the Copernican

system, in accordance with the results of science, was treated _ex

professo_. The Master of the Palace, Philip Anfossi, to whom in his

capacity of chief censor of the press the book was submitted, demanded

under appeal to the decree of 5th March, 1616, still in force, that the

doctrine of the double motion should be only treated hypothetically, and

refused the _imprimatur_ until the MS. had been altered. Canon Settele,

however, was not disposed to make himself ridiculous in face of the whole

scientific world by compliance with these antiquated conditions, and

appealed to Pope Pius VII., who referred the matter to the Congregation

of the Holy Office. Here at last some regard was had to the times, and

in the sitting of 16th August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might

treat the Copernican system as established, which was approved by Pius

VII. without hesitation. Father Anfossi could not, after this decision,

prevent the work from publication as it was, but he resolutely pointed

out the contradiction between this permission and the decree of 5th

March, 1616, and published a treatise entitled: “Can any one who has

made the Tridentine Confession, defend and teach as a thesis, and as

an absolute truth and not a mere hypothesis, that the earth revolves

and the sun is stationary?”[612] This gave rise to discussions in the

College of Cardinals of the Holy Inquisition as to the attitude to be

adopted by ecclesiastical authority towards the Copernican system, which

had been universally adopted for more than a century. In the sitting of

11th September, 1822, they finally agreed, with express reference to the

decree of the Index Congregation of 10th May, 1757, and 16th August,

1820, “that the printing and publication of works treating of the motion

of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general

opinion of modern astronomers is permitted at Rome.”[613] This decree

was ratified by Pius VII. on 25th September.

But full thirteen years more went by until, in 1835, when the new edition

of the catalogue of prohibited books appeared, the five works in which

the theory of the double motion was maintained and defended were expunged

from the list.

It was not until 1835, therefore, that the last trace was effaced of the

memorable warfare so long and resolutely waged by ecclesiastical power

against the superior insight of science. If it is denied to history to

surround the head of Galileo, the greatest advocate of the new system,

with the halo of the martyr, ready to die for his cause, posterity

will ever regard with admiration and gratitude the figure of the man,

who, though he did not heroically defend the truth, was, by virtue of

his genius, one of her first pioneers, and had to bear for her sake an

accumulation of untold suffering.

APPENDIX.

I.

_HISTORY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._[614]

We know next to nothing of the history of the Vatican MS. up to the time

when Napoleon I. took possession of the papal city. During this period,

when proud Rome had sunk so low as to be a department of France, in

1811, by the mandate of the then ruler of the world, the treasures of

the Vatican archives were removed from Rome to Paris. Among them was

the volume containing the Acts of Galileo’s trial. It is not known how

Napoleon’s special attention came to be directed to them; but it is

certain that he requested Alexander Barbier, then State Librarian, to

furnish him with a detailed report about them.[615] Barbier handed it

to the Minister of Worship and Instruction. He also proposed that the

whole of the documents should be printed, in the interests of historical

truth, in the original Latin and Italian, with a French translation. The

proposal was approved by the Emperor, and the volume was handed over to

Barbier that he might have the translation made.

When the convulsions of 1814 had swept Napoleon out of Paris, and

transported him to Elba, and the Bourbons again ruled France, the Roman

curia repeatedly took steps to regain possession of the volume.

After the return of Pius VII. to Rome in 1814, after his compulsory

residence at Fontainebleau, Mgr. Marini was staying at Paris as Papal

Commissary, in order to demand from the new French Government the

restitution of the archival treasures taken by Napoleon from the Holy

See. He first applied for the Acts of Galileo’s trial to the Minister

of the Interior, who referred him to the Count de Blacas, Minister of

the Royal Household.[616] He assured Marini that he would have a search

instituted in the royal library.[617] He wrote on the same day to Barbier

charging him to search for the documents, and to report to him on their

historical value.[618] Barbier’s answer is too characteristic not to be

given.

“A Son Excellence le Ministre de la Maison du Roi,

Paris, 5 Decembre, 1814.

Monseigneur,

Je m’empresse de répondre à la lettre par laquelle votre

Excellence me fait l’honneur de me demander s’il existe, dans

le dépôt général des bibliothèques de S.M. ou dans l’une de ses

Bibliothèques particulières, des pièces qui faisaient partie

des Archives Pontificales et qui sont reclamées par le garde de

ces Archives, savoir le procès de Galilée.

_Il y a plus de trois aus que je possède le procès de Galilée._

Rien n’est plus célèbre que ce procès dans l’histoire des

Sciences et dans celle de l’Inquisition. Aussi s’en est on

occupé avec un grand zèle jusqu’à ces derniers temps; ce qui

est probablement cause qu’ après l’avoir examiné avec tante

l’attention qu’il merite, _je n’y ai remarqué ancun détail qui

ne soit connu_ (sic). L’importance de ce recueil consiste donc

principalement dans la réunion des pièces qui ont motivé, dans

le XVIIᵉ siècle, la condamnation d’un habile astronome, pour

une opinion qui est généralement enseignée aujourd’hui dans

toutes les écoles, même ecclésiastiques.

Je suis, Monseigneur, etc.,

BARBIER.”[619]

It is clear that Barbier expected to find support in the Acts of the

trial for the assumed torture of Galileo; and as they reported nothing

of the kind, and could not report anything consistently with the facts

of history, the librarian entirely overlooked the vast importance of the

papers. After this report Count Blacas felt no scruple about letting the

Papal Commissary have them. On 15th December the minister wrote a note to

Barbier, asking him for the volume of documents, that he might himself

hand it to Marini.[620] He also wrote to the Papal Commissary that the

documents had been found, and that it would give him great pleasure to

deliver them to him.[621] Marini accordingly went three times to the

minister’s hotel, and once to the Tuileries, but without success. He

therefore begged, in a letter of 28th January, 1815, to have a day and

hour appointed for an audience.[622] To his dismay he received in reply

a letter from Count Blacas of 2nd February, 1815, saying that the King

himself wished to look through the trial of Galileo, that the MS. was in

his majesty’s cabinet, and therefore could not be given up immediately,

but it should be done as soon as the King had returned it.[623]

Marini was therefore on the track of the documents, though he did not

get them. But only twenty-four days after he received this explanation

the famous hundred days occurred, and Louis XVIII. left his palace in

the darkness of night for Ghent. Napoleon had scarcely set out for St.

Helena, and the legitimate sovereign made his entry into Paris, than we

find the Papal Commissary again eagerly trying to get back the precious

MS.[624] But what must have been his dismay when he was informed by Count

Pradel, temporary successor of Count Blacas, on 6th November, 1815,

that the documents were no longer to be found in the King’s cabinet,

and that it was not known what had become of them.[625] Further efforts

were fruitless. All that he could get from the French Government was the

doubtful promise that the papers should be restored when found.

Two years later, in August, 1817, he again attacked Count Pradel on the

subject,[626] and was assured that they were not in the cabinet of the

royal palace; he might have a search made among the archives in the

Louvre, they might have been put aside there.[627] Marini suspected that

the papers had been purloined, and asked the minister of police, Count

Decazes, to help him in his search. He, however, referred him to the

Minister Of the Interior,[628] that is, to the place where he had begun

his inquiries three years before. Afterwards he applied to the president

of the ministry, the Duke of Richelieu, and to the influential M. de

Lainé, but with no more success than before.

In 1820 Venturi applied to Delambre, Secretary of the Academy of

Sciences, with the request to get for him, if possible, extracts from

and copies of the Acts of the trial, as he was urgently in want of them

for the second volume of his “Memorie e lettere inedite fuora o disperse

di Galileo Galilei.” Delambre eagerly took up the question. Some light

is thrown on the steps he took by the following note to Barbier of 27th

June, only published a few months ago:—

“Le secretaire perpétuel de l’Académie pour les Sciences

Mathématiques est venu pour avoir l’honneur de converser

avec M. Barbier, sur un article intéressant de biographie

astronomique, le procés de Galilée et les pièces originales

dont M. Barbier a été longtemps dêpositaire. Il desire

cette conversation pour lui-même et pour M. Venturi, etc.,

Delambre.”[629]

Three days later Delambre wrote to Venturi that the original Acts

certainly had been at Paris some years ago, but had disappeared, and it

was not now known whether they were still there or had been taken away.

He told him that during the Empire the publication and translation of

the documents had been projected, but political events had prevented it

from being carried out; the extracts, however, then made, and the French

translation which had been begun, were in existence. These, which M.

Barbier had placed at Delambre’s disposal, he sent to Venturi. Delambre

expressed his great regret that the material which he could obtain was

not complete; but he consoled himself with the opinion that by the

publication of the documents in Riccioli’s “Almagestum novum,” 1651,

and in the first volume of Venturi’s work, nothing essential would be

wanting; and “that unfortunate business, which would be ridiculous if

it were not so repulsive, is now as widely known as can be desired.”

Delambre, as it seems, was only concerned with the clearing up of the

torture question; and as the fragments which had come to his knowledge

contained no evidence of torture, and as he might have been informed by

Barbier that there was no trace of it in any of the papers, he wrote as

above in calm conviction to Venturi.

Eight years afterwards Count Darü, who was intending to bring out his

work on astronomy, made inquiries of Barbier about the existence of the

Acts of Galileo’s trial. The information he received must have been

wholly unsatisfactory, as appears from the following letter from the

Count to Barbier of 16th October, 1828:—

“J’ai reçu Monsieur ... les deux lettres que vous m’avez fait

l’honneur de m’écrire. J’ai trouvé, joint à la seconde, le

billet de M. l’abbé Denina[630] qui prouve que la traduction du

procès de Galilée a existé au moins en partie. Du reste, nous

en avions déjà la preuve par l’extrait de M. Delambre. _Je suis

persuadé que le procès existe quelque part à Paris_, et ce me

semble, il doit se trouver dans quelque bibliothèque du roi,

peut être même aux Archives de la liste civile. J’en parlerai a

M. le baron de la Bouillerie.

Recevez, etc.,

DARÜ.”[631]

But Darü’s further inquiries seem to have been unsuccessful; anyhow, the

long-sought-for volume remained concealed for seventeen years longer. In

1845 Gregory XVI. requested Pelegrino Rossi, French ambassador at Rome,

who was devoted to the papacy, to use his influence to get the Acts

restored, if they should be discovered at Paris. This shows that it was

disbelieved at Rome that they could not be found. At first Rossi’s urgent

mediation only obtained the assurance from Louis Philippe that the Pope’s

cherished wish should be fulfilled, provided that the papers should be

found, but on the express condition that they should be published entire

at Rome. And as the curia, of course, promised to comply, the MS. which

had been mysteriously concealed for thirty-one years was “found” and

restored.

In 1848-9, when the Papal See was attacked by the revolutionary spirit

which pervaded Europe, the fugitive Pope, Pius IX., confided the

hardly-won documents to the prefect of the Secret Archives, Marino

Marini. He not only took good care of them, but took the opportunity of

fulfilling the obligation to the French Government incurred on their

restoration. On 12th April, 1850, the Pope returned from Gaeta to his

capital under the protection of French bayonets, and his thoughts must

soon have recurred to these documents, for on 8th May of the same year he

presented them to the Vatican Library. In the same year, also, Marini’s

work, “Galileo Galilei e l’Inquizione,” appeared at Rome, intended to be

the fulfilment of the French conditions.

We purposely say “intended to be,” for they were not really so at all.

The entire contents of the Vatican MS. were thereby by no means given

to the public, but such a sight of it as the editor thought proper, and

which was, as far as possible, an apology for the Inquisition. Instead of

the full original text of the Acts, the world only received disjointed

extracts, arbitrary fragments—in many instances nothing at all. Perhaps

it was perceived at head-quarters that a comparison of Marini’s work with

the documents would bring strange things to light, for they were suddenly

removed from the too public Vatican Library and placed among the papal

archives.

And for a long time there seemed to be no disposition to place these

important historical materials at the disposal of independent historians.

Thus we learn from Albèri, editor of “Le Opere di Galileo Galilei,”

Florence, 1842-1856, in 16 vols, in which all the materials for the

history of Galileo are collected, that Marini had made obliging offers

to him about the Vatican MS.; but his death put an end to the hopes thus

raised, and Albèri had to content himself with reproducing the extracts

and documents given by Venturi and Marini. It is obvious that the MS.

was not accessible to him, or he would surely have included the Acts in

his great work. Professor Moritz Cantor, who asked to see them ten years

later, met with no better success. He complains bitterly in his essay,

“Galileo Galilei,” that the attempts he made through the good offices of

an eminent _savant_, with Father Theiner, keeper of the Secret Archives,

had been without avail.

However, though neither Albèri nor Cantor attained their wish, Henri de

L’Epinois, a few years later, was more successful. In the introduction

to his work, “Galilée, son procès sa Condemnation,” 1867, he relates

that in a conversation with Theiner at Rome, he expressed his regret at

the inadequacy of Marini’s book, and his desire to see the subject of

Galileo’s trial cleared up. Theiner liberally responded to this appeal

by placing the documents at his disposal. But Epinois had only just

made hasty copies of the most important, and indices of others, when

he was compelled by urgent private affairs to return to France. The

copies of the Vatican MS. which he took with him were therefore in many

respects inaccurate and incomplete, and even the indices left much to be

desired. Nevertheless, historical research will always be indebted to

Epinois for publishing his notes, in spite of their shortcomings, which

were best known to himself.[632] The melancholy picture of Galileo’s

trial was first presented in faithful outline, and it became possible to

weave the story with approximate accuracy. Many details, however, were

still wanting; and though the fictitious stories of many writers were

considerably checked by Epinois’s communications, some scope was still

left for them. What was wanted was the entire publication of the Vatican

MS., and if possible with diplomatic precision.

Nine years again went by, during which Epinois seems to have found no

opportunity of completing his work. Meanwhile, Professor Domenico Berti

asked for the favour of a sight of the papers, and in 1876 he was engaged

in Theiner’s room in copying the documents.[633] In the same year his

work, “Il Processo Originale di Galileo Galilei,” appeared, bearing upon

the title page the unwarranted addition, “publicato per la prima volta da

Domenico Berti.” Epinois had been the first to publish the Vatican MS.,

though only partially; the words would only have been correct if Berti

had published them complete. This he professes to have done,[634] but as

five documents are wanting, and the contents of fifty others only shortly

given, it cannot be regarded as complete.

Besides these unfortunate lapses, Berti’s publication is very

disappointing to the historian. Instead of giving the reader as good an

idea as possible of this interesting MS., the documents are taken out of

all connection, and given numbers and superscriptions of which there is

not a trace in the original, and the marking of the folios is omitted.

“Improvement” of the orthography, punctuation, etc., is consistently

carried out. One of the numberings is quite left out (the oldest, upper

paging), and, following Epinois, he reads the second incorrectly.

In the same year in which Berti’s book appeared, Sante Pieralisi received

an invitation from high quarters to inspect the volume. He accepted the

flattering offer with no small satisfaction, but does not seem to have

known how to turn it to account. He confined himself to comparing the

most important documents in Epinois and Berti with the originals, and to

giving a list, by no means complete, of their deviations from them.[635]

In consequence of the controversy as to the genuineness of the document

of 26th February, 1616, we resolved in the spring of 1877 to attempt to

get a sight of the papers, our sole reason being the desire to see for

ourselves whether external evidence was for or against falsification, or

whether any certain conclusions could be drawn from it. We had then no

idea whatever of publishing the Vatican MS. ourselves, as we at that time

considered Berti’s publication of it to be nearly complete.

Through the good offices of the Austrian ambassador, we were promised

that when we came to Rome, Cardinal Simeoni, Secretary of State, would

permit us to see the documents. Two days afterwards we were on our way

to Rome, and soon had the volume in our hands. As we turned over the

pages with a curiosity easy to be imagined, and compared it with Berti’s

publication, we discovered, to our no small surprise, its many omissions

and inaccuracies. The idea then occurred to us of making a copy of all

the documents in the collection with the greatest possible precision. Not

the least “improvement” should be made; the text should be reproduced

exactly, with its peculiar orthography, accentuation, and punctuation,

its abbreviations, errors, and special marks, so far as it was possible

by means of typography.

We made known our intention to the first prefect of the Vatican Library,

Mgr. Martinuzzi, to whom Cardinal Simeoni had referred us; he not only

made not the slightest objection, but showed great interest in our

project. During our long daily tarriance in the Vatican afterwards, he

was most obliging, and heaped attentions upon us which lightened the

labour.

We might have been engaged about three weeks in copying the MS., sending

the pages copied during the day to Messrs. Cotta, at Stuttgard, to be

printed, when we were surprised one morning by a visit in the Vatican

from M. de L’Epinois. He told us that he had been two months at Rome,

and had undertaken a correction of Berti’s book from the original. We

informed him of our enterprise, which he spoke of as “quite a different

thing”; and when we returned his call, he again spoke of a correction

of Berti, and regretted that he had not copied the whole MS. Of any

intention of publishing it complete he said not a word. We therefore

contentedly went on with our work; the copying was nearly finished and

the printing in progress, when one afternoon on our return from the

Vatican we found a letter from Epinois, in which he said that he had not

had time to call on us again, and informed us of the speedy appearance of

his complete publication of the Vatican MS., and that we should receive

a copy in a few days. This announcement was most surprising. We went at

once to seek M. de L’Epinois, but learnt that he had left Rome early that

morning.

Our work was too far advanced to be given up, and so we went on, in the

hope that even now there might be some little place in the world for it.

By the time Epinois’s book reached us the copying was finished, and we

were correcting the proofs by the originals. It was not without value,

even for our enterprise, for we compared our proofs with it line by

line and word by word, made notes of deviations, and then went to the

Vatican to see which was right. We readily acknowledge that in this way

we discovered and corrected many errors which had crept into our copy.

The variations which still exist are all well known to us, and are left,

either because Epinois is mistaken, or we consider our reading to be the

best. This is not the place for a criticism of his work; we will only

bear witness, after comparing it with the original, to its accuracy.

II.

_DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._

The Acts of the two trials of Galileo, of 1615-16 and 1632-33, which

are stitched together, and to which several other documents are added

relating to the surveillance of Galileo until his death, and the

erection of his monument, form a pretty thick quarto volume, twenty-two

centimeters broad and thirty high.

It is done up in a loose sheet of white paper, which can lay no claim to

veneration from age, and is in an equally loose green pasteboard cover,

which may boast of historic antiquity, as may also the faded and frail

red strings by which the volume is fastened. The cover is too short

and too narrow, so that the edges get mercilessly rubbed. In this way,

unfortunately, many a letter, word and even signature in these precious

papers have been lost, and it is high time to protect them from further

injury.

The documents are only slightly fastened together in places, and you can

see from the outside how far the Acts of the first trial extend. This

slight fastening also enables you to see that all the blank pages, of

which there are 194, are partly reverse sides, partly second pages of

documents, and it may easily be discovered to which document each blank

page belongs. In some cases these second pages have been cut away, as

appears from the broad piece left. The suspicion from this that important

documents have been withdrawn seems inadmissible, for the pages cut out,

as is seen from those left, which correspond with the rest, belonged to

finished documents, and the abstraction of a document would certainly

not have been betrayed by leaving a broad strip behind.

The paging is in the greatest confusion. On the title page, in the right

hand corner, are the figures 949, and under them 336. The historical

introduction, by an unknown hand, prefixed to the papers, is numbered

337-340. The first document bears the double paging

950

341,

the upper number being struck through. On folio

951

342

a third paging begins with 1, on the right hand lower edge. The triple

numbering goes on regularly to

959

350

9.

After

992

383

41

the uppermost and oldest paging is discontinued. Folios 384-386, blank

pages of the Acts of the first trial, only bear the double paging,

probably because, being blank, they were not paged until the papers of

both trials were put together.

The double paging may be thus explained. The old numbering comprises all

the documents belonging to 1616; and as it is to be seen on the title

page, as well as the words: “Ex archivo S. Offij,” and Vol. 1181, it

is clear that these documents were originally comprised in a volume of

the Archives of the Holy Office numbered 1181. The Acts of the second

trial, 1632-33, must have belonged to another volume, as appears from

the paging, as the first document bears the number 387, but the number

of the volume is not traceable. When the Acts of 1616 and 1632-33 were

bound together, in order to form a continuous paging, the old numbers of

the first trial were struck through, and the paging continued backwards,

reckoning from the first folio of the second trial.

The Introduction helps to determine the time when the two parts were

united. It only extends to the mention of Galileo’s defence; it is clear,

therefore, that it was written after 10th May (the date of the defence),

and before 21st June, the date of the last examination, while the

numbering, which is that of the second paging only, shows that the union

had taken place. The title page also is included in the second paging. We

may therefore conclude that the authorship of the Introduction and the

joining of the Acts up to 10th May, 1633, is to be attributed to the same

person.

The object of this report undoubtedly was to give the Pope and

Congregation, before their final verdict on Galileo; a _résumé_ of the

whole affair from its beginning. The united Acts were the vouchers. The

drawing up of such a _résumé_ was part of the ordinary proceeding in

every trial before the Inquisition, and it had to be circulated among the

cardinals and qualifiers before the final sitting[636]. As in Galileo’s

case this final sitting took place on 16th June, under the personal

presidency of the Pope, it is in exact agreement with this that both the

summary and paging referred to in it only extend to the events of 16th

June.

As to the addition of the further documents, it may be observed that

after the papers were put together the collection ended with six second

pages, of which four, 448, 449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of

Pasqualigus; and two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of

Galileo of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of 16th

June, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the last second page, 451,

forming part of the above-named document, and the three previous pages

were left blank. The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June

was written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining space

(half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes were made—the first about

the mandate of 30th June, to send the sentence and recantation to all

Inquisitors, etc., and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second

note reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd July. The

rest of the documents which the Vatican MS. now contains must have been

added as they came in, or when there were several to be added. The paging

was, of course, continuously carried out.

The last document but one of the collection is a short historical summary

of the process. Berti says that this must have been drawn up at least a

year after its conclusion,[637] but Pieralisi[638] has pointed out that

he should have said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when

the inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, 1734, came in as

to the erection of a monument in Santa Croce, this _résumé_ was drawn up

to put the cardinals, who might not know much about it, in possession of

the chief facts of Galileo’s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of paper

containing the _résumé_ is stitched to the letter of Fra. Ambr*** and

the decision of the cardinals written on the fourth page. If any doubts

remain that this summary was written in 1734, they will disappear on

comparing it with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol

of the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, within

parentheses, the most important part of the summary, followed by the

decision of the cardinals, in almost verbatim translation from Italian

into Latin. The date and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear.

III.

_ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT._

We now proceed to the examination of the documents contained in this

famous volume. They differ in historical value, for they are not all

as Professor Berti says,[639] original documents, but often copies,

and more or less cursory annotations. Those only can be considered

original documents which have autograph signatures; as all the letters

in the MS. with one exception,[640] the protocol of the examination of

Caccini, and the protocols of the examinations of Galileo; those of the

depositions of Ximenes and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor

at Florence to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of

their authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly of annotations on

the decrees relating to the trial, decrees and mandates of the Pope and

Holy Congregation, or notices of their execution. _But the original Acts

corresponding with these annotations are not comprised in the Vatican

MS._ Moreover, a careful examination of the Vatican Acts with Gherardi’s

Documents shows, that especially after the conclusion of the trial till

Galileo’s death, many papal decrees were issued of which there is no

mention in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must be looked

upon as an incomplete source. But on the other hand, there is no doubt

that the Acts of the trial itself lie before us altogether.

Dr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed the suspicion

that a short time before the MS. was removed from the Archives of the

Holy Office to France, the Acts of the trial underwent alterations

with a special purpose, in the expectation that the Archives would be

robbed, and that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr.

Marino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations were

completed![641] Wohlwill takes all the preliminary report—the origin of

which is clear, and in accordance with the rules of the Inquisition—for

a forgery intended to influence “readers outside the Vatican.” He also

thinks that the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head

of the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one can make out,

and Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory reason for it. As he

had only Epinois’s first edition of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti’s

imperfect publication in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions.

It is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill’s bold conjectures turn

out to be phantoms on an actual examination of the papers, and this will

certainly be confirmed by Epinois, Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have

seen them. This is not the place to refute Wohlwill’s suspicions, as we

have done so elsewhere.[642] It only remains for us to give the material

evidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of 26th February

neither is nor can be a later falsification.

As is well known, before we had inspected these documents we had fully

adopted the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and

Professor Gherardi in Italy, that the “document” of 26th February,

1616, was of a later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according

to the ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of the

“Dialogues on the Two Systems” to trial for disobedience to an order of

the Sacred Congregation, though the work seemed to be protected by the

ecclesiastical _imprimatur_. We confess that we went to Rome with but

little hope of finding external evidence for or against the genuineness

of the document. It had been long in Professor Berti’s hands, and he had

defended it with learned dialectics, while the controversy would have

been closed by adducing material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore,

sufficient inducement to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should

enable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document was not

a falsification, even though its genuineness might not be capable of

demonstration.

Contrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, and we

may say, entirely objective examination, we must pronounce _that the

suspicion of a later origin is not tenable_.

Now for the reasons. The note of 26th February begins on the same page as

that of the 25th, and they are in precisely the same ink and handwriting.

As, however, in case of a forgery, the perpetrator would not have been

so unskilful as to add a note in different ink and writing under another

sixteen years old, but would have written both on another sheet, and

carefully incorporated them with the Acts, we had to find out whether

it was possible that the pages on which the notes are found (folios 378

vo. and 379 ro.), could have been afterwards added to the Acts. This was

found to be impossible. It is excluded by two circumstances.

1. Folios 378 vo. and 379 ro. are _second_ pages to existing documents;

and folio 378 belongs to 377, on which is written the famous opinion of

the Qualifiers of the Holy Office on the two propositions of Galileo,

taken from the work on the Solar Spots. Folio 379 again belongs to folio

357, which is a page of the protocol of the examination of Caccini.

2. In this collection of the Acts of the trial, all the paper on which

the documents of the Holy Office were written at Rome, bears the same

watermark,—a dove in a circle,—which is not found on any of the paper

of later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the

notes of 25th and 26th February.

As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had

to be given up, there was still one suspicion left—that the two notes

had been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there

are so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But

this hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a

scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in

the same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be

found in any document of the later trial.

In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to

maintain that the note of 26th February is a _later_ falsification.

Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured,

and Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the “falsifiers” went

to work. In the _Revista Europa_, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877,

Dr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most

convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it

is entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is

that the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th

February was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding

the edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery

by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini

quotes only the second paging, which was done _after_ the assumed

forgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according

to the pleasure—not of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632

there was a regular numbering from 949-992, originating in 1616, and no

transposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini’s plan,

without entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm

of impossibilities.

But firmly as it is now established that the document of 26th February,

1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally certain that the proceedings

did not take place in the rigid manner described in that annotation.

In the course of this work we have become acquainted with the various

reasons which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a downright

untruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To all these reasons one

more may now be added. Had the course of events been that recorded in the

annotation, so important an act would have been made into a protocol,

and would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and witnesses. Only a

document of this kind would have afforded conclusive evidence on another

trial. We learn from another document of the trial that such a proceeding

was a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, in order

that the accused might not be able to deny what had happened. When on 1st

October, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence,

who issued the command to him to present himself at Rome in the course of

the month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had received the order

and would obey it; no sooner had he left the room than it was entered by

a notary and witnesses who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment,

and affirmed under Galileo’s signature that they had been present when he

“promised, wrote, and signed the above.”[643]

If these measures were so strictly observed in the case of this much less

important act, we may be tolerably certain that they would not have been

omitted in the far more important one of 1616, if the stringent command

had really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General in the name

of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before notary and witnesses, to

maintain henceforth absolute silence, in speaking and writing, about the

Copernican system. Such a document would have furnished the Holy Office

with legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in case of his breaking

his word, and for punishing his disobedience; in short, for subjecting

him to the consequences of this categorical injunction.

Did such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact of the stringent

intimation, we did not believe that such a document ever had existed.

Nevertheless, when at Rome, we eagerly sought to discover whether,

contrary to all expectation, this most important document was extant,

or to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the Archives of

the Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor Gherardi had found

such valuable notes about the trial of Galileo. We therefore addressed

a memorial to the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which

we made a concise statement of the present state of the researches

relating to Galileo’s trial, remarking that though the suspicion of

a falsification was not tenable, the correctness of the note of 26th

February seemed doubtful, and could only be acknowledged as trustworthy

if either the original protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were

discovered in the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four

weeks we received the following reply:—

“Illm̃o Signore,

In sequito della richiesta fattasi da V. S. Illm̃a di avere dei

documenti relativi a Galileo, mi recai a premura di commetterne

le opportune indagini. Praticatesi le più diligenti ricerche,

vengo informato non esistere affatto negli Archivi i documenti

che si desideravano.

Nel portare ciò a sua notizia, ho il piacere di dichiararle i

sensi della mia distinta stima—

Di V. S. Illm̃a,

Affmo per servirla,

GIOVANNI CARD. SIMEONI.

Roma 20 Luglio, 1877.”

By this decisive information it is established that _now_, at any

rate, _no other document is extant relating to the proceedings of 26th

February, 1616, than the well-known annotation_. Was this also the

case in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for disobedience and signally

punished? The history of the trial, the otherwise incomprehensible

attitude of the Interrogator towards Galileo, are strongly in favour

of an affirmative answer. From his first examination to his defence,

Galileo persistently denies having received any other command than the

warning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor defend the Copernican

doctrine, while the Interrogator maintains that a command was issued to

him before a notary and witnesses “not in any way to hold, teach, or

defend that doctrine.” The contradiction is obvious. In confirmation of

his deposition, Galileo brings an autograph certificate from Cardinal

Bellarmine which fully agrees with it. One would then have expected

to see the Interrogator spare no pains to convict Galileo on this

turning-point of the trial. The production of a legal protocol about

the proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole affair

and annihilated Galileo’s defence. But as it was not produced, and the

Interrogator, singularly enough, omits all further inquiry into Galileo’s

ignorance of the absolute prohibition, and simply takes it for granted,

we may conclude that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act

of 26th February than this note without signature. It must therefore

be admitted by the historical critic that one of the heaviest charges

against Galileo was raised on a paper of absolutely no legal value, and

that sentence for “disobedience” was passed entirely on the evidence of

this worthless document.

IV.

_GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS._

In the course of this work we have always acknowledged the authenticity

of the documents first published by Gherardi in his “Il Processo Galileo:

Riveduto Sopra documenti di nuove fonte,” in the _Rivista Europea_,

vol. iii., 1870, and our story has in many cases been based on them. It

behoves us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity

beyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin of the

collection; secondly, by comparing the documents with others universally

acknowledged to be authentic.

On the first point we refer to the professor’s account prefixed to the

documents. In December, 1848, he came to Rome, and was at first, though

only for a short time, deputy to the parliament summoned by Pius IX.,

then held, in quick succession, the offices of member of the assembly

for framing a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister

of Instruction to the Revolutionary Government. These offices greatly

facilitated Gherardi’s historical researches, and he pursued them with

ardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. His attention was specially

directed to the discovery of the original documents of Galileo’s trial.

Even in December, 1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the

Archives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully guarded

by the soldiers and agents of the Provisional Government to save these

historical treasures from the fury of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to

get a sight of the complete collection of the Acts, which had two years

before been brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, for

as we know, during the Revolution, these documents were in the hands of

Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Secret Archives. So Gherardi had to

content himself with seeking more or less evident traces of the trial

among the Archives left in the greatest confusion and partly hastily

plundered by the fugitive custodians. It was not without difficulty that

he discovered, what was before unknown, that the Acts of the Inquisition

were divided into two classes: the first contains the protocols of the

sittings and decrees of the Holy Congregation, sometimes in full and

sometimes merely extracts. The folios containing these were marked

Decreta. The second class contains the protocols of the examinations of

accused persons and witnesses, all Acts relating to trials, and finally

the sentences passed. These folios were marked Processus. There was a

third register marked Rubricelle, which served as an index to everything

relating to any person or cause.

As there were not nearly so many gaps in the Decreta as in the Processus,

Gherardi turned his attention, the Rubricelle in hand, to the former. He

began to make extracts from the documents relating to Galileo’s trial,

and had already made ten, when he came upon a collection of papers

containing thirty-two of such extracts, all relating to the trial. To

these papers was added an extract from a letter from Count Blacas, from

Prague, of 20th January, 1835, in which he stated that he had repeatedly,

but without success, instituted a search for the Acts of Galileo’s trial,

which had been detained at Paris since 1815, and that nothing would give

him greater pleasure, should they come into his hands, than to deliver

them to his Holiness, but this was not a suitable time to renew the

demand for them.

It is clear from this letter that the curia made at least one attempt to

regain possession of the Vat. MS. between 1820 and 1845, and Gherardi

concludes from the circumstance that this letter was found with the

said collection that a copy of it had been sent to the Count, perhaps

to show him that it was desired to put all the papers relating to

Galileo’s cause together—a project intended to urge the Count to renewed

efforts for their recovery. Be that as it may, the important thing is

that Gherardi, having convinced himself of the entire agreement of his

ten extracts (the most important), with the corresponding ones in the

collection, concluded that the other twenty-two were correct, and did not

make any more extracts.

In April, 1849, in spite of the precautions taken, the Archives of

the Inquisition seemed no longer safe from the mob, and were removed,

with other ecclesiastical libraries, to the Apollinarius church, where

Gherardi was again able to look at them. But it was but for a moment,

as he decidedly declined all responsibility for a collection of such

immense historical value. Moreover, the advance of the French army to

Rome to effect the restoration of Pius IX., would have left him but

little time for historical researches. On 4th July, in consequence of

the capitulation of the municipal council, the French General Ouidinot

marched at the head of his troops into “liberated” Rome, while Garibaldi

left it on the other side with his 4000 volunteers, and with him all the

patriots who had specially distinguished themselves in the service of the

Republic during its short existence. Among these was Gherardi, who turned

his steps towards Genoa, where he lived for his studies during his exile.

On leaving Rome he had only been able to take ten extracts with him, and

had now to wait for an opportunity of completing them by those in the

Archives of the Inquisition, and he waited patiently twenty-one years.

In 1870 the time at length came. He gives us no further particulars as

to how he succeeded in getting the collection into his hands again, but

simply says that he did so, and no longer delayed to give this valuable

historical material to the world.

The history of Gherardi’s Documents is of itself a pledge of their

authenticity, and it is absolutely confirmed by comparing them with the

corresponding documents of the Vatican MS. We have compared them line

for line and word for word, and have found that they contain nothing

Whatever that in the least diverges from those Acts. On the contrary,

they throw light on and complete them, and in some cases agree with them

verbatim—perhaps the best possible proof of the authenticity of both.

V.

DECRETVM[644]

989. Fol. 380 ro. 38

Sacræ Congregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium, à S.D.N.

PAVLO Papa V. Sanctàq. Sede Apostolica ad Indicem Librorum, eorumdemq;

permissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem, et impressionem, in vniuersa

Republica Christiana specialiter deputatorum, vbiquè publicandum.

Cvm ab aliquo tempore citra, prodierint in lucem inter alios

nonnulli Libri, varias hæreses, atq; errores continentes,

Ideo Sacra Congregatio Illustrissimorum S. R. E. Cardinalium

ad indicem deputatorum, nè ex eorum lectione grauiora in

dies damna in tota Republica Christiana oriantur, eos omninò

damnandos, atque prohibendos esse voluit; Sicuti præsenti

Decreto pœnitus damnat, et prohibet vbicumq; et quouis idiomate

impressos, aut imprimendos. Mandans, vt nullus deinceps

cuiuscumque gradus, et conditionis, sub pœnis in Sacro Concilio

Tridentino, et in Indice Librorum prohibitorum contentis, eos

audeat imprimere, aut imprimi curare, vel quomodocumque apud

se detinere, aut legere; Et sub ijsdem pœnis quicumque nunc

illos habent, vel habuerint in futurum, locorum Ordinarijs, seù

Inquisitoribus, statim à præsentis Decreti notitia exhibere

teneantur, Libri autem sunt infrascripti, videlicet.

_Theologiæ Calvinistarŭ Libri tres, auctore Conrado

Schlufferburgio. | Scotanus Rediuiuvs, siue Comentarius

Erotematicus in tres prio- | res libros, codicis, &._

_Grauissimæ quæstionis Christianarum Ecclesiarum in

Occidentis’, | præfertim partibus ab Apostolicis temporibus

ad nostram vsque | ætatem continua successione, &. statu:

historica explicato, Au- | ctore Jacobo Vsserio Sacræ Theologiæ

in Dulbiniensi[645] Academia | apud Hybernos professore._

_Federici Achillis Ducis Vuertemberg. Consultatio de Pincipatu

| inter Provincias Europæ habita Tubingiæ in Illustri Collegio

| Anno Christi 1613._

_Donnelli Enucleati, siue Commentarium Hugonis Donelli, de Iure

| Ciuili in compendium ita redactorum &._

Et quia etiam ad notitiam præfatæ Sacræ Congregationis

peruenit, falsam illiam doctrinam Pithagoricam, diuinæq;

scripturæ omnino aduersantem, de mobilitate Terræ, et

immobilitate Solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus de reuolutionibus

orbium cœlestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job etiam docent,

iam diuulgari et à multis recipi; sicuti videre est ex

quadam epistola impressa cuiusdam Patris Carmelitæ, cui

titulus, Lettera del R. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini

Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de Pittagorici, e del Copernico,

della mobilità della Terra, e stabilità del Sole, et il nuouo

Pittagorico Sistema del Mondo, in Napoli per Lazzaro Scoriggio

1615. in qua dictus Pater ostendere conatur, præfatam doctrinam

de immobilitate Solis in centro Mundi, et mobilitate Terræ,

consonam esse, veritati, et non aduersari Sacræ Scripturæ: Ideo

nè vlteriùs huiusmodi opinio in perniciem Catholicæ veritatis

serpat, censuit dictos Nicolaum Copernicum de reuolutionibus

orbium, et Didacum Astvnica in Job, suspendendos esse donec

corrigantur. Librum verò Patris Pauli Antonij Foscarini

Carmelitæ omninò prohibendum, atque damnandum; aliosq́; omnes

Libros pariter idem docentes prohibendos, Prout præsenti

Decreto omnes respectiuè prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In

quorum fidem præsens Decretum manu, et sigillo Illustrissimi &

Reuerendissimi D. Cardinalis S. Cæciliæ Ep̃i Albaneñ signatum,

et munitum fuit die 5. Martij 1616.

P. Episc. Albanen. Card. S. Cæciliæ.

Locus † sigilli. _Registr. fol. 90._

_F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus Ord. Prædic. Secret._

ROME, Ex Typographia Cameræ Apostolicæ. M.DCXVI.

VI.

_REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION._[646]

We give the Sentence and Recantation as given by Giorgio Polacco in his

work, “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de terræ Statione, et de salis motu,

contra systema Copernicanum, Catholicæ Assertionis,” pp. 67-76, Venice,

1644. Everything indicates that these are the only authentic copies of

the originals, while the opinion adopted by many authors that the Latin

texts published by P. Riccioli in his “Almagestum Novum,” 1651, are

the originals, is not tenable on close examination, for it is obvious

that they are translated from the Italian. According to the rules of

the Inquisition, sentences and recantations were written in the mother

tongue,[647] that they might be generally understood. P. Olivieri,

General of the Dominicans and Commissary of the Inquisition, also says

in his posthumous work, “Di Copernico e di Galileo,” Bologna, 1872, p.

62, “We find the history of it, etc., in the sentence passed on Galileo,

which is given in many works in a Latin translation. I take it from

Venturi, who gives it in the Italian original.”

Professor Berti, in his “Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei,” etc.,

pp. 143-151, has given the Sentence and Recantation in a Latin text which

agrees precisely with Riccioli’s, even in some misprints. He says that

they are taken from some MS. copies in the Archivio del Santo, at Padua,

and thinks that they are the very copies sent by the Cardinal of St.

Onufrio, at the command of the Pope, to the Inquisitor at Padua in 1633.

Incited by this remark, when at Padua we went to inspect these valuable

MSS. But what was our surprise on being told that these documents had

already been sought for in vain at the request of Dr. Wohlwill, and that

no one remembered to have seen them. Professor Berti will perhaps have

the goodness to clear the matter up. The documents were probably only

exact copies of Riccioli’s text.

_SENTENZA._

Noi Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia.

Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasis, 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 Barberina detto di S. Onofrio.

Laudiviò 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.

Perla misericordia di Dio della S. R. E. Cardinali in tutta

la repubblica cristiana contra l’eretica pravità Inquisitori

Generali della S. Sede Apostolica specialmente deputati.

Essendo che tu Galileo, figliolo del qu. Vincenzo Galilei

Fiorentino dell’ età tua d’ anni 70 fosti denonciato del

1615 in questo S. Officio, che tenessi come vera la falsa

dottrina da molti insegnata, che il Sole sia centro del mondo

et immobile, e che la terra si muova anco di moto diurno:

Che avevi alcuni discepoli, a’ quali insegnavi la medesima

dottrina: Che circa l’ istessa tenevi corrispondenza con alcuni

Matematici di Germania: Che tu avevi dato alle stampe alcune

lettere intitolate delle Macchie Solari, nelle quali spiegavi

l’ istessa dottrina, come vera: Et che all’ obbiezioni, che

alle volte ti venivano fatte, tolte dalla Sacra Scrittura

rispondevi glossando detta Scrittura conforme al tuo senso.

E successivamente fu presentata copia d’ una scrittura sotto

forma di lettera, quale si diceva essere stata scritta da te

ad un tale già tuo discepolo, ed in essa seguendo la posizione

di Copernico, si contengono varie proposizioni contro il vero

senso, ed autorità della sacra Scrittura.

Volendo per ciò questo S. Tribunale provvedere al disordine

ed al danno, che di quì proveniva, et andava crescendosi con

pregiudizio della Santa Fede; d’ ordine di Nostro Signore, e

degli Emin. Signori Cardinali di questa suprema, et universale

Inquisizione, furono dalli Qualificatori Teologi qualificate

le due proposizioni della stabilità del Sole e del moto della

terra; cioè.

Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile di moto locale,

è proposizione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente

eretica per essere espressamente contraria alla sacra Scrittura.

Che la terra non sia centro del mondo, nè immobile, ma che si

move etiandio di moto diurno, è parimenti proposizione assurda,

e falsa in filosofia, e considerata in teologia, ad minus

erronea in fide.

Ma volendosi per allora proceder teco con benignità, fu

decretato nella S. Congregazione tenuta avanti Nostro Signore

à 25 Febbraro 1616. Che l’ Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale

Bellarmino ti ordinasse che tu dovessi onninamente lasciare

la detta dottrina falsa, e ricusando tu di ciò fare, che dal

Commissario del S. Uffizio ti dovesse esser fatto precetto

di lasciar la detta dottrina, e che non potessi insegnarla

ad altri, nè difenderla, nè trattarne; al qual precetto non

acquietandoti, dovessi esser carcerato; et in esecuzione

dell’ istesso decreto, il giorno seguente nel Palazzo, et

alla presenza del suddetto Eminentissimo Signore Cardinale

Bellarmino, dopo essere stato dall’ istesso Signor Cardinale

benignamente avvisato et ammonito, ti fu dal Padre Commissario

del Santo Uffizio di quel tempo fatto precetto, con notaro e

testimonii, che onninamente dovessi lasciar la detta falsa

opinione, e che nell’ avvenire tu non la potessi, nè difendere,

nè insegnare in qual si voglia modo, nè in voce, nè in scritto;

et avendo tu promesso d’ obbedire fosti licenziato.

Et acciocchè si togliesse affatto così perniciosa dottrina,

e non andasse più oltre serpendo, in grave pregiudizio della

cattolica verità, usci decreto della Sacra Congregazione dell’

Indice, col quale furono proibiti i libri, che trattano di tal

dottrina, et essa dichiarata falsa, et onninamente contraria

alla sacra e divina Scrittura.

Et essendo ultimamente comparso quà un libro stampato in

Fiorenza l’ anno prossimo passato, la cui inscrizione mostra

che tu ne fossi l’ autore, dicendo il titolo: _Dialogo di

Galileo Galilei delli due massimi sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico

e Copernicano_. Et informata appresso la sacra Congregazione,

che con l’ impressione di detto libro ogni giorno più prendeva

piede la falsa opinione del moto della terra, e stabilità del

Sole; fu il detto libro diligentemente considerato, e in esso

trovata apertamente la transgressione del suddetto precetto

che ti fu fatto, avendo tu nel medesimo libro difesa la detta

opinione già dannata, et in faccia tua per tale dichiarata,

avvenga che tu in detto libro con varii raggiri ti studii di

persuadere, che tu la lasci, come idecisa et espressamente

probabile. Il che pure è errore gravissimo, non potendo in modo

niuno essere probabile un’ opinione dichiarata e definita per

contraria alla Scrittura divina.

Che perciò d’ ordine nostro fosti chiamato a questo Santo

Uffizio, nel quale con tuo giuramento esaminato riconoscesti

il libro come da to composto, e dato alle stampe. Confessasti,

che dieci o dodici anni sono in circa, dopo essersi fatto il

precetto come sopra, cominciasti a scrivere detto libro. Che

chiedesti la facoltà di stamparlo, senza, però significare a

quelli che ti diedero simile facoltà, che tu avessi precetto di

non tenere, difendere, nè insegnare in qualsivoglia modo tal

dottrina.

Confessasti parimenti che la scrittura di detto libro è in più

luoghi distesa in tal forma, che il lettore potrebbe formar

concetto, che gli argomenti portati per la parte falsa fossero

in tal guisa pronunciati, che più tosto per la loro efficacia

fossero potenti a stringere, che facili ad esser sciolti;

scusandoti d’ esser incorso in errore tanto alieno, come

dicesti, dalla tua intenzione, per aver scritto in Dialogo,

e per la natural compiacenza, che ciascuno ha delle proprie

sottigliezze, e del mostrarsi più arguto del comune degli

uomini, in trovar, anco per le proposizioni false, ingegnosi et

apparenti discorsi di probabilità.

Et essendoti stato assegnato termine conveniente a far le tue

difese producesti una fede scritta di mano dall’ Eminentissimo

signor Cardinale Bellarmino da te procurata come dicesti,

per difenderti dalle calunnie de tuoi nemici, da’ quali ti

veniva opposto, che avevi abiurato, e fossi stato penitenziato

dal santo Offizio. Nella qual fede si dice, che tu non avevi

abiurato nè meno eri stato penitenziato, ma che ti era solo

stata denunciata la dichiarazione fatta da Nostro Signore e

pubblicata dalla santa Congregazione dell’ Indice, nella quale

si contiene, che la dottrina del moto della terra, e della

stabilità del Sole sia contraria alle sacre Scritture, e però

non si possa difendere, nè tenere; e che perciò non si facendo

menzione in detta fede delle due particole del precetto,

cioè _docere, et quovis modo_ si deve credere che nel corso

di quattordici o sedici anni, ne avessi perso ogni memoria;

e che per questa stessa cagione avevi taciuto il precetto,

quando chiedesti licenza di poter dare il libro alle stampe.

E tutto questo dicevi non per scusar l’ errore, ma perchè sia

attribuito non a malizia, ma a vana ambizione. Ma da detta fede

prodotta da te in tua difesa restasti maggiormente aggravato,

mentre dicendosi in essa, che detta opinione è contraria

alla sacra Scrittura, hai nondimeno ardito di trattarne, di

difenderla, e persuaderla probabile; nè ti suffraga la licenza

da te artificiosamente, e callidamente estorta, non avendo

notificato il precetto che avevi.

E parendo a noi, che non avevi detta intieramente la verità

circa la tua intenzione, giudicassimo esser necessario

venir contro di te al rigoroso esame, nel quale (senza però

pregiudizio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, e contro di

te dedotte come di sopra, circa la detta tua intenzione)

rispondesti cattolicamente. Per tanto visti, et maturamente

considerati i meriti di questa tua causa, con le suddette tue

confessioni, e scuse, e quanto di ragione si doveva vedere

e considerare, siamo venuti contro di te all’ infrascritta

difinitiva sentenza.

Invocato dunque il Santissimo Nome di Nostro Signore Gesù

Cristo, e della sua gloriosissima Madre sempre Vergine Maria,

per questa nostra difinitiva sentenza, la quale sedendo pro

tribunali, di Conseglio e parere dei Reverendi Maestri di

sacra Teologia, et Dottori dell’ una e l’ altra legge nostri

Consultori, proferiamo in questi scritti, nella causa e cause

vertenti avanti di noi tra il Magnifico Carlo Sinceri dell’

una e dell’ altra legge Dottore, Procuratore fiscale di

questo Santo Offizio per una parte, e te Galileo Galilei reo,

quà presente processato, e confesso come sopra dall’ altra.

Diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, che tu Galileo

suddetto per le cose dedotte in processo, e da te confessate,

come sopra, ti sei reso a questo Santo Offizio veementemente

sospetto d’ eresia, cioè d’ aver creduto, e tenuto dottrina

falsa, e contraria alle sacra, e divine Scritture, che il

Sole sia centro della terra, e che non si muova da oriente ad

occidente, e che la terra si muova, e non sia centro del mondo;

e che si possa tenere difendere per probabile una opinione

dopo d’ esser stata dichiarata, difinita per contraria alla

sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le

censure, e pene da’ Sacri Canoni, et altre Constituzioni

generali, et particolari, contro simili delinquenti imposte, e

promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti, che sii assoluto, pur

che prima con cuor sincero, et fede non finta avanti di noi

abiuri, maledichi, et detesti li suddetti errori, et eresie, e

qualunque altro errore, et eresia contraria alla cattolica et

apostolica Romana Chiesa, nel modo che da noi ti sarà dato.

_Et acciocchè questo tuo grave, e pernicioso errore, e

transgressione non resti del tutto impunito_, e sii più cauto

nell’ avvenire; et esempio agli altri, che s’astenghino da

simili delitti. Ordiniamo che per pubblico editto sia proibito

il libro de’ _Dialoghi di Galileo Galilei_.

Ti condanniamo al carcere formale di questo S. Offizio per

tempo ad arbitrio nostro, e per penitenze salutari t’imponiamo,

che per tre anni a venire dichi una volta la settimana li sette

Salmi Penitenziali.

Riservando a noi facoltà di moderare, mutare, o levar in tutto

o in parte le suddette pene, e penitenze.

E cosi diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo,

ordiniamo, condenniamo, e riserviamo in questo, et in ogni

altro miglior modo, e forma, che di ragione potemo, e dovemo.

Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinales infrascripti.

F. Cardinalis De Asculo.

G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.

F. Cardinalis De Cremona.

Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.

B. Cardinalis Gypsius.

F. Cardinalis Verospius.

M. Cardinalis Ginettus.

_ABJURA DI GALILEO._

Io Galileo Galilei figlio de q. Vincenzo Galilei da Fiorenza

dell’ età mia d’ anni 70 constituito personalmente in judicio,

et inginocchio avanti di voi Eminentissimi, e Reverendissimi

Signori Cardinali in tutta la Christiana Republica contro

l’heretica pravità Generali Inquisitori havendo avanti gli

occhi miei li Sacrosanti Evangeli, quali sono con le proprie

mani, giuro che sempre ho creduto, credo adesso, e con l’aiuto

di Dio crederò per l’ avenire, tutto quello, che tiene,

predica, et insegna la Santa Cattolica, et Apostolica Romana

Chiesa. Ma perche da questo S. Officio per haverio doppo

d’ essermi stato con precetto dall’ istesso giuridicamente

intimato, che omninamente dovessi lasciare la falsa opinione,

Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la

terra non sia Centro, e che si muova, e che non potessi

tenere, difendere, ne insegnare in qual si voglia modo,

ne in voce, ne in scritto la detta falsa dottrina, e dopò

dessermi stato notificato, che detta dottrina è contraria

alla Sacra scrittura, scritto, e dato alle stampe un libro

nel quale tratto l’ istessa dottrina già dannata et apporto

ragioni con molta efficacia a favor d’essa, senza apportar

alcuna solutione, son stato giudicato vehementemente sospetto

d’heresia, cioè d’haver tenuto, e creduto, che il Solo sia

centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia centro, e

si muova.

Per tanto volendo io levare dalle menti dell’ Eminenze Vostre,

e d’ ogni fedel Christiano, questa vehemente sospittione,

contro di me ragionevolmente conceputa, con cuor sincero, e

fede non finta, abiuro, maledico, e detesto li sudetti errori,

et heresie, e generalmente ogni e qualunque altro errore, e

setta contraria alla sudetta Santa Chiesa; E giuro che per l’

avenire, non dirò mai più, ne asserirò in voce, ò in scritto

cose tali, per le quali si possi haver di me simil sospittione;

ma se conoscero alcuno heretico, ò che sia sospetto d’heresia

lo denuntiarò à questo Santo Officio ò vero all’ Inquisitore,

et ordinario del luogo, ove me trovero.

Giuro anco, e promesso d’adempire, et ossevra re intieramente,

tutte le penitenze, che mi sono state, ò mi saranno da questo

Santo Officio imposte. Et contravenendo io ad alcuna delle

dette mie promesse, proteste, ò giuramenti (il che Dio non

voglia) mi sottopongo a tutte le pene, e castighi, che sono da

Sacri Canoni, et altri Constitutioni Generali, e particolari

contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate; Cosi Dio m’

aiuti, e questi suoi santi Evangelij, che tocco con le proprie

mani.

Io Galileo Galilei sopradetto ho abiurato, giurato, e promesso,

e mi sono obligato come sopra, et in fede del vero di propria

mia mano hò sottoscritto la presente Cedola di mia abiuratione,

e recitata di parola in parola in Roma nel Convento della

Minerva questo di 22 Giugno 1633.

Io Galileo Galilei hò abiurato come di sopra di mano propria.

FOOTNOTES

[1] “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen

Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard, 1877.

[2] The above letter is adapted from a draft of one addressed to the

Italian Translator, the letter to myself not having, unfortunately, been

sent before the Author’s death, nor found among his papers afterwards. He

had written but a few weeks before that he would send it shortly, and as

it would probably have been almost exactly similar to the above, I have

availed myself of it, the Author’s father having sent me a copy with the

necessary alterations and authorised its use.—TR.

[3] See Appendix IV.

[4] Riccioli, vol. i. part ii. pp. 496-500.

[5] In the references the name only of the author is given. Albèri’s

“Opere” is designated Op. Those marked * are new for the English

translation.

[6] This is the writing referred to when Gherardi is quoted.

[7] Compare Nelli, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, and Opere xv. p. 384. The

strange mistake, which is without any foundation, that Galileo was an

illegitimate child, was set afloat soon after his death by Johann Victor

Rossi (Janus Nicius Erythræus) in his “Pinacotheca Illustrium Virorum,”

Cologne, Amsterdam, 1643-1648, and afterwards carelessly and sometimes

maliciously repeated. Salviati has published the marriage certificate of

5th July, 1563, of Vincenzio di Michel Angelo di Giovanni Galilei and

Giulia degli Ammanati Pescia.

[8] Many of these essays, which have never been printed, are among the

valuable unpublished MSS. in the National Library at Florence.

[9] Galileo had a younger brother, Michel Angelo, and three sisters,

Virginia, Elenor, and Livia. The former married a certain Benedetto

Landucci, the latter Taddeo Galetti. Galileo was very kind to his brother

and sisters all his life, assisted them in many ways, and even made great

sacrifices for their sakes.

[10] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 26, 27.

[11] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 330; and Op. vi. p. 18.

[12] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 328.

[13] The correctness of this date is indisputable, as according to Nelli,

vol. i. p. 29, it was found in the university registers. It is a pity

that Albèri, editor of the “Opere complete di Galileo Galilei,” Florence,

1842-1856, relied for the date on Viviani, who is often wrong.

[14] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 331; also Jagemann, p. 5.

[15] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 332; also Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 722, 723.

[16] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 334.

[17] Nelli, vol. i. pp. 32, 33.

[18] That Galileo had been in Rome before 8th January, 1588, a fact

hitherto unknown to his biographers, is clear from the letter of that

date addressed from Florence to Clavius. (Op. vi. pp. 1-3.)

[19] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 1-13.)

[20] About £13.—[TR.]

[21] About 7¼_d._ 100 kreuzers = the Austrian florin.

[22] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 336; and Nelli, vol. i. p. 44.

[23] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 336, 337; Nelli, vol. i. pp. 46, 47; Venturi,

vol. i. p. 11.

[24] See the decree of installation of 26th Sept. (Op. xv. p. 388.)

[25] Op. viii. p. 18; Nelli, vol. i. p. 51.

[26] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337 and 389.

[27] Published by Venturi, 1818, vol. i. pp. 26-74.

[28] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 339, 340.

[29] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 337, 338.

[30] Op. ii. pp. 1-6.

[31] “Prodromus Dissertationum Cosmographicarum.”

[32] Op. vi. pp. 11, 12.

[33] Op. viii. pp. 21-24.

[34] See Humboldt’s “Cosmos,” vol. ii. pp. 345, 346, and 497-499.

[35] Op. xv. p. 390. His salary at first was 72 Florentine zecchini =

£18, and rose by degrees to 400 zecchini = £100. (Op. viii. p. 18, note

3.)

[36] Some fragments of these lectures are extant, and are included by

Albèri in the Op. v. part ii.

[37] Op. iii. (“Astronomicus Nuncius,” pp. 60, 61.) In his “Saggiatore”

also he relates the circumstance in precisely the same way, only adding

that he devised the construction of the telescope in one night, and

carried it out the next day.

[38] Nelli, pp. 186, 187.

[39] History has acknowledged the optician Hans Lipperhey, of Middelburg,

to be the inventor of the telescope. Compare the historical sketch in

“Das neue Buch der Erfindungen,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 217-220. (Leipzig,

1865.) The instrument received its name from Prince Cesi, who, on

the advice of the learned Greek scholar Demiscianus, called it a

“teleskopium.”

[40] Op. vi. pp. 75-77.

[41] See the decree of the senate, 25th Aug., 1609 (Op. xv. pp. 392-393.)

[42] Cosmo II. showed all his life a sincere attachment to his old

teacher, Galileo. From 1605, before Cosmo was reigning prince, Galileo

had regularly given him mathematical lessons during the academical

holidays at Florence, and had thereby gained great favour at the court of

Tuscany.

[43] Op. vi. pp. 107-111.

[44] See the letter of Martin Hasdal from Prague, of 15th April, 1610,

to Galileo (Op. viii. pp. 58-60); also a letter from Julian de’ Medici,

Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, to Galileo, from Prague, 19th

April, 1610. (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 20.)

[45] This reprint bore the following superscription: “Joannis Kepleri

Mathematici Cæsarei Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo nuper ad mortales

misso a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico Patavino.” Comp. Venturi, vol. i.

pp. 99-120.

[46] Op. vi. p. 121, note 1.

[47] Compare the letters of Martin Hasdal, Alexander Sertini, and Kepler

to Galileo in 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 60-63, 65-68, 82-85, 88, 89, 101,

113-117.)

[48] See the letter which Kepler wrote about it to Galileo on 25th Oct.

1610. (Op. viii. pp. 113-117.)

[49] Wedderburn’s reply was called: “Quatuor Problematum, quæ Martinius

Horky contra Nuncium Sidereum de quatuor Planetis novis proposuit”;

Roffeni’s, “Epistola apologetica contra cœcam peregrinationem cujusdam

furiosi Martini cognomine Horky editam adversus, Nuncium Sidereum.”

[50] Op. vi. pp. 114, 115.

[51] Op. vi. p. 127.

[52] May 7th, 1610. (Op. vi. pp. 93-99.)

[53] Op. vi. p. 165.

[54] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 343.

[55] Op. vi. p. 129.

[56] Op. vi. pp. 116-118. Ponsard in his drama, “Galileo,” of which a

third edition appeared at Paris in 1873, in which he mostly turns history

upside down, in Act i. sc. iii. and iv. takes off capitally the proud and

silly opposition of the Aristotelians.

[57] Comp. Op. xv. p. 397, note 11, also Venturi, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.

Jagemann (p. 52) even believes “that Gustavus Adolphus, who created an

entirely new science of warfare which set all Europe in consternation and

terror, had derived his wonderful knowledge from Galileo”!

[58] Op. vi., 71-75. It is unfortunately unknown to whom this letter was

addressed; but, as appears from the contents, it must have been to some

one high in office at the court of Tuscany.

[59] It is not known that these last mentioned treatises ever appeared.

As not the least trace of them is to be found, and yet numerous

particulars have come down to us of other works afterwards lost, it may

be concluded that these essays were never written.

[60] Op. viii. pp. 63, 64.

[61] Op. viii. pp. 73, 74.

[62] Op. vi. p. 112.

[63] Libri justly says, p. 38: “this mistake was the beginning of all his

misfortunes.”

[64] In a letter from Galileo to his brother Michel Angelo, of May

11th, 1606, he describes the somewhat comical scene of the nocturnal

deportation of the Jesuits from the city of Lagunes. (Op. vi. p. 32.)

[65] Op. viii. p. 146-150.

[66] 11th Dec., 1610. (Op. vi. p. 128.)

[67] Op. vi. pp. 130-133 and 134-136.

[68] Op. vi. pp. 137, 138.

[69] Op. vi. p. 139, 140.

[70] Op. vi. p. 140, note 1. See also Vinta’s answer to Galileo, 20th

Jan. 1611 (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” p. 27); also the Grand Duke’s

letter to his ambassador at Rome, Giovanni Niccolini, of 27th Feb., 1611

(Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 10).

[71] Pieralisi has first published this letter in his work “Urban VIII.

and Galileo Galilei,” p. 41.

[72] See, for Bellarmine’s request and the opinion, Op. viii. pp. 160-162.

[73] Op. viii. p. 145.

[74] Gherardi’s Collection of Documents: Doc. i.

[75] Op. vi. p. 274.

[76] The full title was: “Dianoja Astronomica, Optica, Physica, qua

Siderei Nuncii rumor de quatuor Planetis a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico

celeberrimo, recens perspicilli cujusdam ope conspectis, vanus redditur.

Auctore Francisco Sitio Florentino.”

[77] Op. vi. p. 94, note 1; and xv. “Bibliografia Galileiana,” p. vi.

[78] This letter reports the facts above mentioned. (Op. viii. p. 188.)

[79] Op. viii. pp. 222-224.

[80] Op. viii. pp. 241, 242.

[81] Op. vi. pp. 194-197.

[82] “Discorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno

alle cose che stanno in su l’aqua o che in quella si muovano.”

[83] Op. viii. p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i. pp. 195,

196.

[84] Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612.

[85] “Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro

accidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da

Galileo Galilei.”

[86] Letter of 20th April, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 262.)

[87] Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.)

[88] Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.)

[89] Op. viii. pp. 290, 291.

[90] Op. viii. pp. 291-293.

[91] Op. ii. pp. 6-13.

[92] Op. viii. pp. 337, 338.

[93] Vol. i. p. 397.

[94] Comp. Govi, p. 47.

[95] Epinois, “La Question de Galilei,” p. 43.

[96] Op. viii. pp. 337-343.

[97] The title of “Eminence” was first given to cardinals by Pope Urban

VIII. in 1630.

[98] See Lorini’s Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois

this letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which shows

it to have been of the 7th. (Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. ii.)

[99] Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. ii.

[100] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this

visit is described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.)

[101] In the letter before quoted of 12th March.

[102] Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350.

[103] Op. viii. p. 365.

[104] Op. viii. pp. 369, 370.

[105] Vat. MS. fol. 341.

[106] Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. iii.

[107] Compare the text of Caccini’s evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353 ro.-358

vo.)

[108] See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371

ro.-373 vo.)

[109] Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. v.

[110] Op. ii. pp. 13-17.

[111] Op. ii. pp. 17-26.

[112] Op. viii. pp. 350-353.

[113] Op. viii. pp. 354-356.

[114] As we should say, “as a working hypothesis.” [TR.]

[115] This was the work which was condemned and absolutely prohibited by

the Congregation of the Index a year later: “Lettera del R. P. Maestro

Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de i Pittagorici e

del Copernico della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole, e il nuovo

Sisteme del Mondo.” (For Cesi’s letter, Op. viii. pp. 356-358.)

[116] See Dini’s letter to Galileo, March 14th, 1615 (Op. viii. p. 360);

and of August 18th, 1615 (Wolynski, “Lettere Inedite,” p. 34); and

Ciampoli’s of March 21st (Op. viii. pp. 366, 367.)

[117] Op. viii. p. 368.

[118] Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.

[119] Op. viii. pp. 378, 379.

[120] See his letter to Galileo, May 16th, 1615. (Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.)

[121] Op. ii. pp. 26-64. It did not appear in print until twenty-one

years later, in Strasburg.

[122] See the letters of Cosmo II., November 28th, to his ambassador

Guicciardini, at Rome, to Cardinal del Monte, Paolo Giordano Orsini, and

Abbot Orsini; also to Cardinal Orsini, of December 2nd. (Wolynski: “La

Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” pp. 18-20.)

[123] Page 69.

[124] Compare the letters of Sagredo from Venice of 11th March and 23rd

April, 1616, to Galileo at Rome. (Op. Suppl. pp. 107-113. Also Nelli,

vol. i. p. 414.)

[125] Op. viii. p. 383.

[126] See his letters of 12th Dec., 1615, and 8th Jan., 1616, to the

Tuscan Secretary of State, Curzio Picchena, at Florence. (Op. vi. pp.

211, 212, 214, 215.)

[127] Vat. MS. fol. 414 vo.

[128] Compare also Wohlwill, p. 86, note 1.

[129] See his letters to Picchena of 26th Dec., 1615, and 1st Jan., 1616.

(Op. vi. pp. 213, 214.)

[130] Op. vi. pp. 215, 216.

[131] 23rd Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 218, 219.)

[132] Letter to Picchena, 6th Feb. (Op. vi. p. 222.)

[133] Letter to Picchena. (Op. vi. pp. 225-227.)

[134] Op. vi. pp. 221-223.

[135] See the letter of Mgr. Queringhi, from Rome, of 20th January, 1616,

to Cardinal Alessandro d’Este. (Op. viii. p. 383.)

[136] Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza im̃obile di

moto locale.

Che la Terra non è centro del mondo, ne im̃obile, ma si move secondo se

tutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.)

[137] Sol est centrũ mundi, et omnino im̃obilis motu locali;

Censura: Omnes dixerunt dicta propositionẽ ẽe stultã et absurdam in

Philosophia, et formaliter hereticã, quatenus contradicit expresse

sententijs sacre scripture in multis locis. Secundũ proprietate verbor̃,

et secundũ communẽ expositionẽ, et sensũ. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor̃

doctor.

Terra non est centr. mundi, nec im̃obilis, sed secundũ se tota, movetur

et moto diurno.

Censura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc propositionẽ recipẽ eandẽ censura in

Philosophia; et spectando veritatẽ Theologicã, at minus ẽe in fide

erronea. (Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.)

[138] Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616.

Illᵐᵘˢ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseosʳ.

et Commiss. Sᵗⁱ. Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologorũ ad

propositⁿᵉˢ. Gallilei Mathemᶜⁱ., q. Sol sit centrũ mundi, et im̃obilis

motu locali, et Terra moveatur et motu diurno; Sᵐᵘˢ. ordinavit Illᵐᵒ.

D. Cardˡⁱ. Bellarmᵒ., ut vocet corã se dᵐ. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad

deserendas dᵃᵐ. op̃onem, et si recusaverit parere, P. Comissˢ. cora Noto

(Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, ut ĩo (omnino) abstineat

huõi (huiusmodi) doctrina, et op̃onem docere, aut defendere, seu de ea

tractare, si vero nõ acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. folio 378 vo.)

[139] Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem.

In Palatio solite habitⁿⁱˢ: dⁱ: Illᵐⁱ: D. Cardⁱˢ: Bellarmⁱ. et in

mãsionib. Domⁿⁱˢ. sue Illᵐᵒ: Idem Illᵐᵘˢ: D. Cardˡⁱˢ: vocato supradᵗᵒ.

Galileo, ipsoq. corã D. sua Illᵐᵃ: ex̃nte (existente) in p̃ntia adm. R.

p. Fĩs Michaelis Angeli Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Com̃issarij qualis

sᵗⁱ. officij predᵐ. Galileũ monuit de errore supradᵗᵉ op̃onis, et ut

illa deserat, et successive, ac icõtinenti in mei &, et Testiũ & p̃nte

ẽt adhuc eodem Illᵐᵒ. D. Cardˡⁱ. supradᵒ. P. Com̃issˢ. predᵗᵒ. Galileo

adhuc ibidem p̃nti, et Constituto precepit, et ordinavit ... [Here the

MS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the second might be nome (nomine);

the first began with a p (proprie?) but is quite illegible.] Sᵐⁱ. D. N.

Pape et totius Congregⁿⁱˢ. sᵗⁱ. officij, ut supradᵗᵃ. oponione q. sol

sit cẽ: trum mundi, et im̃obilis, et Terra moveatur omnino relinquat,

nec eã de Cetero qᵒvis mõ teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, aut

scriptis, al̃s (alias) coñ ipsũ procedetur ĩ (in) Sᵗᵒ. offo., cui

precepto Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum

Rome ubi subra p̃ntibus ibidẽ R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia ĩ Regno

Cypri, et Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. Politianeñ

(Poletianensis) familiarib. dⁱ. Illᵐⁱ. D. Cardˡⁱˢ. Testibus. (Vat. MS.

folio 379 ro, 379 vo.)

[140] Marini, p. 42.

[141] Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141.

[142] In the _Zeitschrift für mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen

Unterricht_, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy

between Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the _Zeitschrift für

Mathematik_, etc., 17th series. Part ii., pp. 9-31; part iii., pp. 41-45;

part v., pp. 81-98.

[143]

_Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616._

Facta relatione per Illumum. D. Cardᵉᵐ. Bellarminum quod Galilaeus

Galilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad

deserendam (prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, _disserendam_)

opinionem quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum,

et immobilis, terra autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto

Congregationis Indicis, qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et

suspensa respective scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium

cœlestium....) Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini

Carmelitæ, SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S.

Palatii hujusmodi suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi’s

Documents, Doc. vi.)

[144] See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345.

[145] Op. vi. pp. 231-233.

[146] Op. Suppl. 109-112.

[147] Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sigʳ Galileo

Galilei sia calumniato, ò imputato di havere abiurato in mano nr̃a, et

anco di essere stato perciò penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et

essendo ricercati della verità diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no

ha abiurato i mano nr̃a nè di altra qua in Roma ne meno ĩ altro luogo

che noi sappiamo alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, nè manco hà ricevuto

penitenzie salutarj, nè d’altra sorte, ma solo, ql’è stata denunziata la

dichiarazione fatta da Nr̃o Sigʳᵉ: e publicata dalla Sacra Congregⁿᵉ:

dell’indice, nella quale si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al

Copernico che la terra si muova intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel

centro del Mõdo senza muoversi da oriente ad occidente sia cõtraria

alle sacre scritture, e però nõ si possa difendere nè tenere. Et in fede

di ciò habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta la presẽte di nr̃a propria mano

questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Cardˡᵉ.

Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.)

[148] Martin, pp. 79, 80.

[149] Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p.

17) to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of

Galileo, published in 1873.

[150] For the particulars, see Appendix, “Estimate of the Vat. MS.”

[151] Pietro Guiccardini had relieved his predecessor, Giovanni

Sicculini, of his post on 14th May, 1611, when Galileo was still at Rome.

Guiccardini remained there till 27th November, 1621.

[152] Op. vi. pp. 227-230.

[153] See Galileo’s letter to Picchena, from Rome, of 12th March. (Op.

vi. pp. 233-235.)

[154] Wolynski’s “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 36.

[155] Op. vi. pp. 235-237.

[156] Op. viii. p. 385.

[157] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. See these despatches verbatim in Wolynski’s

“La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 22.

[158] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2.

[159] See letter from Cesi to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 389, 390.)

[160] Op. ii. pp. 387-406.

[161] Op. vi. pp. 278-281.

[162] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 350.

[163] Nelli, vol. i. p. 432.

[164] Op. iv. p. 16. This appears also from a letter from Galileo of 19th

June, 1619, to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, afterwards Pope Urban VIII.,

accompanying the treatise. (See this letter in “Pieralisi,” pp. 63, 64;

and “Guitoloni et Gal. Galilei,” Livorno, 1872, vol. i. p. 263.)

[165] “Libra Astronomica ac Philosophica qua Galilæi Galilæi opiniones de

cometis a Mario Guiduccio in Florentina Academia expositæ, atque in lucem

nuper editæ examinatur a Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” (Op. iv. pp. 63-121.)

[166] See the letter of Mgr. Ciampoli of 6th December, 1619, to Galileo.

(Op. viii. pp. 430, 431.)

[167] Compare the letters of Stelluti (27th January, 1620) to Prince

Cesi, 4th March and 18th May, 1620; and from Mgr. Ciampoli, 18th May,

1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 436-439, and 441-443.)

[168] See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii.

p. 447; Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 59.)

[169] See Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)

[170] Compare Cesarini’s letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1621, and 7th

May, 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.)

[171] See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and

16-18; and Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., p. 65.)

[172] “Scandaglio della Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi

nella controversia delle Comete, e particolarmente delle tre ultimamente

vedute l’anno 1618, di Giovanni Battista Stelluti da Fabriano dottor di

Legge.”

[173] “Il Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si

ponderano le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di

Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.”

[174] See Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 12th January, 1623. (Op. ix. pp.

22-24.)

[175] Op. ix. p. 26.

[176] See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc.,

p. 68.)

[177] See Ciampoli’s Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)

[178] See Ranke: “Die römischen Päpste,” etc., vol. ii. p. 531, etc.

[179] See Op. viii. pp. 173, 206, 208, 209, 262, 427; ix. p. 31.

[180] Op. viii. p. 206.

[181] Op. viii. p. 262.

[182] Op. viii. p. 451. Pieralisi in his work, “Urban VIII. and Galileo

Galilei,” Rome, 1875, pp. 22, 27, gives Barberini’s ode, which is in

Latin, and consists of nineteen strophes, as well as a commentary on it,

which has not been printed by Campanella. See also pp. 65, 66, Galileo’s

reply to Barberini, in which he expresses his warm thanks and his

admiration of the poetry. This is not in Albèri’s work.

[183] Op. iv., “Saggiatore,” p. 172.

[184] See for these transactions the letter of Mario Guiducci, from Rome,

to Galileo, of 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)

[185] Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 28th October, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 43,

44.)

[186] Rinuccini’s letters to Galileo, 3rd November and 2nd December,

1623. (Op. Suppl. p. 154; and ix. p. 50.)

[187] Op. vi. pp. 289, 290.

[188] Op. ix. pp. 42, 43.

[189] Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.)

[190] See Rinuccini’s letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and

Guiducci’s of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.)

[191] Compare Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix.

p. 55.)

[192] Op. ix. p. 56.

[193] Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at

Aquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)

[194] Ibid.

[195] ... “Fu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l’avea dannata,

ne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria.” Comp. Galileo’s

letter to Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)

[196] Page 92.

[197] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned.

[198] History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to

Zacharias Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop

the first microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century,

probably in 1590.

[199] Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40.

[200] Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64.

[201] Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in

1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. His

daughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri. The

mother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with

whom Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which

was quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at

that period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing

to the religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo’s son did

not accept it. It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved

unworthy of it, to Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars,

but with the condition, as it was derived from two ecclesiastical

benefices, that he should adopt the tonsure, to which he consented. He

drew the pension which thus irregularly accrued to him as long as he

lived.

[202] Op. vi. p. 295.

[203] Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76.

[204] This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree

of 10th March, 1619.

[205] Op. ii. pp. 64-115.

[206] See Guiducci’s letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op.

ix. pp. 78-80.)

[207] Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164.

[208] See Guiducci’s letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November,

21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp.

168-178.)

[209] Op. ix. p. 97.

[210] Op. iv. pp. 486, 487.

[211] “Dialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si

discorre sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano,

proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per

l’una parte, che par l’altra.”

[212] Comp. Galileo’s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan, 1630, to

Cesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi’s letter to Galileo,

12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71).

[213] Op. i. (“Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc.), pp. 11, 12.

[214] Op. i. pp. 501-503.

[215] Martin, p. 99.

[216] Comp. for example the essay: “Der Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo

Galilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus”; also Marini, pp.

70-73.

[217] Op. vi. pp. 333-336.

[218] Ibid. pp. 333 and 336.

[219] Op. ix. p. 167.

[220] Ibid. pp. 173-175.

[221] This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned

by Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having

taken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal

opinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of

a charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for

appearance’s sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629,

been at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo’s most zealous

adherents, and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded

with him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is

noteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave

all other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive

question of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the

singular offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of

“the astrological medicine”! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had

been denounced by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal

Gaetani applied to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning,

to give his opinion on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In

compliance with this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for

Galileo, in which the expert theologian and mathematician brought the

system into agreement with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations

of the imprisoned philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the

Sacred Congregation.

[222] “Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si

sarrebe fatto quel decreto.” (Op. ix. p. 176.)

[223] Op. ix. pp. 176, 177.

[224] “Che lei è desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella.”

(Op. ix. p. 178.)

[225] Op. ix. p. 188.

[226] In the narration of this most important transaction we have

followed the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of

Galileo, was handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an

authentic document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions

with Galileo’s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274-277; Suppl. pp. 233-235.)

It is inconceivable how Albèri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have

fallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received the

_imprimatur_ at all, though he himself publishes documents which prove

the contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of 16th

June, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo’s to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 (Op.

vi. pp. 374-376); a letter of Riccardi’s to the Tuscan ambassador at

Rome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally,

a letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420-423).

Martin also expresses his surprise at this error of Albèri’s (p. 102,

note 2).

[227] Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205.

[228] Op. vi. p. 346, note 2.

[229] Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 35.

[230] Op. ix. pp. 198, 199.

[231] Ibid. pp. 201, 202.

[232] Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the “Dialogues,” this

permission to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are

also reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in

4to).

[233] Op. ix. pp. 205, 206.

[234] See Caterina Niccolini’s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.)

[235] Op. vi. p. 375.

[236] In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent

followed Galileo’s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we

have made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary

commission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389

vo.), and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat.

MS. 413 ro.-419 ro.)