Court of Tuscany, to Galileo (Op. ix. pp. 225, 226), and the letter of
Cioli to Niccolini of 8th March, in which the latter is charged, in the
name of the Grand Duke, to support Galileo’s cause to the utmost with the
Master of the Palace. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 39.)
[238] Op. vi. pp. 377, 378.
[239] Op. ix. pp. 242, 243.
[240] The Roman censorship only granted licences to works published at
Rome itself.
[241] See this letter from Riccardi to Niccolini. (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244.)
[242] Op. iv. pp. 382-284.
[243] See Niccolini to Galileo, 25th May, 1631. (Wolynski, “Lettere
inedite,” etc., p. 83.)
[244] ... “Si che non mai si conceda la verita assoluta ma solamente la
hipotetica, e senza la Scrittura, a questa opinione ...”
[245] Vat. MS. fol. 390 ro.
[246] Ibid. fol. 390 vo.
[247] Letter of 19th July, 1631. (Op. ix. p. 246.)
[248] See this important letter of Riccardi’s to the Inquisitor at
Florence. (Vat. MS. fol. 393 ro.)
[249] See points 1 and 3 of the memorial which was handed to the Pope at
the first examination of Galileo by the preliminary commission. (Vat. MS.
fol. 388.)
[250] Comp. p. 120.
[251] Marini, p. 127. Pieralisi tries to convince the reader that
Ciampoli acted quite despotically in the matter; and says that when
Riccardi refers to “the Pope,” it was not Maffeo Barberini, but Mgr.
Ciampoli, “Giovanni Ciampoli non Maffeo Barberini era il Papa”! p. 113, a
statement which, considering Urban’s despotic character and the absence
of historical proof, appears very arbitrary.
[252] _Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik._ 9th Series, Part 3, p. 184.
[253] Marini, pp. 116, 117; Op. Suppl. pp. 324, 325.
[254] Op. vi. p. 389.
[255] Ibid. p. 390.
[256] Ibid.
[257] Op. ix. p. 271.
[258] Ibid. p. 253.
[259] Op. ix. pp. 270-272.
[260] Op. Suppl. p. 319.
[261] Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp.
163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234.
[262] Comp. on this subject the chapters on “Die Gesellschaft Jesu” in
“Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart,” by
Fr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966.
[263] ... “I Gesuiti lo persequiterano acerbissimamente.” (See
Magalotti’s letter to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th Aug., 1632. Op.
Suppl. p. 321)
[264] See their letters. (Op. ix. pp. 264-267, 270-272, 276-282.)
[265] See their letters to Galileo. (Op. ix. pp. 25, 72, 97, 166-168,
174-177, 210, 255; Suppl. p. 181.)
[266] On the reverse side of the title page of the “Dialogues” stands:—
“Imprimatur, si videbitur Rever. P. Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici.
A. Episcopus Bellicastensis Vices gerens.
Imprimatur. Fr. Nicolaus Ricardus, Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister.
Imprimatur Florentiæ; ordinibus consuetis servatis. 11 Septembris 1630.
Petrus Nicolinus Vic. Gen. Florentiæ.
Imprimatur. Die 11 Septembris 1630.
Fra Clemens Egidius Inquisit. Gen. Florentiæ.
Stampisi. A. di 12 di Settembre 1630.
Niccolò dell’Altella.”
[267] It is reproduced in Venturi, vol. ii. p. 117.
[268] See on all this the two detailed letters of Count Magalotti to
Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th August and 4th September, 1632. (Op.
Suppl. pp. 318-329.)
[269] Scheiner had two years before published a work called “Rosa
Ursina,” in which he again fiercely attacked Galileo, and stoutly
maintained his unjustifiable claims to the first discovery of the solar
spots. Galileo did not directly answer him in his “Dialogues,” but dealt
him some side blows, and stood up for his own priority in the discovery
with weighty arguments. Castelli, in a letter to Galileo of 19th June,
1632 (Op. ix. p. 274), gives an amusing description of Scheiner’s
rage. When a priest from Siena praised the book in his presence at
a bookseller’s, and called it the most important work that had ever
appeared, Scheiner left the shop, pale as death, and trembling with
excitement in every limb. But he did not always thus curb his rage. The
natural philosopher, Torricelli, who afterwards became famous, a pupil
of Castelli’s, reported to Galileo, in a letter of 11th September, 1632
(Op. ix. p. 287), a conversation he had had with Scheiner about the
“Dialogues.” Although he shook his head about them, he had concurred
in Torricelli’s praise, but could not help remarking that he found the
frequent digressions tedious; and no wonder, for they often referred to
himself, and he always got the worst of it. He broke off the conversation
by saying that “Galileo had behaved very badly to him, but he did not
wish to speak of it.” In a letter of 23rd February, 1633, to Gassendi
(Op. ix. p. 275), Scheiner is less reserved. Rage and fury evidently
guided his pen, and he complains bitterly that Galileo had dared in his
work to “lay violent hands” on the “Rosa Ursina.” Scheiner was doubtless
one of the most zealous in instituting the trial against Galileo,
although Targioni (vol. i. p. 113, note _a_) overshoots the mark in
making him his actual accuser.
[270] Op. ix. pp. 420-425.
[271] See Magalotti’s letter to Guiducci of 4th September, 1632 (Op.
Suppl. p. 324); and Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 5th September (Op. ix.
p. 422).
[272] Op. ix. p. 271, note 1.
[273] Comp. Niccolini’s report to Cioli of 13th March, 1633. (Op. ix. p.
437.)
[274] Op. i. “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc., p. 502.
[275] This point has been recently thoroughly discussed by Henri Martin.
Comp. pp. 159-168.
[276] Pages 34-38, etc.
[277] ... “Che fu il primo motere di tutti i miei travagli.” (Op. vii. p.
71.)
[278] This erroneous idea is found among a large number of historians;
for instance, Biot (_Journal des Savans_, July-Oct. 1858), pp. 464, 465;
Philarète Chasles, pp. 129, 130, 208; Reumont, p. 336; and Parchappe, p.
206. Epinois (pp. 56, 57) and Martin (pp. 159-168) have merely given the
importance to this circumstance which it deserves, for it really was of
great moment in the course of the trial.
[279] “ ... E da buona banda intendo i Padri Gesuiti aver fatto
impressione in testa principalissima che tal mio libro è piu esecrando e
piu pernicioso per Santa Chiesa, che le scritture di Lutero e di Calvino
...” (Letter from Galileo to Elia Diodati of 15th Jan., 1633, Op. vii. p.
19. Comp. also his letter to King Ladislaus of Poland, Op. vii. p. 190.)
[280] See the letter of Magalotti to Guiducci, before mentioned, of 7th
August, 1632. (Op. Suppl. pp. 318-323.)
[281] Op. Suppl. p. 319.
[282] See the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 18th Sep.,
1632. (Op. ix. pp. 422 and 426.)
[283] See Campanella’s letters to Galileo of 31st August and 25th Sep.,
1632. (Op. ix. pp. 284 and 294.)
[284] Op. vii. pp. 3, 4.
[285] Op. ix. pp. 420-423.
[286] Il Serenissimo Padrone ha sentito le lettere di V. E. de 4 et 5, et
per questa materia del Sig. Mariano e per quella del Sig. Galileo resta
in tanta alterazione chio non so come le cose passarano; so bene che S.
Santita non havera mai cagione di dolessi de ministri ni de mali consigli
lora. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 45.)
[287] Op. Suppl. pp. 324-330.
[288] It never did in fact come to this; for the _supreme authority_ is
the Pope, speaking _ex cathedra_, or an Œcumenical Council.
[289] Op. ix. pp. 423-425.
[290] ... “Ma sopra tutte le cose dice, con la solita confidenza e
segretezza, essersi trovato ne’ libri del S. Offizio, che circa a 16 anni
sono essendosi sentito che il Signor Galilei aveva questa opinione, e
la seminara in Fiorenza, e che per questo essendo fatto venire a Roma,
gli fu proibito in nome del Papa e del S. Offizio dal Signor Cardinale
Bellarmino il poter tenere questa opinione, _e che questo solo é bastante
per rovinarlo affatto_.”
[291] Comp. pp. 71, 72.
[292] Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.
[293] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix.
pp. 425-428.)
[294] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp.
425-428.)
[295] Vat. MS. p. 394 vo.
[296] After Galileo’s signature follow the autograph attestations of the
notary and witnesses, of whose presence Galileo knew nothing. (Vat. MS.
fol. 398 ro.)
[297] Op. vii. p. 6.
[298] The address does not indicate which of the Cardinals Barberini, but
it is clear from Niccolini’s despatch of 13th November, 1632, to Cioli,
that it was to Cardinal Antonio, jun., nephew of the Pope, and not, as
Albèri assumes, to Cardinal Antonio, sen., the Pope’s brother.
[299] There is no clue whatever as to who this personage was. From what
Galileo says, it must have been some high ecclesiastical dignitary.
[300] On this point also a passage in a letter of Campanella’s to Galileo
of 22nd October, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 303), is worth mentioning. He says:
“They are doing all they possibly can here in Rome, by speaking and
writing, to prove that you have acted contrary to orders.”
[301] Op. vii. pp. 7-13.
[302] Vat. MS. fol. 403 ro.
[303] Op. ix. pp. 304-306.
[304] Ibid. pp. 428, 429.
[305] Niccolini was mistaken if he thought that this tribunal was,
according to ecclesiastical notions, infallible.
[306] Op. ix. p. 311.
[307] See Niccolini to Cioli, 6th November. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,”
etc., p. 50.)
[308] Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. vii.
[309] The cup of papal wrath had by this time been emptied on Ciampoli’s
head. He had been deprived of his important office as Secretary of the
Papal Briefs, and in order to remove him from Rome he was made Governor
of Montalto, and entered on his post at the end of November. (See the
letters of Castelli to Galileo. Op. ix. pp. 306, 313-316.)
[310] For these documents, from which the above narrative is taken, see
Op. ix. pp. 312, 313 and 429, 430.
[311] Vat. MS. fol. 401 ro.
[312] Gherardi’s Documents, and Vat. MS. fol. 402 vo.
[313] Op. ix. pp. 430, 431.
[314] Ibid. pp. 318, 319.
[315] Vat. MS. fol. 406 ro.
[316] Ibid. pp. 407 ro.
[317] Op. ix. p. 431.
[318] Ibid. pp. 319, 320.
[319] See Castelli’s Letters to Galileo of 2nd and 16th Oct., 1632. (Op.
ix. pp. 295-298, and 299-301.)
[320] See his letters. (Op. ix. pp. 306, 307, and 313-315.)
[321] “30th Dec. 1632, a Nativitate. Sanctissimus mandavit Inquisitori
rescribi quod Sanctitas Sua et Sacra Congregatio nullatenus potest et
debet tolerare hujusmodi subterfugia et ad effectum verificandi an
revera in statu tali reperiatur quod non possit ad urbem absque vitae
periculo accedere. Sanctissimus et Sacra Congregatio transmittet illuc
commissarium una cum medicum qui illum visitent ut certam et sinceram
relationem faciant de statu in quo reperitur, et si erit in statu tali
ut venire possit illum carceratum et ligatum cum ferris transmittat. Si
vero causa sanitatas et ob periculum vitae transmissio erit differenda,
statim postquam convaluerit et cessante periculo carceratus et ligatus
ac cum ferris transmittat. Commissiarius autem et medici transmittantur
ejus sumptibus et expensis quid se in tali statu et temporibus constituit
et tempore oportuno ut ei fuerat preceptum venire et facere contempsit.”
(Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. x.; and Vat. MS. fol. 409 vo.)
[322] Op. ix. pp. 322, 323. This last observation of the Grand Duke’s,
only meaning that he reckoned on a speedy release for Galileo, afterwards
gave Cioli occasion, as we shall see by-and-by, for a most mean act
towards Galileo.
[323] It is incomprehensible how many of Galileo’s biographers, even
Parchappe (p. 216) and H. Martin (p. 120), who had Albèri’s work at
command, fix the 15th as the date. And yet we have a letter of Galileo’s
to the Cardinal de Medici of the 15th Jan. (Op. vii. pp. 15, 16), asking
if he had any commissions, in which he expressly mentions “the 20th
instant” as the day of his departure.
[324] “Famosi et antiqui problematis de telluris motu vel quiete hactenus
optata solutio: ad Em. Card. Richelium Ducem et Franciæ Parem. A. Jo.
Bapt. Morino apud Gallos et Bellajocensibus Francopolitano Doct. Med.
atque Paris. Mathematum professore. Terra stat in æternum; Sol oritur et
occidit. Eccles. Cap. I. Parisiis apud tuctorem juxta Pontem novum 1631,
in 40.”
[325] “Liberti Fromondi in Acad. Lovaniensi S. Theolog. Doctoris et
Professoris ordinarii. Ant.-Aristarchus, sive orbis terræ immobilis.
Liber unicus, in quo decretum S. Congreg. S. R. E. Cardinalium anno
1616, adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur. Antverpiæ ex
officina Plantiniana 1631, in 40.”
[326] The letter to the Grand Duchess Christine.
[327] Op. vii. pp. 16-20.
[328] The Inquisitor informed the Holy Office, two days later, that
Galileo had left Florence on the 20th. (Vat. MS. fol. 411 ro.; and
Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xii.)
[329] Comp. Niccolini’s letter to Galileo of 5th Feb., 1633. (Op. ix. p.
327.)
[330] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 14th Feb. (Op. ix. p. 432.)
[331] See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 16th and 19th Feb. (Op. ix.
pp. 432, 433.)
[332] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.
[333] See Galileo’s letter to Cioli of 19th Feb. (Op. vii. pp. 20-22.)
[334] Ibid.
[335] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Geri Bocchineri of 25th Feb. (Op. vii. p.
23.)
[336] Op. vii. pp. 20-22.
[337] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 19th Feb.
[338] Op. vii. p. 22.
[339] Op. ix. 434.
[340] In the account of this conversation we have followed Niccolini’s
despatch to Cioli of 27th Feb. (Op. ix. pp. 434-436.)
[341] Comp. pp. 171, 172.
[342] Op. ix. pp. 434-436.
[343] Ibid. pp. 330-332.
[344] Op. vii. p. 27; and ix. p. 436; also Wolynski, “La Diplomazia,”
etc., p. 57.
[345] Op. ix. pp. 436-438.
[346] Op. ix. p. 438; and vii. p. 228.
[347] See Geri Bocchineri’s Letters to Galileo and Cioli, both of 26th
March, 1633: the former, Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 89; the
latter, Op. ix. p. 336.
[348] Op. ix. p. 441.
[349] Op. ix. p. 338.
[350] See Galileo’s letters to G. Bocchineri of 5th and 12th, and to
Cioli of 12th and 19th March. (Op. vii. pp. 24-28.)
[351] Op. ix. pp. 438, 439.
[352] Vat. MS. fol. 413 vo. 419 ro.
[353] We have before stated that Copernicus did not at all consider his
doctrine a hypothesis, but was convinced of its actual truth. It was
Osiander’s politic introduction which had given rise to the error which
was then generally held.
[354] Prof. Berti has first published this interesting letter in full in
his “Copernico e le vicende Sistema Copernicano in Italia,” pp. 121-125.
[355] Vat. MS. fol. 423 ro.
[356] No explanation is to be found anywhere of this mysterious
notification. The protocols of the trial show that none took place before
the Inquisitor. These “particulars,” therefore, as they are not mentioned
again in the course of the trial, and play no part in it, may have been
chiefly of a private nature.
[357] These are the precise words of this ominous passage in the
annotation of 26th February, 1616, which appear to have been considered
absolutely decisive by the Inquisitor.
[358] Op. vii. p. 29. The rest of the letter is about family affairs.
[359] Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 16th April. (Op. ix. pp.
440, 441.) During our stay in Rome in the spring of 1877, Leone Vincenzo
Sallua, the Father Commissary-General of the Holy Office, was kind
enough to show us the apartments occupied by Galileo in the Palace of
the Inquisition. The rooms are all large, light, and cheerful, and on
one side you enjoy the prospect of the majestic dome of St. Peter’s,
and on the other of the beautiful gardens of the Vatican. It is worthy
of note that all the rooms assigned to Galileo and his servant are
entirely shut off by a single door, so that but one key was required
to make the inmates of these handsome apartments prisoners. With all
its consideration for Galileo’s person, the Inquisition never forgot
a certain prudence which had perhaps become a second nature to it. We
prefix a little ground plan of the rooms, made by ourselves on the spot.
[360] See despatch of 23rd April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)
[361] See Op. ix. pp. 334, 339, 345, 346, 354, 355. Pieralisi tries to
palliate even this act, but without much success. (Comp. pp. 134, 135.)
[362] Thanks to the kindness of Prof. Riccardi, of Modena, in whose
valuable library there is, among other treasures, a copy of Galileo’s
“Dialogues” of 1632, I was enabled to compare Inchofer’s quotations with
a copy of the very edition which was in the hands of the consultators of
the Holy Office. I am able to state that Inchofer quotes them verbatim,
or makes faithful extracts without altering the sense. The last quotation
only, 25, is a little confused. (Vat. MS. fol. 439 vo.)
[363] Pasqualigus seldom cites verbatim, but makes short quotations; and
in comparing them with Galileo’s works, I have found the sense given
correctly.
[364] See all these opinions and the arguments, Vat. MS. fol. 429 ro. 447
ro.
[365] There is a passage in a letter of Galileo’s to Geri Bocchineri
of 25th February, 1633, in which he says: “The cessation of all bodily
exercise which, as you know I am accustomed to take for the benefit of
my health, and of which I have now been deprived for nearly forty days,
begins to tell upon me, and particularly to interfere with digestion,
so that the mucus accumulates; and for three days violent pains in the
limbs have occasioned great suffering, and deprived me of sleep. I hope
strict diet will get rid of them.” (Op. vii. p. 23.) Since this time two
months had elapsed without Galileo’s having been in the open air. Even
the Inquisitors saw, as we shall find, that a change must be made in the
regulations, if they did not wish to endanger his life.
[366] Op. vii. p. 30.
[367] Pages 197, 198.
[368] Niccolini’s.
[369] Vat. MS. fol. 419 ro. 420 vo.
[370] Vat. MS. fol. 420 vo. 421 ro.
[371] Vat. MS. fol. 421 vo.
[372] Op. ix. pp. 441, 442.
[373] Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 61.
[374] See Niccolini to Cioli, 15th May, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 442.)
[375] Galileo’s letters between 23rd April and 23rd July, just the most
interesting time, are entirely wanting, which can scarcely be altogether
accidental.
[376] Op. ix. p. 353.
[377] See the protocol of the hearing of 10th May, 1633. (Vat. MS. fol.
422 ro.)
[378] At his first hearing Galileo had only been able to show a copy of
this certificate, but now produced the original.
[379] Vat. MS. fol. 425 vo.
[380] Comp. Marini, pp. 98-100.
[381] Op. ix. p. 357.
[382] See their letters (Op. ix. pp. 355-364; and Suppl. pp. 350, 351).
[383] See his letters to Galileo (Op. Suppl. pp. 248-250).
[384] Op. ix. p. 359.
[385] Ibid. p. 365.
[386] See Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 29th May. (Op. ix. p. 443.)
[387] Op. ix. pp. 442, 443.
[388]
“Feria V. Die XVI. Junii 1633.
Galilaei de Galileis Florentini in hoc S. Off. carcerati et ob ejus
adversam valetudinem ac senectutem cum praecepto de non discedendo
de domo electae habitationis in urbe, ac de se repraesentando toties
quoties sub poenis arbitrio Sacrae Congregationis habilitati proposita
causa relato processu et auditis notis, S.ᵐᵘˢ decrevit ipsum Galilaeum
interrogandum esse super intentione et comminata ei tortura, et si
sustinuerit, previa abjuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.
Off. condemnandum ad carcerem arbitrio Sac. Congregationis, Injunctum ei
ne de cetero scripto vel verbo tractet ampluis gnovis modo de mobilitate
terræ, nec de stabilitate solis et e contra sub poena relapsus. Librum
vero ab eo conscriptum cuititutus est Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo
(publice cremandum fore (_sic_) ma cassato) prohibendum fore. Praeterea
ut haec omnibus innotescant exemplaria Sententiae Decretumque perinde
transmitti jussit ad omnes nuntios apostolicos, et ad omnes haereticae
pravitatis Inquisitores, ac praecipue ad Inquisitorem Florentiae qui eam
sententiam in ejus plena Congregatione, Consultoribus accersitis, etiam
et coram plerisque Mathematicae Artis Professoribus publice legatur.”
(Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xiii.; and Vat. MS. fol. 451 vo.)
It was then apparently at first determined publicly to burn Galileo’s
book, and it was not till after the decree had been committed to writing
that it was altered. At whose instigation this was done, whether at that
of the Pope, or in consequence of the remonstrances of some more lenient
members of the Congregation, such as the Cardinals Barberini, Borgia, and
Zacchia, cannot be decided.
[389] Op. ix. pp. 443, 444, from which the above account is taken.
[390] See Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444,
445.)
[391] Et cu nihil aliud posset haberi in executione decreti habita eius
subscriptione remissus fuit ad locum suum. (Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.)
[392] “Cioè al palazzo del Ministro di Toscana,” says Marini, p. 62.
[393] The passage in Niccolini’s despatch is as follows: “Il Signor
Galilei fu chiamato lunedi (20) sera al S. Uffizio, ove si trasferi
martedi (21) mattina conforme all’ ordine, per sentire qual che potessero
desiderare da lui, ed essendo ritenuto, fu condotto mercoledi (22) alla
Minerva avanti alli Sig. Cardinali e Prelati della Congregazione, dove
non solamente gli fu letta la sentenza, ma fatto anche abiurare la sua
opinione, ... la qual condannazione gli ful subito permutata da S. B. in
una relegazione o confine al giardino della Trinita de’ Monti, dore io lo
condussi venerdi (24) sera....” (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)
[394] Galileo’s letter to Castelli of 21st December, 1613.
[395] Appendix VI.
[396] It is very remarkable that Jagemann, in his book on Galileo, which
appeared in 1784 (New Ed. 1787, pp. 86, 95), doubts the fact of such a
special prohibition. Of course he is acquainted only with the sentence
published by Riccioli, and surmises that he invented the passage in which
the special prohibition is mentioned, “in order to justify the harsh
proceedings of the Court of Rome under Urban VIII.” So that ninety years
ago, without anything to go by but the wording of the sentence, Jagemann
suspected that this strict prohibition was never issued to Galileo, and
says,—“Neither does this decree agree with the information given above on
all points,” _i.e._, in letters of Galileo and Guiccardini of 1616.
[397] Compare the excellent essay: “La Condemnation de Galilée. Lapsus
des écrivains qui l’opposent a la doctrine de l’infallibilité du Pape,”
von Abbé Bouix. Also Pieralisi, pp. 121-131; and Gilbert’s “La Procés
de Galilée,” pp. 19-30. We may remark here, that according to these
principles the doctrine of Copernicus was not made heretical by the
sentence of the Inquisition, because the decree never received the Pope’s
official ratification. To confirm this statement we subjoin some remarks
by theological authorities. Gassendi remarks in his great work, “De motu
impresso a motore translato” (Epist. ii. t. iii. p. 519), published nine
years after the condemnation of Galileo, on the absence of the papal
ratification in the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, and that therefore
_the negation of the Copernican theory was not an article of faith_.
As a good priest he recognises the high authority of a decision of the
Congregation, and subjects his personal opinions to it. Father Riccioli,
in his comprehensive work, “Almagestum novum,” published nine years after
Gassendi’s, reproduces Gassendi’s statement word for word (t. i., pars.
2, p. 489), and entirely concurs in it, even in the book which was meant
to refute the Copernican theory at all points (pp. 495, 496, and 500).
Father Fabri, a French Jesuit, afterwards Grand Penitentiary at Rome,
says in a dissertation published there in 1661 against the “Systema
Saturnium,” of Huyghens (p. 49), that as no valid evidence can be adduced
for the truth of the new system, the authorities of the Church are quite
right in interpreting the passages of Holy Scripture relating to the
system of the universe literally; “but,” he adds, “if ever any conclusive
reasons are discovered (which I do not expect), _I do not doubt that
the Church will say that they are to be taken figuratively_,” a remark
which no priest would have made about a doctrine pronounced heretical by
infallible authority. Caramuel, a Spanish Benedictine, who also discussed
the future of the Copernican theory, defines the position still more
clearly than Fabri. In his “Theologia fundamentalis,” published at Lyons
in 1676 (t. i., pp. 104-110), after defending the decree and sentence of
the Congregation, he discusses the attitude which the Church will take
in case the system should prove indisputably true. In the first place
he believes this will never happen, and if it does, _it could never be
said that the Church of Rome had been in error, as the doctrine of the
double motion of the earth had never been condemned by an Œcumenical
Council, nor by the Pope speaking ex cathedra, but only by the tribunal
of cardinals_.
It is interesting to find that Descartes, Galileo’s contemporary, put
the same construction on the matter. He wrote on 10th January, 1634,
to Father Mersenne: “_As I do not see that this censure has been
confirmed either by a Council or the Pope, but proceeds solely from the
congregation of the cardinals_, I do not give up hope that it will not
happen to the Copernican theory as it did to that about the antipodes,
which was formerly condemned in the same way.” (Panthéon littéraire,
Œuvres philosophiques de Descartes, p. 545.)
[398] Page 141.
[399] Page 60.
[400] Abbé Bouix, p. 229.
[401] _Zeitschrift für Math. und Physik._ 9th series. Part 3, pp. 194,
195.
[402] “I Cardinale Inquisitori componenti la Congregazione, in cui nome
la sentenza è fatta, erano in numero di dieci. Nell’ ultima Congregazione
se ne trovarono presenti solo sette; quindi sette solo sono sottoscritti.
Da cio non può in nessuna maniera desumersi che i tre mancanti fossero di
parere contrario.” (“Processo originale,” etc., p. 149, note 1.)
[403] “Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei,” pp. 218-224.
[404] Appendix VI.
[405] Vol. vii. of the “Historisch-politischen Blätter für das
Catholische Deutschland.” Munich, 1841.
[406] Ibid. p. 578.
[407] The reproach which the apologists of the Inquisition are fond of
bringing against Galileo, that he knew nothing about the specific gravity
of the air, is incorrect, as appears from his letter to Baliani of 12th
March, 1613 (published for the first time in 1864 by Signor Giuseppe
Sacchi, director of the library at Brera, where the autograph letter is
to be seen), in which Galileo describes a method he had invented for
determining the specific gravity of the air.
[408] See the essay before mentioned, p. 583.
[409] Ibid. pp. 580, 581.
[410] Ibid. pp. 581, 582.
[411] It carefully refutes the assertion made by Father Olivieri, that
the Holy Office had prohibited the Copernican doctrine from being
demonstrated as true, and condemned its famous advocate, Galileo, because
it could not then be satisfactorily proved scientifically, and Galileo
had supported it with arguments scientifically incorrect. If we can
believe the ex-general of the Dominicans, the Inquisition in 1616 and
1633 was only the careful guardian of science!
[412] _Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, Beilage_, No. 93, 2nd Aug, 1876.
[413] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xv.
[414] Compare p. 228, note 3.
[415] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd July, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 445.)
[416] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro.
[417] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 3rd July.
[418] Vat. MS. fol. 453 ro. and 454 vo.
[419] Ibid. fol. 453 vo.
[420] Op. ix. p. 447.
[421] Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum.” Pisa, 1778, vol. i. p. 144.
[422] Heis, “Das Unhistorische des dem Galilei in dem Munde gelegten: ‘E
pur si muove.’” Munich, 1868.
[423] “Der Galileischen Process auf Grund der neuesten Actenpublicationen
historisch und juristisch geprütf.” Von Prof. H. Grisar, S. J.
_Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie._ 2nd series. Innsbrück, 1878.
[424] Ferry, author of the article “Galilée” in “Dictionnaire de
Conversation,” Paris, 1859, undoubtedly believes the story. But the
man who makes Galileo be born at Florence, study at Venice, and become
Professor at Padua directly afterwards, thinks that Galileo did nothing
more for science after his condemnation, and, that (in 1859) his works
were still on the Index, can hardly be reckoned among historians.
[425] Louis Combes’s “Gal. et L’Inquisition Romaine,” Paris, 1876, is a
pamphlet of no scientific value whatever, distinguished by astounding
ignorance of the Galileo literature. The author complains that the
original documents relating to the trial are buried among the secret
papal archives, and that nothing more is known of them than what Mgr.
Marini has thought fit to communicate! The publication, then, of the most
important documents of the Vat. MS., by Epinois, 1867, seems to have
escaped the notice of M. Louis Combes!
[426] Nelli, vol. ii. p. 562, note 2.
[427] Page 69, note 2.
[428] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 182; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 537.
[429] See Appendix: History of the Vat. MS.
[430] See Dr. Emil Wohlwill’s “Ist Galileo gefoltert worden.” Leipzig,
1877.
[431] “Elogio del Galilei.” Livorno, 1775.
[432] In Fabroni, “Vitæ Italorum,” i.
[433] “Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fosiche in Toscana.” i.
Firenze, 1780.
[434] “Lettere inedite di uomini illustri.” Firenze, 1773-75.
[435] _Journal des Savans_: July, Aug., Sep., Oct., 1858.
[436] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 25th April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)
[437] Niccolini to Cioli, 3rd May. (Op. ix. p. 442.)
[438] Niccolini to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)
[439] Niccolini to Cioli, 10th July. (Ibid. p. 447.)
[440] Even Wohlwill allows, p. 29, that the opinion that “Catholic
answer” means answer under torture is not tenable.
[441] “Il Reo, che solamente condotto al luogo della tortura ò quivi
spogliato, ò pur anco legato senza però esser alzato, confessa dicesi
haver confessato ne’ tormenti, e nell’ esamina rigorosa.” (“Sacro
Arsenale overo Prattica dell’ Officio della Santa Inquisitione.” Bologna,
1865, Mesini’s ed. p. 412.)
[442] Page 25.
[443] “Gradus torturae olim adhiberi soliti fuerunt quinque, qui certo
ordine fuerunt inflicte, quos describit Julius Clarus ‘in pract crim.’
§ Fin. qu. 64, versic. ‘Nunc de gradibus,’ ubi ita ait, ‘Scias igitur,
quod quinque sunt gradus torturae; scilicet Primo, minae de torquendo.
Secundo: conductio ad locum tormentorum. Tertio, spoliato et ligatura.
Quarto, elevation in eculeo. Quinto, squassatio.” (Philippi a Limborch
S.S. Theologiae inter Remonstrantes Professoris, Historia Inquisitionis.
Amstelodami apud Henricum, Westenium, 1692, p. 322.)
[444] Prof. P. Grisar also remarks in his critique of Wohlwill’s last
work (_Zeitschrift für Kath. Theol._ ii. Jahrgang, p. 188), that in the
language of the old writers on criminal law, the _territio verbalis_ was
often included in the expression torture, and appeals to Julius Clarus,
Sentent. crimin. lib. 5, § Fin. qu. 84, nr 31; Francof. 1706, p. 318;
Sigism. Scaccia, de judiciis, lib. 2. c. 8. nr 276; Francof. 1669, p. 269.
[445] “Sacro Arsenale,” p. 155.
[446] Ibid. pp. 157, 161, 165.
[447] Ibid. p. 157; Salleles, “De materiis tribunalium S. Inquisitionis,”
reg. 361, nos. 110, 117.
[448] Ibid. p. 410; Limborch, p. 325.
[449] In his brochure, “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.”
[450] “Il Processo di Galileo Galilei e la Moderna Critica Tedesca,” III.
_Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc. ii., 1878.
[451] Page 214.
[452] “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 62, 64.
[453] The passage in the decree is: “Sᵐᵘˢ. decrevit ipsum (Galileo)
interrogandum esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura et si
sustenuerit, previa abiuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.O.
condemnandum ad carcerem,” etc. (Vat. MS. Fol. 451 vo.) Wohlwill says
that the first part of this decree has had about as many interpretations
as authors who have quoted it. This may in no small degree be due to the
fact that it was not known whether the original reading was _et_ or _ac_
sustinuerit. As it is now decided in favour of _et_, perhaps an agreement
may be come to, and the more so as several students of Galileo’s trial
have adopted a translation which agrees as to the meaning, to which
we ourselves, now that the _et_ is unquestionable, adhere. H. Martin,
Pro. Reusch, Dr. Scartazzini, Pro. P. Grisar, Epinois in his latest
work, and the present writer, translate: “His Holiness ordained that
he (Galileo) was to be examined as to his intention, to be threatened
with torture, and if he kept firm (to his previous depositions) after
_abjuration de vehementi_, he was to be sentenced to imprisonment by the
whole Congregation of the Holy Office,” etc. Whatever may be thought of
the translation, one thing is certain, that by this decree the threat of
torture was ordained, but assuredly not its execution.
[454] “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc.
ii. p. 232, 1878.
[455] Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.
[456] “Il Processo di Gal. Gal.,” etc.: _Revista Europea_, vol. v., fasc.
ii., 16th January, 1878, p. 233.
[457] Ibid. p. 247.
[458] “Galileo Galilei; dessen Leben,” etc., Basle, 1858, p. 16.
[459] Vat. MS. fol. 407.
[460] “Farinacci, de indiciis et tortura,” a. 41.
[461] Th. del Bene, “De officio S. Inquisitionis,” vol. i. p. 574.
[462] “Sacro Arsenale,” pp. 171, 172.
[463] Page 197.
[464] Op. ix. p. 372.
[465] Op. vii. pp. 31, 32.
[466] Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th
July. (Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.)
[467] Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli of 7th August. (Op. ix. p. 447.)
[468] Op. ix. pp. 383, 384.
[469] Vat. MS. fol. 476 vo. and 493 ro.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc.
xviii.
[470] Page 68.
[471] Op. ix. pp. 390-392.
[472] Vat. MS. fol. 544.
[473] Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363.
[474] Henri Martin (pp. 386-388) gives an interesting list of works
published against the Copernican system between 1631 and 1638, up
therefore to the time of Newton.
[475] Venturi, vol. ii. p. 127.
[476] Op. ix. pp. 447, 448.
[477] Comp. Niccolini’s despatch to Cioli, 3rd Dec. (Op. ix. p. 448.)
[478] Vat. MS. fol. 534 ro.
[479] Vat. MS., fol. without paging after 534; also Gherardi’s Documents,
Doc. xx.
[480] Op. ix. pp. 407, 408.
[481] At the close of this year two documents were published which have
often been used as historical sources for the story of Galileo’s trial;
namely, (1) a narration by Francesco Buonamici of the famous trial; and
(2) an assumed letter of Galileo’s to his friend and correspondent,
Father Vincenzo Renieri, intended to give a concise history of the
trial. The first has been pronounced by historical research to be quite
worthless, even if not, as H. Martin (p. 185) thinks, a forgery; the
second as decidedly apocryphal, so that neither are mentioned here.
(Comp. Op. ix. pp. 449-452; vii. pp. 40-43; and the valuable treatise by
G. Guasti: “Le relazioni di Galileo con alcuni Pratesi a proposito del
Falso Buonamici scopalto del Signor H. Martin.” Archivo Storico Italiano.
Firenze, 1873, vol. xvii.)
[482] See Galileo’s letter to Barberini, 17th December, 1633. (Vat. MS.
fol. 541 ro.)
[483] Op. x. pp. 2 and 11.
[484] Vat. MS. fol. 547.
[485] Vat. MS. fol. 549.
[486] Vat. MS. fol. 550 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxii.
[487] Vat. MS. fol. 551 ro.
[488] Op. vii. p. 44.
[489] Op. vii. pp. 46-51.
[490] Op. x. pp. 66-69; 71-74; vii. pp. 56, 57.
[491] Op. vii. pp. 52-58; x. 41-134; Suppl. pp. 271-278.
[492] Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 2nd Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 64.)
[493] Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 65.)
[494] Comp. Peiresc’s letters to Galileo, 26th Jan., 1634 (Op. x. pp.
8-11), and to Card. Barberini, 5th Dec., 1635 (Op. x. p. 94).
[495] Op. x. pp. 94-96. In Albèri the date of this letter is wrongly
given as 1635; Pieralisi has found the original of it in the Barberiana,
with date 5th Dec., 1634. (Pieralisi, pp. 304-310.)
[496] Op. x. pp. 96-98. In Albèri this letter is dated 1636 instead of
1635.
[497] Op. x. pp. 98, 99. Date wrongly given in Albèri as 13th instead of
31st Jan. See Pieralisi, pp. 313-317.
[498] These words were written in a truly prophetic spirit; for such a
parallel was actually drawn by Voltaire in (vol. iv. p. 145) his “Essai
sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations, et sur les principaux faits de
l’histoire, depuis Charlemagne jusquà Louis XIII.”
[499] Op. Suppl. pp. 361-363.
[500] Op. x. pp. 25-33; vii. pp. 52, 53, and 128.
[501] Op. x. pp. 29-33; vii. p. 140.
[502] Op. vii. pp. 65, 66, and 67, 68; also Galileo’s letter to
Bernegger, 15th July, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 69, 70.)
[503] Page 222.
[504] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Giovanni Buonamici, 16th August, 1636.
(Op. vii. pp. 139, 140.)
[505] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo of 2nd June, 1635, in which he
says that “he had at last been again permitted to kiss his Holiness’s
toe.” (Op. x. pp. 100.)
[506] Comp. the letters of Castelli and the Count de Noailles to Galileo
of 19th April and 6th May, 1636. (Op. x. pp. 149, 150, and 153.)
[507] Op. x. pp. 159, 160.
[508] Op. x. pp. 161 and 163.
[509] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 9th August. (Op. x. pp. 163, 164.)
[510] Ibid.
[511] Op. Suppl. p. 280.
[512] Op. x. p. 172.
[513] Comp. Galileo’s letters to Micanzio at Venice of 21st and 28th June
1636. (Op. vii. pp. 63-66.)
[514] Op. x. pp. 88, 89, 104, 105, 116-118, 191, 192; vii. pp. 132, 154,
155.
[515] Op. x. pp. 157, 158, 165, 170, 171, 213; vii. 63, 64, 67, 68, 71,
138, 253.
[516] Op. x. pp. 66-69, 108-111, 127-130.
[517] Pieroni to Galileo, 9th July, 1637. (Op. x. pp. 222-226.)
[518] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 138, 139, 152, 153; x. pp. 167 and 184.
[519] Comp. Op. vi. pp. 238-276, 338-346.
[520] Op. vii. pp. 73-93, and 136, 137.
[521] Op. iii. pp. 176-183.
[522] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 4th July, 1637. (Op. vii. p.
180.)
[523] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 163-174, 190-204; x. pp. 215-218, 228-248;
Suppl. pp. 282-284.
[524] Op. vii. p. 193.
[525] Op. x. pp. 231, 232.
[526] ... “Here I found and called upon the celebrated Galileo, now
become old and a prisoner of the Inquisition,” says Milton. Unfortunately
we know nothing more of this interesting meeting. (Comp. Reumont, p. 405.)
[527] Op. vii. p. 207. See on Galileo’s total blindness, “Sull’epoca vera
e la durata della cecità del Galileo,” Nota del Angelo Secchi: (Estratta
dal Giornale Arcadico, Tomo liv nuova serie); and “Sull’ nella epoca
della completa cecità del Galileo,” Risposta di Paolo Volpicelli al
chiaris e R. P. A. Secchi, Roma, 1868.
[528] Op. x. p. 232.
[529] Op. x. pp. 248, 249.
[530] Comp. p. 275, note 1.
[531] Galileo’s letter to Guerrini, an official at the Tuscan Court, 19th
December. (Op. vii. pp. 204, 205.)
[532] Guerrini to Galileo, 20th December. (Op. x. pp. 249, 250.)
[533] Op. x. pp. 254, 255.
[534] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiii.
[535] This passage directly contradicts the remark on this subject in
the report of Fra Clemente, the Inquisitor, of 1st April, 1634; his
successor, Fra Fanano, seems to have been more favourable to Galileo.
[536] Op. x. pp. 280, 281.
[537] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxiv.
[538] Op. x. p. 286.
[539] Fanano’s letter to Cardinal F. Barberini of 10th March, 1638. (Op.
x. p. 287.)
[540] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxv.
[541] Letter of the Vicar of the Holy Office at Florence to Galileo, of
28th March, 1638. (Op. x. p. 292.)
[542] Op. vii. pp. 211-216.
[543] See letters from Hortensius and Realius to Galileo of 26th Jan. and
3rd Mar. 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 95-99, 100-102); letter from Const. Huyghens
to Diodati, 13th April, 1637 (Op. vii. pp. 111-113).
[544] Op. vii. pp. 163-174.
[545] Op. vii. pp. 181-189.
[546] Vat. MS. fol. 554 ro.
[547] Vat. MS; fol. 555 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvi.
[548] On all this see Galileo’s letter to Diodati of 7th Aug., 1638. (Op.
vii. pp. 214-216.)
[549] Comp. Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679, and Venturi, vol. ii. p. 285.
[550] Vat. MS. fol. 553 ro.; and Op. x. 304, 305, where it is dated 23rd
instead of 25th July.
[551] Vat. MS. fol. 556 vo.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxvii.
[552] Op. vii. p. 215.
[553] Op. vii. pp. 216-218.
[554] Op. xv. p. 401; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 838.
[555] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 371.
[556] Comp. Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th May and 30 July, 1638.
(Op. x. pp. 300, 310-313.)
[557] Cioli’s despatch to Niccolini of 9th Sept., 1638. (Op. x. pp. 313,
314.)
[558] Niccolini’s despatches to Cioli of 15th and 25th Sept. (Wolynski,
“La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., pp. 68, 69.)
[559] Fanano’s letter to Card. Barberini of 4th Oct. (Op. x. p. 314.)
[560] See Castelli’s letters to Card. F. Barberini of 2nd, 9th, and 16th
Oct., in Pieralisi, pp. 291-296; and another of 23rd Oct., 1638, on an
unnumbered page between fols. 552 and 553 of the Vat. MS. p. 175.
[561] See Card. Barberini’s letters to Castelli of 16th and 30th Oct.
(Pieralisi, pp. 294, 295, and 298.)
[562] Vat. MS. fol. 557 vo.
[563] “Discorsi e Dimostrazione Matematiche intorno a due Scienze
attenenti alla Meccanica e ai Movimenti Locali. Con una Appendice del
Centro di gravita di alcuni Solidi.”
[564] See Galileo’s letter to the Count de Noailles of 6th March, 1638,
and his answer of 20th July. (Op. vii. pp. 209-211, and x. pp. 308-310.)
[565] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 44, 46, 57, 70.
[566] Op. vii. pp. 218-226; x. pp. 316, 317, 320, 321.
[567] “Dalla Villa Arcètri, mio continuato carcere ed esilio dalla
città.” (Letter from Galileo to Cassiano dal Pozzo in Rome, of 20th Jan.,
1641, Op. vii. p. 351)
[568] Op. vii. pp. 364, 365.
[569] Pieralisi thinks (“Urbano VIII. and Galileo Galilei,” p. 264) that
it was left to Galileo’s option during the last few years to reside
either at Arcetri or Florence, and that his preference for his villa led
him to choose the former; a statement for which Pieralisi has no proof to
offer, and which is strongly opposed to what we have mentioned above.
[570] Gherardi’s Documents, Docs. xxviii. and xxix.
[571] Castelli’s letters to Galileo of 29th Jan., 12th Feb., 1639. (Op.
x. pp. 325, 326, and 328, 329.)
[572] Op. x. pp. 340-348, 356, 357, 363-365, 367, 368, 385-387, 392-394,
396, 397, 407, 408; Suppl. pp. 287-290.
[573] Op. x. pp. 280 and 308.
[574] Comp. his letters to Castelli of 8th and 19th Aug., 1st and 3rd
Sep., 3rd and 18th Dec., 1639. (Op. vii. pp. 232-236, 238, 239, and 242,
243.)
[575] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 360.
[576] Op. vii. pp. 238, 239; xiii. pp. 267-332; xv. pp. 358-360.
[577] See his letters to Galileo in 1639 and 1640. (Op. x. pp. 336, 339,
340, 350, 351, 362, 363, 382, 383, 402, 419, 420; also xv. (Viviani), pp.
356, 357.)
[578] Op. vii. pp. 240, 241.
[579] Comp. Op. vii. pp. 243-254. In 1648 Renieri was intending to bring
out Galileo’s calculations about the satellites of Jupiter, and their
application to navigation, which he had completed by long years of
labour, when his death occurred after a short illness. The papers were
then lost, but were afterwards discovered by Albèri, who arranged them
and incorporated them in the “Opere di Galileo Galilei,” v.
[580] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Daniele Spinola of 19th Man, 1640. (Op.
vii. pp. 256-258.)
[581] Letter from Prince Leopold de’ Medici to Galileo, 11th Mar., 1640.
(Op. vii. p. 254.)
[582] Op. vii. pp. 261-310; iii. pp. 190-237.
[583] See this correspondence. (Op. vii. pp. 317-333, 336-350, 352-358.)
Liceti published a large book in 1642, in reply to Galileo’s letter to
Prince Leopold de’ Medici. The latter, in which Galileo had made some
alterations, was, with his consent, printed with Liceti’s reply.
[584] Op. vii p. 360.
[585] Op. vii. pp. 361-363.
[586] Page 419.
[587] This is precisely the same argument, only in other words, brought
forward by Simplicius at the end of the “Dialogues on the Two Chief
Systems.” (Comp. p. 160.)
[588] This passage calls the passage in “Il Saggiatore” to mind, where
Galileo speaks of Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Tycho.
[589] See “Allgemeine Weltgeschichte,” by Cesare Cantu. Freely rendered
for Catholic Germany, from the 7th edition, by Dr. J. A. M. Brühl, p. 540.
[590] Comp. Renieri’s letter to Galileo of 6th March, 1641. (Op. x. pp.
408, 409.)
[591] See his letter of 20th August, 1659, to Prince Leopold de’ Medici.
(Op. xiv. pp. 339-356.)
[592] Seven years after Galileo’s death, Vincenzo was occupied in
constructing the first pendulum clock after these drawings and models,
when he suddenly fell ill and died. For all this see Albèri’s excellent
essay: “Dell’orologio a pendolo di Galileo Galilei e di due recenti
divinazioni del meccanismo da lui imaginato.” (Op. Suppl. pp. 333-358;
Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 688-738.)
[593] Comp. Torricelli’s letters to Galileo of 15th March, 27th April,
1st and 29th June, 17th August, and 28th September, 1641. (Op. x. pp.
412, 413, 417, 418, 420, 421, 423-426, 432, 433.) Also Galileo’s letter
to Torricelli of 27th September, 1641. (Op. vii. pp. 365-367.)
[594] See Rinuccini’s letter to Prince Leopold de’ Medici, 15th November,
1641. (Op. x. 436, 437.)
[595] For this and the preceding, see Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 360, 361;
and Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 839, 840.
[596] Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxx.
[597] Niccolini’s despatch to the Tuscan Secretary of State of 25th
January, 1642. (Op. xv. pp. 403, 404.)
[598] Despatch of the Tuscan Secretary Condi to Niccolini of 29th
January, 1642 (Op. xv. p. 404.)
[599] Op. xv. p. 405.
[600] See for more on the subject, Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 850-867.
[601] Nelli, vol. ii. pp. 874-876.
[602] Letter of the Inquisitor Fra Paolo Ambr. of 8th June, 1734, to the
College of Cardinals at Rome. (See Vat. MS. fol. 558 ro.)
[603] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo.
[604] Vat. MS. fol. 561 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. xxxii.
[605] Canto iv., stanza liv.
[606] See the document about the exhumation. (Op. xv. pp. 407-409.)
[607] For instance, Dr. Carl Schöffer, in his _brochure_: “Die Bewegungen
der Himmelskörper. Neue and unbewegliche Beweise, dass unsere Erde im
Mittelpunkte des Weltalls steht, und die Sonne, Mond und Sterne sich um
dieselbe bewegen.” Brunswick, 1854. (“The Motions of the Heavenly Bodies.
New and indisputable proofs that our Earth is the centre of the Universe,
and that Sun, Moon, and Stars, revolve round it”).
[608] Habito verbo cum Sanctissimo, omittatur decretum, quo prohibentur
omnes libri docentes immobilitatem solis, et mobilitatem terræ.
(Olivieri, p. 94, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 585.)
[609] “Opere di Galileo Galilei divise in quattro Tomi, in questa nuova
edizione accresciute di molte cose inedite.” In Padova, 1744. “Nella
stamperia del Seminario appresso Gio. Manfrè,” Tomi iv. in 4ᵒ.
[610] Comp. Olivieri, p. 96, or “Hist.-polit. Blätter,” p. 587, and Op.
xv. Bibliografia Galileiana, pp. xxvi., xxvii.
[611] “Traité d’astronomie” Paris, 1792, p. 421.
[612] “Se possa difendersi ed insegnore, non come semplice ipotesi ma
come verissima, e come tesi, la mobilità della terra e la stabilità
del sole da chi ha fatta la professione di fede di Pio IV. quaestione
teologico-morale.”
[613] “Dichiarono permessa in Roma la stampa e la publicazione operum
tractantium de mobilitate terrae et immobilitate solis, juxta communem
modernorum astronomorum opinionem.” (Olivieri, p. 97, or “Hist.-polit.
Blätter,” p. 588.)
[614] Somewhat abridged, as are also the Description and Estimate of the
Vat. MS.—[TR.]
[615] See for this and what immediately follows, “Le Manuscrit Original
du Procès de Galilée,” par L. Sandret. _Revue des Questions historiques_,
1 Oct., 1877, pp. 551-559.
[616] Marini, p. 144.
[617] Ibid. pp. 144, 145.
[618] See Sandret’s Essays before cited, p. 553.
[619] Ibid. pp. 553, 554.
[620] Sandret, p. 554.
[621] Marini, pp. 145, 146.
[622] Marini, p. 146, 147; Sandret, pp. 554.
[623] Marini, p. 147; Sandret, p. 555.
[624] Marini, p. 147.
[625] Marini, p. 147.
[626] Ibid. p. 148.
[627] Ibid. p. 148.
[628] Ibid. p. 151.
[629] Sandret, p. 556, note 1.
[630] Denina was at Paris from 1805 till his death in 1813, and may
therefore have seen the Acts, which were in Paris from 1811, as well as
the translation which was begun.
[631] Sandret, pp. 556, 557.
[632] _Revue des questions historiques_, Paris, July, 1867.
[633] ... “e avemmo fra le mani il desiderato volume nella stanza
del padre Theiner testè rapito dolorosamente ai vivi.” (“Il Processo
Originale,” etc., p. x.)
[634] “Egli è adunque per la prima volta che i due processi Galeleiani
sono publicati nella loro integrità.” Page xii.
[635] See “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Galileo Galilei proposte
dall’ autore Sante Pieralisi con osservazioni sopra il Processo Originale
di Galileo Galilei publicato da Domenico Berti.” Roma, 30 Settembre,
1876, pp. 9-16.
[636] “Quando si havra a terminare qualche causa al S. Off. appartenente
converra, che prima ai formi il caso in cui brevemente si ristringano
ineriti della causa e tutti i punti substantiale del processo, etc....
Poscia mandatalo a ciascuno de Sig Consultori entrera con esso loro
opportunamente nella Congregatione,” etc. (“Sacro Arsenale,” etc.
Bologna, 1665. Masini’s ed., pp. 345, 346).
[637] “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876, p. 138,
note 1.
[638] “Correzioni al libro Urbano VIII. e Gal. Galilei,” etc. Rome, 1876,
pp. 44-46.
[639] “Il Processo originale di Gal. Galilei,” etc., p. v.
[640] The Denunciation of Lorini. The signature, however, obviously once
existed, but being on the edge of the paper has been effaced in the
course of time.
[641] “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Von Emil Wohlwill. Leipzig, 1877.
[642] “Ist Galilei gefoltert worden.” Gegenbetrachtungen von K. v.
Gebler. Die Gegenwart.
[643] Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro.
[644] This decree is given in a printed copy in the volume containing the
Vat. MS. We give it on a reduced scale.
[645] Misprint for _Dubliniensi_.
[646] Abridged. [TR.]
[647] Cæsar Carena: “De officio Sanctissime Inquisitionis et modo
procedendi in causis fidei.” Cremona, 1641, p. 416.
INDEX.
Accadémia dei Lincei, 36, 106, 136.
Dissolution of, 138.
Alciato, Cardinal, 176.
Anagram on Ring of Saturn, 24.
On Crescent form of Venus, 33.
Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70.
Aristotle, 6, 10.
Astronomical and Philosophical Scales, the, 102.
Barberini, Antonio, 132.
Cardinal, 35, 192, 199, 241, 242.
Maffeo, 44.
As Urban VIII., 108-113.
Bellarmine, Cardinal, 35, 61, 62, 77, 78.
His Certificate to Galileo, 88, 205, 219.
Boccabella, 191.
Bocchineri, Geri, Galileo’s Letters to, 209, 212.
Letter to Niccolini, 218.
Bonciani, 55, 56.
Borgia, Caspar, 241, 242.
Boscaglia, 45.
Bruno Giordano, 216.
Caccini, 51-53, 57, 58, 73, 74, 202.
Campanella, Thomas, 133, 164, 171, 180.
Capra, Balthazar, 12, 17.
Castelli, 33, 43-46, 55, 132-134, 138, 185, 186, 210, 282, 296.
Cesi, Prince, 41, 52, 53, 62, 63, 114, 132, 136.
Death of, 138.
Cioli, 140, 141, 144, 169, 193, 194, 217.
Clavius, 22, 33, 35.
Colombo, Lodovico delle, 43.
Comets of 1618, 101.
Galileo’s opinion on, 101.
Conti, Cardinal, 40.
Copernicus, 13.
His “Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” 14, 75.
Osiander’s Introduction to, 15.
Copernican System, 12-14, 37, 40.
Refutations of, 270, 271.
Galileo’s last Discussion of, 303.
Corressio, Giorgio, 43.
Cosmo II., de’ Medici, 20, 21, 30, 93.
Death of, 105.
Cremonini, 36, 37.
Decree of 5th March, 1616, 84. Appendix, 345.
“De Motu Gravium,” 9.
Dialogues on the Two Systems, 127-131.
Imprimatur for, 135-150, 156.
Introduction to, 147, 148.
Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze, 284, 297.
“Dianoja Astronomica,” 39.
Dini, 59-64.
Diodati, Elia, Galileo’s Letters to, 188, 276, 294.
Dominis, Marc’ Antonio de, 216.
Ferdinand II., de’ Medici, 145.
Letter to the Pope, 164, 165.
Good Offices for Galileo, 196-198.
Visits him at Arcetri, 273.
At Florence, 295.
Firenzuola, Maccolani da, 201, 217, 218, 248.
Letter to Card. Barberini, 213-215.
Foscarini on the Copernican System, 61, 63.
GALILEO GALILEI.
Birth at Pisa, 3.
Early years, 4.
Goes to University of Pisa, 5.
Studies Medicine, 5.
Discovery of Isochronism of Pendulum, 6.
First study of Mathematics, 7.
Professor at Pisa, 9.
Resigns, 11.
Professor at Padua, 11, 16, 19.
Writes Treatises, 11.
Inventions, 12.
Makes a Telescope, 17.
Exhibits it at Venice, 18.
Telescopic Discoveries, 19, 20.
Magini’s attack, 22, 23.
Letter to Kepler, 26.
Galileo’s Pupils, 27.
Letter to Vinta, 29.
Removal to Florence, 31.
First Visit to Rome, 35, 36.
First Notice by Inquisition, 36.
Treatise on Floating Bodies, 42.
Letter to Castelli, 46-50.
Denounced to Inquisition, 53.
Apology to Grand Duchess Christine, 64-70.
Visit to Rome in 1616, 70-75.
Admonished to renounce the Copernican System, 77.
Assumed special Prohibition to treat of it, 77-84.
Lingers at Rome, 91-97.
Goes to Bellosguardo, 98.
Work on Tides, 99, 100.
His opinion of Comets, 101.
Grassi’s attack, 102.
“Il Saggiatore,” 106, 107, 111-113.
Visit to Rome in 1624, 114, 115.
Attempts to get Decree of 1616 repealed, 115-117.
Galileo’s Children, 118.
Reply to Ingoli, 120.
Dialogues on Two Systems, 127-135.
Negotiations about the Imprimatur, 139-150.
Publication of the Dialogues, 151, 152.
Accusations, 157, 174.
Summons to Rome, 175.
Letter to Antonio Barberini, 178-180.
Threat to bring him in chains to Rome, 186.
Arrival at Rome, 191.
The Trial, 201-229.
Confession, 214-216.
Defence, 219, 220.
Sentence, 230-234.
Recantation, 243, 244.
Sent to Trinita de’ Monti, 247.
Goes to Siena, 248.
Current Myths, 249-263.
His Eyes not put out, 250.
“E pur si muove,” 250, 251.
The Hair Shirt, 251.
Imprisonment, 252.
Torture Refuted, 253-263.
Life at Siena, 267-273.
Goes to Arcetri, 272, 273.
His daughters, 273.
Anonymous denunciation, 264.
Petition to go to Florence refused, 274, 275.
Death of his daughter, 275.
Letter to Diodati, 276.
His works translated into Latin, 280, 281.
Labours at Arcetri, 284, 285.
Method of taking Longitudes, 285, 286.
Becomes blind, 287.
Goes to Florence, 290.
Strict Surveillance, 290, 291.
Return to Arcetri, 298.
Last Years, 299-315.
Letter to Rinuccini, 304, 305.
Last illness and death, 307.
Persecutions after death, 308.
Private Funeral, 309.
Remains removed to Santa Croce, 310.
His Works on the Index till 1835, 315.
Galilei, Julia, 3.
Galilei, Vincenzo, 3, 4, 11.
Galilei, Vincenzo, son of Galileo, 191, 306.
Gherardi, Silvestro, 82, 83, 90.
Govi Gilberto, his work on Galileo, 246.
Grassi, 121, 122, 123.
His Lecture on Comets, 102.
Grazia, Vincenzo di, 43.
Gregory XV., 105.
Death of, 107.
Griemberger, 35, 59.
Guiccardini, 91, 92, 93, 95.
Guiducci, 121, 122.
His Treatise on Comets, 102.
Henry IV. of France, 20.
“Il Saggiatore,” 106, 107, 111, 113.
Ingoli on the Copernican System, 120.
Inquisition first notices Galileo, 36.
Jesuits, the, and Galileo, 153-155, 277.
Kepler, 13, 21, 23, 24, 120.
Kuppler, Jacob, 117.
“La Bilancetta,” 8.
Landini, 157, 163, 166.
Lembo, 35.
Leopold of Austria, Archduke, 99, 101.
L’Epinois, Henri de, 81. Appendix, 325, 326, 328.
Libri, Julius, 25.
Liceti, Fortunio, 301, 302.
Longitudes at Sea, method of taking, 285, 286, 292, 295, 301.
Lorini, 41, 53-55, 202.
“Lothario Sarsi Sigensano,” 102.
Magalotti, Count, 152, 155, 157, 163, 169.
Magini, 22, 23.
Malcotio, 35.
Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome, 176.
Maraffi, 51, 52.
Marini Marino, 80, 81.
Marsili, 151.
Medicean Stars, 20.
Medici, Julian de’, 24, 33.
John de’, 10, 39.
Cosmo II. de’, _see_ Cosmo.
Ferdinand II. de’, _see_ Ferdinand.
Mellini, 55, 56.
Michael Angelo, 3.
The younger, 35, 181.
Microscope, the, 117, 118.
Monte, Cardinal del, 9, 11, 36, 96.
Myths about Galileo refuted, 249-263.
Newton 244, 311.
Niccolini, 136, 140, 142, 145, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199,
200, 209, 217, 218, 225, 248.
Intercession for Galileo, 166-168.
Attempts to avert the Trial, 175, 176, 182, 183.
Asks for Galileo’s Pardon, 272.
Accusations against, 261, 262.
Noailles, Count de, 278, 282, 283.
Note of 25th February, 1616, 77.
Of 26th February, 1616, 78.
Olivieri Benedetto’s work on Galileo, 246.
Opinion of the Holy Office on Galileo’s Propositions, 76.
Orsini, 92, 99.
Osiander, Andreas, 15.
Padua, University of, 11, 16, 19.
Palmerini, 43.
Paul III., 15.
Paul V., 35, 94, 95, 104, 239.
Death of, 105.
Peiresc, Fabri de, 278.
Letter from Galileo to, 279.
Pendulum Clocks, 306.
Picchena, 72, 73, 74, 93, 94, 96.
Letter to, 86, 87.
Piccolomini, Ascanio, 248, 267, 268, 274.
Pieralisi, 161, 162, 213, 242.
Pisa, Experiments from Leaning Tower of, 10.
University of, 5.
Pius VII., 314.
Plan of Galileo’s rooms in Palace of Inquisition, 209.
Prohibition, Special, to Treat of Copernican System, 78, 89, 90, 113.
Discovery of, 163, 171, 172.
Protocol of 3rd March, 1616, 82.
Querenghi, 71, 75.
Recantation, 243, 244.
Publication of, 268.
Letter ordering it, 269.
Riccardi, 117, 132, 135, 139, 143, 145, 146, 148, 157, 171, 172, 268.
Ricci, Ostilio, 7.
Ring of Saturn, 24.
Rinuccini’s Inquiries of Galileo, 303.
Galileo’s reply to, 304, 305.
“Sacro Arsenale,” 255, 258.
Sarpi, Paolo, 32.
Sagredo, Francesco, 32.
Salviati, 44.
Scartazzini, Dr., 259-262.
Scheiner, 43.
His “Rosa Ursina,” 158.
Sentence on Galileo, 230-234.
Analysis of, 234-242.
Serristori, 192.
Settele’s Astronomy, 313.
“Sidereus Nuncius,” 17, 21, 24.
“Simplicius,” did he personate Urban VIII.? 159-162.
Sincero, Carlo, 201.
Sizy, 39.
Solar Spots, 34.
Work on, 44, 58.
Special Commission on Galileo’s cause, 164.
Its Memorial to the Pope, 172-174.
Stelluti’s reply to Lothario Sarsi Sigensano, 106.
Stephani, 141, 142, 145.
Telescope, the, 16-25.
Inventor of, 18.
Thermoscope, the, 12.
Trial of Galileo, 201-229.
Torricelli, 306.
Torture, question of, 253-263.
Urban VIII., 107, 183, 225, 239, 248.
Character of, 108, 109.
Friendship for Galileo, 109-111.
Favours to him, 118, 119.
Change of tone, 159.
Vatican MS., History of, Appendix, 319.
Description of, 330.
Estimate of, 334.
Venice, Republic of, 31, 32.
Exhibition of Telescope at, 18.
Venus, Crescent form of, 32, 33.
Vinta, Belisario, 24, 34.
Viviani, 300, 310.
Wedderburn, 23.
Welser, 22, 43.
Wohlwill, Emil, 81, 88, 90, 257, 259.
Zacchia, Cardinal, 241, 242.
Zuñiga, Diego di, 41, 84, 312.
RECENT BIOGRAPHIES.
_2 Vols., large post 8vo, price 24s._
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI AND HIS TIMES.
By PROFESSOR VILLARI, Author of “Life of Savonarola,” etc.
_TRANSLATED BY LINDA VILLARI._
“The whole work promises to be one of the most permanently
valuable contributions to the history of the Renaissance
in Italy, and English students may be congratulated on the
appearance of the translation by the hand of Madame Villari,
herself an English author.”—_Academy._
“Professor Villari prefaces his Life of Machiavelli with
an elaborate historical introduction.... As a sketch of
the Renaissance it is admirable. It is a masterpiece of
condensation; the arrangement of the mass of materials leaves
little to desire, and its style is singularly lucid.”—_Pall
Mall Gazette._
* * * * *
_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 14s._
WILLIAM HARVEY:
_A HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD._
By the late R. WILLIS, M.D., Author of “Servetus and Calvin.”
WITH PORTRAIT OF HARVEY, AFTER FAITHORNE.
“His (Dr. Willis’s) book will doubtless find numerous
readers, and we trust that some at least may be led by it
to study the much praised and little read works of William
Harvey.”—_Saturday Review._
* * * * *
_Demy 8vo, cloth, price 16s._
SERVETUS AND CALVIN:
_A STUDY OF AN IMPORTANT EPOCH IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION._
By the late R. WILLIS, M.D.
“Dr. Willis has collected in this monograph a good store of
interesting matter which is not accessible to most readers
without considerable trouble, and has come so near making
it a good book that one would be glad to escape the duty of
criticism.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._
* * * * *
_Second Edition, crown 8vo, price 8s. 6d._
LIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES HINTON.
Edited by ELLICE HOPKINS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SIR W. W. GULL, BART.; AND PORTRAIT ENGRAVED ON
STEEL BY C. H. JEENS.
“‘The Life of James Hinton,’ the first aural surgeon of
his time, presents a striking study of character, and will
be instructive in its simpler outlines to readers who are
unable to follow the deeper and somewhat mystic course of
philosophical thought traced in his ‘Letters.’”—_Saturday
Review._
“Miss Hopkins has executed a difficult task with great tact.
She shows a hearty appreciation of her subject, and her work is
well done.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._
* * * * *
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
_2 vols., Second Edition, post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._
THE HISTORY OF CREATION.
By PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL.
_TRANSLATION REVISED BY PROFESSOR E. RAY LANKESTER, M.A., F.R.S._
WITH COLOURED PLATES AND GENEALOGICAL TREES OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF BOTH
PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
“The Author has discharged a most difficult task with
conscientious skill and marvellous ability.”—_Science Gossip._
“A rich mine of facts for all biological students.”—_Examiner._
* * * * *
_2 vols., large post 8vo, cloth, price 32s._
THE EVOLUTION OF MAN.
_A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF HUMAN ONTOGENY AND
PHYLOGENY._
By PROF. ERNST HAECKEL, Author of “The History of Creation,” etc.
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS.
* * * * *
_Crown 8vo, cloth._
FREEDOM IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING.
_A REPLY TO PROFESSOR VIRCHOW ON THE FREEDOM OF SCIENCE IN THE MODERN
STATE._
By PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL.
Authorised Translation, with Introduction by Professor HUXLEY, F.R.S.
* * * * *
_Square 8vo, cloth, price 15s._
MANUAL OF THE GEOLOGY OF IRELAND.
By G. HENRY KINAHAN, M.R.I.A., Etc., of Her Majesty’s Geological Survey.
_With 8 Plates, 26 Woodcuts, and a Map of Ireland, Geologically Coloured._
“His volume is, unquestionably, a distinct gain to our
geological literature—the work of a man who possesses great
knowledge of his subject, and is capable of imparting his
knowledge with clearness and force.”—_Academy._
“Whether considered upon its scientific or upon its literary
merits, the work must be pronounced admirably done.”—_Land and
Water._
* * * * *
_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._
FLOWERS AND THEIR UNBIDDEN GUESTS.
By DR. A. KERNER, Prof. of Botany in the University of Innsbruck.
_TRANSLATION EDITED BY W. OGLE, M.D._
And a Prefatory Letter by CHARLES DARWIN, F.R.S.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.
“In the description accompanying the admirable plates at the
end of his book, Dr. Kerner explains succinctly and clearly
the contrivances of nature in the instances named, and in
innumerable others scarcely less marked or interesting, for
compassing an end so essential to the perpetuation of vegetable
life.”—_Saturday Review._
* * * * *
_Square 8vo, cloth, price 9s._
ETNA: A HISTORY OF THE MOUNTAIN AND ITS ERUPTIONS.
By G. F. RODWELL, F.R.A.S., F.C.S.
WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
“Mr. Rodwell’s ‘Etna’ is a pleasantly written and well
illustrated volume, sufficiently technical to be useful to the
scientific student, yet for the most part sufficiently popular
to be read with relish by the most unscientific.”—_Academy._
* * * * *
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.