Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 17
CHAPTER VII.
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE INQUISITION.
On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the fiscal attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all his answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of shortening the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive acquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to form a correct judgment of his depositions before the dread tribunal.[1]
According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to the accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether he knows or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that he supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He was then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, "Dialogo di Galileo Galilei, Linceo," which treats of the two systems of the world, as entirely his own; to which he replied after a close examination of the copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written by himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes to know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason. He deposed that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he had heard that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions, and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter, in order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This deposition seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case; for we know that he went to Rome with a two-fold purpose in 1616: on the one hand, to frustate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the threatened prohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his scientific demonstrations. The motive of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact that he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of 5th March.
The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a summons. "In the year 1616 I came of my own accord to Rome, without being summoned," was the decided answer. The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time with several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he might instruct them about Copernicus's book, which was difficult for laymen to understand, as they specially desired to acquaint themselves with the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. The Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.
Galileo: "Respecting the controversy which had arisen on the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index, that such an opinion, considered as an established fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible as a conjecture (ex suppositione), as it was held by Copernicus."[2]
Inquisitor: "Was this decision then communicated to you, and by whom?"
Galileo: "This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine."
Inquisitor: "You must state what his Eminence Cardinal Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether he said anything else on the subject, and what?"
Galileo; "Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in which these words occur: 'It appears to me that your reverence and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with speaking ex suppositione, and not with certainty.' This letter of the cardinal's is dated 12th April, 1615.[3] It means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely, must not be either held or defended."
Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616, and communicated to him.
Galileo: "In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith submit a copy."[4]
Inquisitor: "When the above communication was made to you, were any other persons present, and who?".
Galileo: "When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some Dominican fathers were present, but I did not know them, and have never seen them since."
Inquisitor: "Was any other command communicated to you on this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any one else, and what?"
Galileo: "I remember that the transaction took place as follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning, and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[5] But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must not be held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not remember it, for it is several years ago."
Inquisitor: "If what was then said and enjoined upon you as a command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?"
Galileo: "I do not remember that anything else was said or enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun is stationary."
The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him before witnesses contained: "that he must neither hold, defend, nor teach that opinion in any way whatsoever."[6] Will he please to say whether he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.
Galileo: "I do not remember that the command was intimated to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally; and I remember that the command was, not to hold nor defend. It may be that, 'and not to teach' was also there. I do not remember it, neither the definition 'in any way whatsoever' (quovis modo), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as a few months later I received the certificate now produced, of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in which the injunction given me, not to hold nor defend that opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions of the said injunction which have just been made known to me, namely, not to teach, and in any way, I have not retained in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a reminder."
Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal Bellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a command was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; but true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: "It may be, but I do not remember it." But the Inquisitor treats the issue of the "command" as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may have appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the decree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it was issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo "that this command issued to him before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend, nor teach that opinion." Galileo, to whom the two additions, "in any way whatever" and "nor teach," sound new, entrenches himself behind his stereotyped answer, "I do not remember it." Then he appeals to the certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which does not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query who intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: "Cardinal Bellarmine." He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the cardinal's communication as the command. Galileo's depositions do not contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of 26th February reports), after the cardinal's communication, any further instruction was given him by the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo's memory. There are but two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo cannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.
Galileo's attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen, and whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo would only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if it would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen—supposing him to make false depositions—from the Inquisitor's questions that he had the protocol of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction be in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his cause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has pointed out that it would have been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed ignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner, never contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo's depositions. His simplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course of the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his difficult part.
While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption of Galileo's denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all Galileo's statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the seventeen years from 1616–1632, and they form the strongest evidence for the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the letters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no trace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses his satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an entire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains open. And the attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new system is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. This is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published in the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican theory in his "Il Saggiatore," in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought, more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous "Dialogues" themselves, in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would have infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system.
We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements, in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold, teach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does not take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted on the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for example, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th February, 1616, and confront them with the accused. And as no attempt is made to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply taken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo's judges, to say the least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using, without any close examination, a paper as a valid document on the trial, which was destitute of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely, the signatures of the accused, of the notary and witnesses, and in spite of three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments are needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from mere carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared that he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he afterwards had printed?
Galileo: "After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine, because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold, defend, or to teach the said opinion."
The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what way, Galileo had received permission to print the "Dialogues." Galileo briefly relates the whole course of the negotiations which preceded the printing. As his narrative agrees entirely with what we know, it is not reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking permission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about the command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy Congregation?
Galileo: "I did not say anything about that command to the Master of the Palace when I asked for the imprimatur for the book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything, because I had no scruples about it; for I have neither maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and the sun is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive."
With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the first hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath on subjects connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in the private residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings of this tribunal. Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and Niccolini's reports) kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he wrote to Geri Bocchineri:—
"Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the spacious apartments. My health is good, for which, next to God, I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and his wife, who have a watchful eye for all comforts, and far more than I require."[7]
Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about him, and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy Office.[8] No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence between Galileo and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted friend and
patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions, without exciting any observation.[9]
While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing but favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him, nothing was left undone to find the best method of effecting his moral ruin. At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on, his faithful friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed in theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not recalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned, had left the city.[10]
Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius declared that "in the book superscribed 'Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,' the doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary is maintained and defended." Inchofer's statements (he drew up two) declared that "Galileo had not only taught and defended that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it, and even held it to this day." Both these attestations were supported by a memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted from the "Dialogues."[11] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his book had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth's motion round the sun.
Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses his view that Galileo, by the publication of his "Dialogues," had infringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to hold the Copernican opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or speaking, in respect to teaching and defending, and it was very suspicious that he held it.
In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the "Dialogues,"[12] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo had stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only as a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical language, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.
Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it both as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the suspicion of holding it.[13]
By these declarations Galileo's cause was as good as decided. His transgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of his guilt there could be no question—neither could there be any of the penalty.
The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been so essential to the old man's health,[14] combined with great mental agitation, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to Geri Bocchineri:—
"I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen hours with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my experience, will last as much longer. A little while ago I had a visit from the commissary and the fiscal who conduct the inquiry. They have promised and intimated it as their settled intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am able to get up again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I place more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather upon surmises than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my innocence and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now hope it more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will conclude."[15]
The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has hitherto astounded all those who have studied this famous trial; for while at the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied having defended the Copernican system in his "Dialogues," and even asserted that he had done just the contrary, at the second hearing, almost without waiting for the Inquisitor's questions, he makes a humble declaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a penitent confession that he had defended it in his book. The cause of this change in Galileo is explained by a most interesting letter from the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at that time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. This letter of 28th April, 1633, first published in full by Pieralisi, the learned librarian of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have so often quoted, is as follows:[16]—
"In compliance with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday informed the most eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of Galileo's cause, the position of which I briefly reported. Their Eminences approved of what has been done thus far, and took into consideration, on the other hand, various difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case, and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the book written by him; since in consequence of this denial there would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure and less regard to the other considerations belonging to this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat extra-judicially with Galileo, in order to render him sensible of his error, and bring him, if he recognises it, to a confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first sight too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing this object by merely adopting the method of argument with him; but upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed between us, by God's grace I attained my object, for I brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised that he had erred, and had gone too far in his book. And to all this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who experienced great consolation in the recognition of his error, and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested, however, a little time in order to consider the form in which he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner indicated.
I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal leniently with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences of satisfaction herein desired. To-day I think of examining him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to question him with regard to his intention, and to impose the prohibitions upon him; and that done, he might have the house[17] assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.
Rome, 28th April, 1633.
Your Eminence's humble and most obedient servant,
The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo's indisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the truth, after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then began the following melancholy confession:—
"In the course of some days' continuous and attentive reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach 'in any manner,' the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three years I had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen from my pen anything from which a reader or the authorities might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, but also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had contravened the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about my servant, I succeeded in procuring a copy of my book, and having procured it I applied myself with the utmost diligence to its perusal, and to a most minute consideration thereof. And as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to me set forth in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments adduced on the false side, and which it was my intention to confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution. Two arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the solar spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide—which in truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of force and power than ought to have been imparted to them by one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form, and should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent,—not contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,—I resorted to that of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard to his own subtleties and in showing himself more skilful than the generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all this, although with Cicero 'avidior sim gloriae quam satis est,' if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make an apparent show of that force of which they are really and essentially devoid. My error, then, has been—and I confess it—one of vainglorious ambition, and of pure ignorance and inadvertence.
This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this particular, and which suggested itself to me during the re-perusal of my book."[18]
After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed immediately to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But he must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial of his inmost convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had desired in his extra-judicial interview, further than the Inquisition itself required. He did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the "error" into which he had fallen in writing his "Dialogues" sufficient. The Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution publicly to correct it. He therefore returned at once to the court where the sacred tribunal was still sitting, and made the following undignified proposition:—
"And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—if there shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready to do so: and there is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in the work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of nature, connected with the matter discoursed of at their meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or two other 'days,' I promise to resume the arguments already adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual method as by the blessing of God may be supplied to me. I pray, therefore, this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good resolution, and to enable me to put it in effect."[19]
It is hard to pass an adverse judgment on such a hero of science; and yet the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific convictions for which he had striven and laboured for half a century, who even proposes in a continuation of his monumental work on the two chief systems of the world to annihilate all the arguments therein adduced for the recognition of the only true system, can never be absolved by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and insincere obsequiousness. It was, however, the century the opening of which had been ominously marked by the funeral pile of Giordano Bruno, and but eight years before, the corpse of Marc 'Antonio de Dominis,—the famous Archbishop of Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of the Engelsburg during his trial before the Inquisition,—had, after the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting place and publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical writings.
- ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 413 vo. 419 ro.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Prof. Berti has first published this interesting letter in full in his "Copernico e le vicende Sistema Copernicano in Italia," pp. 121-125.
- ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 423 ro.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Op. vii. p. 29. The rest of the letter is about family affairs.
- ↑ 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,
- ↑ See despatch of 23rd April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)
- ↑ 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.)
- ↑ 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.)
- ↑ Pasqualigus seldom cites verbatim, but makes short quotations; and in comparing them with Galileo's works, I have found the sense given correctly.
- ↑ See all these opinions and the arguments, Vat. MS. fol. 429 ro. 447 ro.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Op. vii. p. 30.
- ↑ Pages 197, 198.
- ↑ Niccolini's.
- ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 419 ro. 420 vo.
- ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 420 vo. 421 ro.
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.