But DarÜ’s further inquiries seem to have been unsuccessful; anyhow, the long-sought-for volume remained concealed for seventeen years longer. In 1845 Gregory XVI. requested Pelegrino Rossi, French ambassador at Rome, who was devoted to the papacy, to use his influence to get the Acts restored, if they should be discovered at Paris. This shows that it was disbelieved at Rome that they could not be found. At first Rossi’s urgent mediation only obtained the assurance from Louis Philippe that the Pope’s cherished wish should be fulfilled, provided that the papers should be found, but on the express condition that they should be published entire at Rome. And as the curia, of course, promised to comply, the MS. which had been mysteriously concealed for thirty-one years was “found” and restored.

In 1848-9, when the Papal See was attacked by the revolutionary spirit which pervaded Europe, the fugitive Pope, Pius IX., confided the hardly-won documents to the prefect of the Secret Archives, Marino Marini. He not only took good care of them, but took the opportunity of fulfilling the obligation to the French Government incurred on their restoration. On 12th April, 1850, the Pope returned from Gaeta to his capital under the protection of French bayonets, and his thoughts must soon have recurred to these documents, for on 8th May of the same year he presented them to the Vatican Library. In the same year, also, Marini’s work, “Galileo Galilei e l’Inquizione,” appeared at Rome, intended to be the fulfilment of the French conditions.

We purposely say “intended to be,” for they were not really so at all. The entire contents of the Vatican MS. were thereby by no means given to the public, but such a sight of it as the editor thought proper, and which was, as far as possible, an apology for the Inquisition. Instead of the full original text of the Acts, the world only received disjointed extracts, arbitrary fragments—in many instances nothing at all. Perhaps it was perceived at head-quarters that a comparison of Marini’s work with the documents would bring strange things to light, for they were suddenly removed from the too public Vatican Library and placed among the papal archives.

And for a long time there seemed to be no disposition to place these important historical materials at the disposal of independent historians. Thus we learn from AlbÈri, editor of “Le Opere di Galileo Galilei,” Florence, 1842-1856, in 16 vols, in which all the materials for the history of Galileo are collected, that Marini had made obliging offers to him about the Vatican MS.; but his death put an end to the hopes thus raised, and AlbÈri had to content himself with reproducing the extracts and documents given by Venturi and Marini. It is obvious that the MS. was not accessible to him, or he would surely have included the Acts in his great work. Professor Moritz Cantor, who asked to see them ten years later, met with no better success. He complains bitterly in his essay, “Galileo Galilei,” that the attempts he made through the good offices of an eminent savant, with Father Theiner, keeper of the Secret Archives, had been without avail.

However, though neither AlbÈri nor Cantor attained their wish, Henri de L’Epinois, a few years later, was more successful. In the introduction to his work, “GalilÉe, son procÈs sa Condemnation,” 1867, he relates that in a conversation with Theiner at Rome, he expressed his regret at the inadequacy of Marini’s book, and his desire to see the subject of Galileo’s trial cleared up. Theiner liberally responded to this appeal by placing the documents at his disposal. But Epinois had only just made hasty copies of the most important, and indices of others, when he was compelled by urgent private affairs to return to France. The copies of the Vatican MS. which he took with him were therefore in many respects inaccurate and incomplete, and even the indices left much to be desired. Nevertheless, historical research will always be indebted to Epinois for publishing his notes, in spite of their shortcomings, which were best known to himself.[632] The melancholy picture of Galileo’s trial was first presented in faithful outline, and it became possible to weave the story with approximate accuracy. Many details, however, were still wanting; and though the fictitious stories of many writers were considerably checked by Epinois’s communications, some scope was still left for them. What was wanted was the entire publication of the Vatican MS., and if possible with diplomatic precision.

Nine years again went by, during which Epinois seems to have found no opportunity of completing his work. Meanwhile, Professor Domenico Berti asked for the favour of a sight of the papers, and in 1876 he was engaged in Theiner’s room in copying the documents.[633] In the same year his work, “Il Processo Originale di Galileo Galilei,” appeared, bearing upon the title page the unwarranted addition, “publicato per la prima volta da Domenico Berti.” Epinois had been the first to publish the Vatican MS., though only partially; the words would only have been correct if Berti had published them complete. This he professes to have done,[634] but as five documents are wanting, and the contents of fifty others only shortly given, it cannot be regarded as complete.

Besides these unfortunate lapses, Berti’s publication is very disappointing to the historian. Instead of giving the reader as good an idea as possible of this interesting MS., the documents are taken out of all connection, and given numbers and superscriptions of which there is not a trace in the original, and the marking of the folios is omitted. “Improvement” of the orthography, punctuation, etc., is consistently carried out. One of the numberings is quite left out (the oldest, upper paging), and, following Epinois, he reads the second incorrectly.

In the same year in which Berti’s book appeared, Sante Pieralisi received an invitation from high quarters to inspect the volume. He accepted the flattering offer with no small satisfaction, but does not seem to have known how to turn it to account. He confined himself to comparing the most important documents in Epinois and Berti with the originals, and to giving a list, by no means complete, of their deviations from them.[635]

In consequence of the controversy as to the genuineness of the document of 26th February, 1616, we resolved in the spring of 1877 to attempt to get a sight of the papers, our sole reason being the desire to see for ourselves whether external evidence was for or against falsification, or whether any certain conclusions could be drawn from it. We had then no idea whatever of publishing the Vatican MS. ourselves, as we at that time considered Berti’s publication of it to be nearly complete.

Through the good offices of the Austrian ambassador, we were promised that when we came to Rome, Cardinal Simeoni, Secretary of State, would permit us to see the documents. Two days afterwards we were on our way to Rome, and soon had the volume in our hands. As we turned over the pages with a curiosity easy to be imagined, and compared it with Berti’s publication, we discovered, to our no small surprise, its many omissions and inaccuracies. The idea then occurred to us of making a copy of all the documents in the collection with the greatest possible precision. Not the least “improvement” should be made; the text should be reproduced exactly, with its peculiar orthography, accentuation, and punctuation, its abbreviations, errors, and special marks, so far as it was possible by means of typography.

We made known our intention to the first prefect of the Vatican Library, Mgr. Martinuzzi, to whom Cardinal Simeoni had referred us; he not only made not the slightest objection, but showed great interest in our project. During our long daily tarriance in the Vatican afterwards, he was most obliging, and heaped attentions upon us which lightened the labour.

We might have been engaged about three weeks in copying the MS., sending the pages copied during the day to Messrs. Cotta, at Stuttgard, to be printed, when we were surprised one morning by a visit in the Vatican from M. de L’Epinois. He told us that he had been two months at Rome, and had undertaken a correction of Berti’s book from the original. We informed him of our enterprise, which he spoke of as “quite a different thing”; and when we returned his call, he again spoke of a correction of Berti, and regretted that he had not copied the whole MS. Of any intention of publishing it complete he said not a word. We therefore contentedly went on with our work; the copying was nearly finished and the printing in progress, when one afternoon on our return from the Vatican we found a letter from Epinois, in which he said that he had not had time to call on us again, and informed us of the speedy appearance of his complete publication of the Vatican MS., and that we should receive a copy in a few days. This announcement was most surprising. We went at once to seek M. de L’Epinois, but learnt that he had left Rome early that morning.

Our work was too far advanced to be given up, and so we went on, in the hope that even now there might be some little place in the world for it. By the time Epinois’s book reached us the copying was finished, and we were correcting the proofs by the originals. It was not without value, even for our enterprise, for we compared our proofs with it line by line and word by word, made notes of deviations, and then went to the Vatican to see which was right. We readily acknowledge that in this way we discovered and corrected many errors which had crept into our copy. The variations which still exist are all well known to us, and are left, either because Epinois is mistaken, or we consider our reading to be the best. This is not the place for a criticism of his work; we will only bear witness, after comparing it with the original, to its accuracy.

---

II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.

The Acts of the two trials of Galileo, of 1615-16 and 1632-33, which are stitched together, and to which several other documents are added relating to the surveillance of Galileo until his death, and the erection of his monument, form a pretty thick quarto volume, twenty-two centimeters broad and thirty high.

It is done up in a loose sheet of white paper, which can lay no claim to veneration from age, and is in an equally loose green pasteboard cover, which may boast of historic antiquity, as may also the faded and frail red strings by which the volume is fastened. The cover is too short and too narrow, so that the edges get mercilessly rubbed. In this way, unfortunately, many a letter, word and even signature in these precious papers have been lost, and it is high time to protect them from further injury.

The documents are only slightly fastened together in places, and you can see from the outside how far the Acts of the first trial extend. This slight fastening also enables you to see that all the blank pages, of which there are 194, are partly reverse sides, partly second pages of documents, and it may easily be discovered to which document each blank page belongs. In some cases these second pages have been cut away, as appears from the broad piece left. The suspicion from this that important documents have been withdrawn seems inadmissible, for the pages cut out, as is seen from those left, which correspond with the rest, belonged to finished documents, and the abstraction of a document would certainly not have been betrayed by leaving a broad strip behind.

The paging is in the greatest confusion. On the title page, in the right hand corner, are the figures 949, and under them 336. The historical introduction, by an unknown hand, prefixed to the papers, is numbered 337-340. The first document bears the double paging

950

341,

the upper number being struck through. On folio

951

342

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

959

350

9.

After

992

383

41

the uppermost and oldest paging is discontinued. Folios 384-386, blank pages of the Acts of the first trial, only bear the double paging, probably because, being blank, they were not paged until the papers of both trials were put together.

The double paging may be thus explained. The old numbering comprises all the documents belonging to 1616; and as it is to be seen on the title page, as well as the words: “Ex archivo S. Offij,” and Vol. 1181, it is clear that these documents were originally comprised in a volume of the Archives of the Holy Office numbered 1181. The Acts of the second trial, 1632-33, must have belonged to another volume, as appears from the paging, as the first document bears the number 387, but the number of the volume is not traceable. When the Acts of 1616 and 1632-33 were bound together, in order to form a continuous paging, the old numbers of the first trial were struck through, and the paging continued backwards, reckoning from the first folio of the second trial.

The Introduction helps to determine the time when the two parts were united. It only extends to the mention of Galileo’s defence; it is clear, therefore, that it was written after 10th May (the date of the defence), and before 21st June, the date of the last examination, while the numbering, which is that of the second paging only, shows that the union had taken place. The title page also is included in the second paging. We may therefore conclude that the authorship of the Introduction and the joining of the Acts up to 10th May, 1633, is to be attributed to the same person.

The object of this report undoubtedly was to give the Pope and Congregation, before their final verdict on Galileo; a rÉsumÉ of the whole affair from its beginning. The united Acts were the vouchers. The drawing up of such a rÉsumÉ was part of the ordinary proceeding in every trial before the Inquisition, and it had to be circulated among the cardinals and qualifiers before the final sitting[636]. As in Galileo’s case this final sitting took place on 16th June, under the personal presidency of the Pope, it is in exact agreement with this that both the summary and paging referred to in it only extend to the events of 16th June.

As to the addition of the further documents, it may be observed that after the papers were put together the collection ended with six second pages, of which four, 448, 449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of Pasqualigus; and two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of Galileo of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of 16th June, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the last second page, 451, forming part of the above-named document, and the three previous pages were left blank. The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June was written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining space (half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes were made—the first about the mandate of 30th June, to send the sentence and recantation to all Inquisitors, etc., and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second note reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd July. The rest of the documents which the Vatican MS. now contains must have been added as they came in, or when there were several to be added. The paging was, of course, continuously carried out.

The last document but one of the collection is a short historical summary of the process. Berti says that this must have been drawn up at least a year after its conclusion,[637] but Pieralisi[638] has pointed out that he should have said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when the inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, 1734, came in as to the erection of a monument in Santa Croce, this rÉsumÉ was drawn up to put the cardinals, who might not know much about it, in possession of the chief facts of Galileo’s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of paper containing the rÉsumÉ is stitched to the letter of Fra. Ambr*** and the decision of the cardinals written on the fourth page. If any doubts remain that this summary was written in 1734, they will disappear on comparing it with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol of the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, within parentheses, the most important part of the summary, followed by the decision of the cardinals, in almost verbatim translation from Italian into Latin. The date and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear.

---

III.
ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.

We now proceed to the examination of the documents contained in this famous volume. They differ in historical value, for they are not all as Professor Berti says,[639] original documents, but often copies, and more or less cursory annotations. Those only can be considered original documents which have autograph signatures; as all the letters in the MS. with one exception,[640] the protocol of the examination of Caccini, and the protocols of the examinations of Galileo; those of the depositions of Ximenes and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor at Florence to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of their authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly of annotations on the decrees relating to the trial, decrees and mandates of the Pope and Holy Congregation, or notices of their execution. But the original Acts corresponding with these annotations are not comprised in the Vatican MS. Moreover, a careful examination of the Vatican Acts with Gherardi’s Documents shows, that especially after the conclusion of the trial till Galileo’s death, many papal decrees were issued of which there is no mention in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must be looked upon as an incomplete source. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that the Acts of the trial itself lie before us altogether.

Dr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed the suspicion that a short time before the MS. was removed from the Archives of the Holy Office to France, the Acts of the trial underwent alterations with a special purpose, in the expectation that the Archives would be robbed, and that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations were completed![641] Wohlwill takes all the preliminary report—the origin of which is clear, and in accordance with the rules of the Inquisition—for a forgery intended to influence “readers outside the Vatican.” He also thinks that the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head of the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one can make out, and Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory reason for it. As he had only Epinois’s first edition of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti’s imperfect publication in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions. It is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill’s bold conjectures turn out to be phantoms on an actual examination of the papers, and this will certainly be confirmed by Epinois, Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have seen them. This is not the place to refute Wohlwill’s suspicions, as we have done so elsewhere.[642] It only remains for us to give the material evidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of 26th February neither is nor can be a later falsification.

As is well known, before we had inspected these documents we had fully adopted the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and Professor Gherardi in Italy, that the “document” of 26th February, 1616, was of a later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according to the ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of the “Dialogues on the Two Systems” to trial for disobedience to an order of the Sacred Congregation, though the work seemed to be protected by the ecclesiastical imprimatur. We confess that we went to Rome with but little hope of finding external evidence for or against the genuineness of the document. It had been long in Professor Berti’s hands, and he had defended it with learned dialectics, while the controversy would have been closed by adducing material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore, sufficient inducement to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should enable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document was not a falsification, even though its genuineness might not be capable of demonstration.

Contrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, and we may say, entirely objective examination, we must pronounce that the suspicion of a later origin is not tenable.

Now for the reasons. The note of 26th February begins on the same page as that of the 25th, and they are in precisely the same ink and handwriting. As, however, in case of a forgery, the perpetrator would not have been so unskilful as to add a note in different ink and writing under another sixteen years old, but would have written both on another sheet, and carefully incorporated them with the Acts, we had to find out whether it was possible that the pages on which the notes are found (folios 378 vo. and 379 ro.), could have been afterwards added to the Acts. This was found to be impossible. It is excluded by two circumstances.

1. Folios 378 vo. and 379 ro. are second pages to existing documents; and folio 378 belongs to 377, on which is written the famous opinion of the Qualifiers of the Holy Office on the two propositions of Galileo, taken from the work on the Solar Spots. Folio 379 again belongs to folio 357, which is a page of the protocol of the examination of Caccini.

2. In this collection of the Acts of the trial, all the paper on which the documents of the Holy Office were written at Rome, bears the same watermark,—a dove in a circle,—which is not found on any of the paper of later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the notes of 25th and 26th February.

As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had to be given up, there was still one suspicion left—that the two notes had been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there are so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But this hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in the same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be found in any document of the later trial.

In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to maintain that the note of 26th February is a later falsification. Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured, and Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the “falsifiers” went to work. In the Revista Europa, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877, Dr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it is entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is that the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th February was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding the edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini quotes only the second paging, which was done after the assumed forgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according to the pleasure—not of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632 there was a regular numbering from 949-992, originating in 1616, and no transposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini’s plan, without entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm of impossibilities.

But firmly as it is now established that the document of 26th February, 1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally certain that the proceedings did not take place in the rigid manner described in that annotation. In the course of this work we have become acquainted with the various reasons which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a downright untruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To all these reasons one more may now be added. Had the course of events been that recorded in the annotation, so important an act would have been made into a protocol, and would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and witnesses. Only a document of this kind would have afforded conclusive evidence on another trial. We learn from another document of the trial that such a proceeding was a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, in order that the accused might not be able to deny what had happened. When on 1st October, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence, who issued the command to him to present himself at Rome in the course of the month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had received the order and would obey it; no sooner had he left the room than it was entered by a notary and witnesses who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment, and affirmed under Galileo’s signature that they had been present when he “promised, wrote, and signed the above.”[643]

If these measures were so strictly observed in the case of this much less important act, we may be tolerably certain that they would not have been omitted in the far more important one of 1616, if the stringent command had really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before notary and witnesses, to maintain henceforth absolute silence, in speaking and writing, about the Copernican system. Such a document would have furnished the Holy Office with legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in case of his breaking his word, and for punishing his disobedience; in short, for subjecting him to the consequences of this categorical injunction.

Did such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact of the stringent intimation, we did not believe that such a document ever had existed. Nevertheless, when at Rome, we eagerly sought to discover whether, contrary to all expectation, this most important document was extant, or to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the Archives of the Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor Gherardi had found such valuable notes about the trial of Galileo. We therefore addressed a memorial to the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which we made a concise statement of the present state of the researches relating to Galileo’s trial, remarking that though the suspicion of a falsification was not tenable, the correctness of the note of 26th February seemed doubtful, and could only be acknowledged as trustworthy if either the original protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were discovered in the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four weeks we received the following reply:—

By this decisive information it is established that now, at any rate, no other document is extant relating to the proceedings of 26th February, 1616, than the well-known annotation. Was this also the case in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for disobedience and signally punished? The history of the trial, the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of the Interrogator towards Galileo, are strongly in favour of an affirmative answer. From his first examination to his defence, Galileo persistently denies having received any other command than the warning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor defend the Copernican doctrine, while the Interrogator maintains that a command was issued to him before a notary and witnesses “not in any way to hold, teach, or defend that doctrine.” The contradiction is obvious. In confirmation of his deposition, Galileo brings an autograph certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine which fully agrees with it. One would then have expected to see the Interrogator spare no pains to convict Galileo on this turning-point of the trial. The production of a legal protocol about the proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole affair and annihilated Galileo’s defence. But as it was not produced, and the Interrogator, singularly enough, omits all further inquiry into Galileo’s ignorance of the absolute prohibition, and simply takes it for granted, we may conclude that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act of 26th February than this note without signature. It must therefore be admitted by the historical critic that one of the heaviest charges against Galileo was raised on a paper of absolutely no legal value, and that sentence for “disobedience” was passed entirely on the evidence of this worthless document.

---

IV.
GHERARDI’S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS.

In the course of this work we have always acknowledged the authenticity of the documents first published by Gherardi in his “Il Processo Galileo: Riveduto Sopra documenti di nuove fonte,” in the Rivista Europea, vol. iii., 1870, and our story has in many cases been based on them. It behoves us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity beyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin of the collection; secondly, by comparing the documents with others universally acknowledged to be authentic.

On the first point we refer to the professor’s account prefixed to the documents. In December, 1848, he came to Rome, and was at first, though only for a short time, deputy to the parliament summoned by Pius IX., then held, in quick succession, the offices of member of the assembly for framing a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister of Instruction to the Revolutionary Government. These offices greatly facilitated Gherardi’s historical researches, and he pursued them with ardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. His attention was specially directed to the discovery of the original documents of Galileo’s trial. Even in December, 1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the Archives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully guarded by the soldiers and agents of the Provisional Government to save these historical treasures from the fury of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to get a sight of the complete collection of the Acts, which had two years before been brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, for as we know, during the Revolution, these documents were in the hands of Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Secret Archives. So Gherardi had to content himself with seeking more or less evident traces of the trial among the Archives left in the greatest confusion and partly hastily plundered by the fugitive custodians. It was not without difficulty that he discovered, what was before unknown, that the Acts of the Inquisition were divided into two classes: the first contains the protocols of the sittings and decrees of the Holy Congregation, sometimes in full and sometimes merely extracts. The folios containing these were marked Decreta. The second class contains the protocols of the examinations of accused persons and witnesses, all Acts relating to trials, and finally the sentences passed. These folios were marked Processus. There was a third register marked Rubricelle, which served as an index to everything relating to any person or cause.

As there were not nearly so many gaps in the Decreta as in the Processus, Gherardi turned his attention, the Rubricelle in hand, to the former. He began to make extracts from the documents relating to Galileo’s trial, and had already made ten, when he came upon a collection of papers containing thirty-two of such extracts, all relating to the trial. To these papers was added an extract from a letter from Count Blacas, from Prague, of 20th January, 1835, in which he stated that he had repeatedly, but without success, instituted a search for the Acts of Galileo’s trial, which had been detained at Paris since 1815, and that nothing would give him greater pleasure, should they come into his hands, than to deliver them to his Holiness, but this was not a suitable time to renew the demand for them.

It is clear from this letter that the curia made at least one attempt to regain possession of the Vat. MS. between 1820 and 1845, and Gherardi concludes from the circumstance that this letter was found with the said collection that a copy of it had been sent to the Count, perhaps to show him that it was desired to put all the papers relating to Galileo’s cause together—a project intended to urge the Count to renewed efforts for their recovery. Be that as it may, the important thing is that Gherardi, having convinced himself of the entire agreement of his ten extracts (the most important), with the corresponding ones in the collection, concluded that the other twenty-two were correct, and did not make any more extracts.

In April, 1849, in spite of the precautions taken, the Archives of the Inquisition seemed no longer safe from the mob, and were removed, with other ecclesiastical libraries, to the Apollinarius church, where Gherardi was again able to look at them. But it was but for a moment, as he decidedly declined all responsibility for a collection of such immense historical value. Moreover, the advance of the French army to Rome to effect the restoration of Pius IX., would have left him but little time for historical researches. On 4th July, in consequence of the capitulation of the municipal council, the French General Ouidinot marched at the head of his troops into “liberated” Rome, while Garibaldi left it on the other side with his 4000 volunteers, and with him all the patriots who had specially distinguished themselves in the service of the Republic during its short existence. Among these was Gherardi, who turned his steps towards Genoa, where he lived for his studies during his exile. On leaving Rome he had only been able to take ten extracts with him, and had now to wait for an opportunity of completing them by those in the Archives of the Inquisition, and he waited patiently twenty-one years. In 1870 the time at length came. He gives us no further particulars as to how he succeeded in getting the collection into his hands again, but simply says that he did so, and no longer delayed to give this valuable historical material to the world.

The history of Gherardi’s Documents is of itself a pledge of their authenticity, and it is absolutely confirmed by comparing them with the corresponding documents of the Vatican MS. We have compared them line for line and word for word, and have found that they contain nothing Whatever that in the least diverges from those Acts. On the contrary, they throw light on and complete them, and in some cases agree with them verbatim—perhaps the best possible proof of the authenticity of both.

---

V.
DECRETVM[644]

989. Fol. 380 ro. 38

SacrÆ Congregationis Illustrissimorum S.R.E. Cardinalium, À S.D.N. PAVLO Papa V. SanctÀq. Sede Apostolica ad Indicem Librorum, eorumdemq; permissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem, et impressionem, in vniuersa Republica Christiana specialiter deputatorum, vbiquÈ publicandum.

P. Episc. Albanen. Card. S. CÆciliÆ.

Locus † sigilli. Registr. fol. 90.

F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus Ord. PrÆdic. Secret.

ROME, Ex Typographia CamerÆ ApostolicÆ. M.DCXVI.

---

VI.
REMARKS ON THE SENTENCE AND RECANTATION.[646]

We give the Sentence and Recantation as given by Giorgio Polacco in his work, “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de terrÆ Statione, et de salis motu, contra systema Copernicanum, CatholicÆ Assertionis,” pp. 67-76, Venice, 1644. Everything indicates that these are the only authentic copies of the originals, while the opinion adopted by many authors that the Latin texts published by P. Riccioli in his “Almagestum Novum,” 1651, are the originals, is not tenable on close examination, for it is obvious that they are translated from the Italian. According to the rules of the Inquisition, sentences and recantations were written in the mother tongue,[647] that they might be generally understood. P. Olivieri, General of the Dominicans and Commissary of the Inquisition, also says in his posthumous work, “Di Copernico e di Galileo,” Bologna, 1872, p. 62, “We find the history of it, etc., in the sentence passed on Galileo, which is given in many works in a Latin translation. I take it from Venturi, who gives it in the Italian original.”

Professor Berti, in his “Il Processo originale di Galileo Galilei,” etc., pp. 143-151, has given the Sentence and Recantation in a Latin text which agrees precisely with Riccioli’s, even in some misprints. He says that they are taken from some MS. copies in the Archivio del Santo, at Padua, and thinks that they are the very copies sent by the Cardinal of St. Onufrio, at the command of the Pope, to the Inquisitor at Padua in 1633. Incited by this remark, when at Padua we went to inspect these valuable MSS. But what was our surprise on being told that these documents had already been sought for in vain at the request of Dr. Wohlwill, and that no one remembered to have seen them. Professor Berti will perhaps have the goodness to clear the matter up. The documents were probably only exact copies of Riccioli’s text.

SENTENZA.

• Noi Gasparo del titolo di S. Croce in Gierusalemme Borgia.
• Fra Felice Centino del titolo di S. Anastasis, detto d’Ascoli.
• Guido del titolo di S. Maria del Popolo Bentivoglio.
• Fra Desiderio Scaglia del titolo di S. Carlo detto di Cremona.
• Fra Antonio Barberina detto di S. Onofrio.
• LaudiviÒ Zacchia del titolo di S. Pietro in Vincola detto di S. Sisto.
• Berlingero del titolo di S. Agostino, Gessi.
• Fabricio del titolo di S. Lorenzo in pane e perna. Verospi, chiamato Prete.
• Francesco di S. Lorenzo in Damaso Barberino, e
• Martio di S. Maria Nuova Ginetti Diaconi.

Perla misericordia di Dio della S. R. E. Cardinali in tutta la repubblica cristiana contra l’eretica pravitÀ Inquisitori Generali della S. Sede Apostolica specialmente deputati.

Essendo che tu Galileo, figliolo del qu. Vincenzo Galilei Fiorentino dell’ etÀ tua d’ anni 70 fosti denonciato del 1615 in questo S. Officio, che tenessi come vera la falsa dottrina da molti insegnata, che il Sole sia centro del mondo et immobile, e che la terra si muova anco di moto diurno: Che avevi alcuni discepoli, a’ quali insegnavi la medesima dottrina: Che circa l’ istessa tenevi corrispondenza con alcuni Matematici di Germania: Che tu avevi dato alle stampe alcune lettere intitolate delle Macchie Solari, nelle quali spiegavi l’ istessa dottrina, come vera: Et che all’ obbiezioni, che alle volte ti venivano fatte, tolte dalla Sacra Scrittura rispondevi glossando detta Scrittura conforme al tuo senso. E successivamente fu presentata copia d’ una scrittura sotto forma di lettera, quale si diceva essere stata scritta da te ad un tale giÀ tuo discepolo, ed in essa seguendo la posizione di Copernico, si contengono varie proposizioni contro il vero senso, ed autoritÀ della sacra Scrittura.

Volendo per ciÒ questo S. Tribunale provvedere al disordine ed al danno, che di quÌ proveniva, et andava crescendosi con pregiudizio della Santa Fede; d’ ordine di Nostro Signore, e degli Emin. Signori Cardinali di questa suprema, et universale Inquisizione, furono dalli Qualificatori Teologi qualificate le due proposizioni della stabilitÀ del Sole e del moto della terra; cioÈ.

Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile di moto locale, È proposizione assurda e falsa in filosofia, e formalmente eretica per essere espressamente contraria alla sacra Scrittura.

Che la terra non sia centro del mondo, nÈ immobile, ma che si move etiandio di moto diurno, È parimenti proposizione assurda, e falsa in filosofia, e considerata in teologia, ad minus erronea in fide.

Ma volendosi per allora proceder teco con benignitÀ, fu decretato nella S. Congregazione tenuta avanti Nostro Signore À 25 Febbraro 1616. Che l’ Eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Bellarmino ti ordinasse che tu dovessi onninamente lasciare la detta dottrina falsa, e ricusando tu di ciÒ fare, che dal Commissario del S. Uffizio ti dovesse esser fatto precetto di lasciar la detta dottrina, e che non potessi insegnarla ad altri, nÈ difenderla, nÈ trattarne; al qual precetto non acquietandoti, dovessi esser carcerato; et in esecuzione dell’ istesso decreto, il giorno seguente nel Palazzo, et alla presenza del suddetto Eminentissimo Signore Cardinale Bellarmino, dopo essere stato dall’ istesso Signor Cardinale benignamente avvisato et ammonito, ti fu dal Padre Commissario del Santo Uffizio di quel tempo fatto precetto, con notaro e testimonii, che onninamente dovessi lasciar la detta falsa opinione, e che nell’ avvenire tu non la potessi, nÈ difendere, nÈ insegnare in qual si voglia modo, nÈ in voce, nÈ in scritto; et avendo tu promesso d’ obbedire fosti licenziato.

Et acciocchÈ si togliesse affatto cosÌ perniciosa dottrina, e non andasse piÙ oltre serpendo, in grave pregiudizio della cattolica veritÀ, usci decreto della Sacra Congregazione dell’ Indice, col quale furono proibiti i libri, che trattano di tal dottrina, et essa dichiarata falsa, et onninamente contraria alla sacra e divina Scrittura.

Et essendo ultimamente comparso quÀ un libro stampato in Fiorenza l’ anno prossimo passato, la cui inscrizione mostra che tu ne fossi l’ autore, dicendo il titolo: Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delli due massimi sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico e Copernicano. Et informata appresso la sacra Congregazione, che con l’ impressione di detto libro ogni giorno piÙ prendeva piede la falsa opinione del moto della terra, e stabilitÀ del Sole; fu il detto libro diligentemente considerato, e in esso trovata apertamente la transgressione del suddetto precetto che ti fu fatto, avendo tu nel medesimo libro difesa la detta opinione giÀ dannata, et in faccia tua per tale dichiarata, avvenga che tu in detto libro con varii raggiri ti studii di persuadere, che tu la lasci, come idecisa et espressamente probabile. Il che pure È errore gravissimo, non potendo in modo niuno essere probabile un’ opinione dichiarata e definita per contraria alla Scrittura divina.

Che perciÒ d’ ordine nostro fosti chiamato a questo Santo Uffizio, nel quale con tuo giuramento esaminato riconoscesti il libro come da to composto, e dato alle stampe. Confessasti, che dieci o dodici anni sono in circa, dopo essersi fatto il precetto come sopra, cominciasti a scrivere detto libro. Che chiedesti la facoltÀ di stamparlo, senza, perÒ significare a quelli che ti diedero simile facoltÀ, che tu avessi precetto di non tenere, difendere, nÈ insegnare in qualsivoglia modo tal dottrina.

Confessasti parimenti che la scrittura di detto libro È in piÙ luoghi distesa in tal forma, che il lettore potrebbe formar concetto, che gli argomenti portati per la parte falsa fossero in tal guisa pronunciati, che piÙ tosto per la loro efficacia fossero potenti a stringere, che facili ad esser sciolti; scusandoti d’ esser incorso in errore tanto alieno, come dicesti, dalla tua intenzione, per aver scritto in Dialogo, e per la natural compiacenza, che ciascuno ha delle proprie sottigliezze, e del mostrarsi piÙ arguto del comune degli uomini, in trovar, anco per le proposizioni false, ingegnosi et apparenti discorsi di probabilitÀ.

Et essendoti stato assegnato termine conveniente a far le tue difese producesti una fede scritta di mano dall’ Eminentissimo signor Cardinale Bellarmino da te procurata come dicesti, per difenderti dalle calunnie de tuoi nemici, da’ quali ti veniva opposto, che avevi abiurato, e fossi stato penitenziato dal santo Offizio. Nella qual fede si dice, che tu non avevi abiurato nÈ meno eri stato penitenziato, ma che ti era solo stata denunciata la dichiarazione fatta da Nostro Signore e pubblicata dalla santa Congregazione dell’ Indice, nella quale si contiene, che la dottrina del moto della terra, e della stabilitÀ del Sole sia contraria alle sacre Scritture, e perÒ non si possa difendere, nÈ tenere; e che perciÒ non si facendo menzione in detta fede delle due particole del precetto, cioÈ docere, et quovis modo si deve credere che nel corso di quattordici o sedici anni, ne avessi perso ogni memoria; e che per questa stessa cagione avevi taciuto il precetto, quando chiedesti licenza di poter dare il libro alle stampe. E tutto questo dicevi non per scusar l’ errore, ma perchÈ sia attribuito non a malizia, ma a vana ambizione. Ma da detta fede prodotta da te in tua difesa restasti maggiormente aggravato, mentre dicendosi in essa, che detta opinione È contraria alla sacra Scrittura, hai nondimeno ardito di trattarne, di difenderla, e persuaderla probabile; nÈ ti suffraga la licenza da te artificiosamente, e callidamente estorta, non avendo notificato il precetto che avevi.

E parendo a noi, che non avevi detta intieramente la veritÀ circa la tua intenzione, giudicassimo esser necessario venir contro di te al rigoroso esame, nel quale (senza perÒ pregiudizio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, e contro di te dedotte come di sopra, circa la detta tua intenzione) rispondesti cattolicamente. Per tanto visti, et maturamente considerati i meriti di questa tua causa, con le suddette tue confessioni, e scuse, e quanto di ragione si doveva vedere e considerare, siamo venuti contro di te all’ infrascritta difinitiva sentenza.

Invocato dunque il Santissimo Nome di Nostro Signore GesÙ Cristo, e della sua gloriosissima Madre sempre Vergine Maria, per questa nostra difinitiva sentenza, la quale sedendo pro tribunali, di Conseglio e parere dei Reverendi Maestri di sacra Teologia, et Dottori dell’ una e l’ altra legge nostri Consultori, proferiamo in questi scritti, nella causa e cause vertenti avanti di noi tra il Magnifico Carlo Sinceri dell’ una e dell’ altra legge Dottore, Procuratore fiscale di questo Santo Offizio per una parte, e te Galileo Galilei reo, quÀ presente processato, e confesso come sopra dall’ altra. Diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, che tu Galileo suddetto per le cose dedotte in processo, e da te confessate, come sopra, ti sei reso a questo Santo Offizio veementemente sospetto d’ eresia, cioÈ d’ aver creduto, e tenuto dottrina falsa, e contraria alle sacra, e divine Scritture, che il Sole sia centro della terra, e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova, e non sia centro del mondo; e che si possa tenere difendere per probabile una opinione dopo d’ esser stata dichiarata, difinita per contraria alla sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le censure, e pene da’ Sacri Canoni, et altre Constituzioni generali, et particolari, contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti, che sii assoluto, pur che prima con cuor sincero, et fede non finta avanti di noi abiuri, maledichi, et detesti li suddetti errori, et eresie, e qualunque altro errore, et eresia contraria alla cattolica et apostolica Romana Chiesa, nel modo che da noi ti sarÀ dato.

Et acciocchÈ questo tuo grave, e pernicioso errore, e transgressione non resti del tutto impunito, e sii piÙ cauto nell’ avvenire; et esempio agli altri, che s’astenghino da simili delitti. Ordiniamo che per pubblico editto sia proibito il libro de’ Dialoghi di Galileo Galilei.

Ti condanniamo al carcere formale di questo S. Offizio per tempo ad arbitrio nostro, e per penitenze salutari t’imponiamo, che per tre anni a venire dichi una volta la settimana li sette Salmi Penitenziali.

Riservando a noi facoltÀ di moderare, mutare, o levar in tutto o in parte le suddette pene, e penitenze.

E cosi diciamo, pronunciamo, sentenziamo, dichiariamo, ordiniamo, condenniamo, e riserviamo in questo, et in ogni altro miglior modo, e forma, che di ragione potemo, e dovemo.

Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinales infrascripti.

• F. Cardinalis De Asculo.
• G. Cardinalis Bentiuolus.
• F. Cardinalis De Cremona.
• Fr. Antonius Cardinalis S. Honuphrij.
• B. Cardinalis Gypsius.
• F. Cardinalis Verospius.
• M. Cardinalis Ginettus.

ABJURA DI GALILEO.

Io Galileo Galilei figlio de q. Vincenzo Galilei da Fiorenza dell’ etÀ mia d’ anni 70 constituito personalmente in judicio, et inginocchio avanti di voi Eminentissimi, e Reverendissimi Signori Cardinali in tutta la Christiana Republica contro l’heretica pravitÀ Generali Inquisitori havendo avanti gli occhi miei li Sacrosanti Evangeli, quali sono con le proprie mani, giuro che sempre ho creduto, credo adesso, e con l’aiuto di Dio crederÒ per l’ avenire, tutto quello, che tiene, predica, et insegna la Santa Cattolica, et Apostolica Romana Chiesa. Ma perche da questo S. Officio per haverio doppo d’ essermi stato con precetto dall’ istesso giuridicamente intimato, che omninamente dovessi lasciare la falsa opinione, Che il Sole sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia Centro, e che si muova, e che non potessi tenere, difendere, ne insegnare in qual si voglia modo, ne in voce, ne in scritto la detta falsa dottrina, e dopÒ dessermi stato notificato, che detta dottrina È contraria alla Sacra scrittura, scritto, e dato alle stampe un libro nel quale tratto l’ istessa dottrina giÀ dannata et apporto ragioni con molta efficacia a favor d’essa, senza apportar alcuna solutione, son stato giudicato vehementemente sospetto d’heresia, cioÈ d’haver tenuto, e creduto, che il Solo sia centro del Mondo, et immobile, e che la terra non sia centro, e si muova.

Per tanto volendo io levare dalle menti dell’ Eminenze Vostre, e d’ ogni fedel Christiano, questa vehemente sospittione, contro di me ragionevolmente conceputa, con cuor sincero, e fede non finta, abiuro, maledico, e detesto li sudetti errori, et heresie, e generalmente ogni e qualunque altro errore, e setta contraria alla sudetta Santa Chiesa; E giuro che per l’ avenire, non dirÒ mai piÙ, ne asserirÒ in voce, Ò in scritto cose tali, per le quali si possi haver di me simil sospittione; ma se conoscero alcuno heretico, Ò che sia sospetto d’heresia lo denuntiarÒ À questo Santo Officio Ò vero all’ Inquisitore, et ordinario del luogo, ove me trovero.

Giuro anco, e promesso d’adempire, et ossevra re intieramente, tutte le penitenze, che mi sono state, Ò mi saranno da questo Santo Officio imposte. Et contravenendo io ad alcuna delle dette mie promesse, proteste, Ò giuramenti (il che Dio non voglia) mi sottopongo a tutte le pene, e castighi, che sono da Sacri Canoni, et altri Constitutioni Generali, e particolari contro simili delinquenti imposte, e promulgate; Cosi Dio m’ aiuti, e questi suoi santi Evangelij, che tocco con le proprie mani.

Io Galileo Galilei sopradetto ho abiurato, giurato, e promesso, e mi sono obligato come sopra, et in fede del vero di propria mia mano hÒ sottoscritto la presente Cedola di mia abiuratione, e recitata di parola in parola in Roma nel Convento della Minerva questo di 22 Giugno 1633.

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

---