Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia / From Authentic Sources

FOOTNOTES

[1] “Die Acten des Gallileischen Processes, nach der Vaticanischen Handschrift, von Karl von Gebler.” Cotta, Stuttgard, 1877.

[2] The above letter is adapted from a draft of one addressed to the Italian Translator, the letter to myself not having, unfortunately, been sent before the Author’s death, nor found among his papers afterwards. He had written but a few weeks before that he would send it shortly, and as it would probably have been almost exactly similar to the above, I have availed myself of it, the Author’s father having sent me a copy with the necessary alterations and authorised its use.—Tr.

[3] See Appendix IV.

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

[5] In the references the name only of the author is given. AlbÈri’s “Opere” is designated Op. Those marked * are new for the English translation.

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

[7] Compare Nelli, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, and Opere xv. p. 384. The strange mistake, which is without any foundation, that Galileo was an illegitimate child, was set afloat soon after his death by Johann Victor Rossi (Janus Nicius ErythrÆus) in his “Pinacotheca Illustrium Virorum,” Cologne, Amsterdam, 1643-1648, and afterwards carelessly and sometimes maliciously repeated. Salviati has published the marriage certificate of 5th July, 1563, of Vincenzio di Michel Angelo di Giovanni Galilei and Giulia degli Ammanati Pescia.

[8] Many of these essays, which have never been printed, are among the valuable unpublished MSS. in the National Library at Florence.

[9] Galileo had a younger brother, Michel Angelo, and three sisters, Virginia, Elenor, and Livia. The former married a certain Benedetto Landucci, the latter Taddeo Galetti. Galileo was very kind to his brother and sisters all his life, assisted them in many ways, and even made great sacrifices for their sakes.

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

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

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

[13] The correctness of this date is indisputable, as according to Nelli, vol. i. p. 29, it was found in the university registers. It is a pity that AlbÈri, editor of the “Opere complete di Galileo Galilei,” Florence, 1842-1856, relied for the date on Viviani, who is often wrong.

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

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

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

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

[18] That Galileo had been in Rome before 8th January, 1588, a fact hitherto unknown to his biographers, is clear from the letter of that date addressed from Florence to Clavius. (Op. vi. pp. 1-3.)

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

[20] About £13.—[Tr.]

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

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

[23] Op. xv. (Viviani), pp. 336, 337; Nelli, vol. i. pp. 46, 47; Venturi, vol. i. p. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[31] “Prodromus Dissertationum Cosmographicarum.”

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

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

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

[35] Op. xv. p. 390. His salary at first was 72 Florentine zecchini = £18, and rose by degrees to 400 zecchini = £100. (Op. viii. p. 18, note 3.)

[36] Some fragments of these lectures are extant, and are included by AlbÈri in the Op. v. part ii.

[37] Op. iii. (“Astronomicus Nuncius,” pp. 60, 61.) In his “Saggiatore” also he relates the circumstance in precisely the same way, only adding that he devised the construction of the telescope in one night, and carried it out the next day.

[38] Nelli, pp. 186, 187.

[39] History has acknowledged the optician Hans Lipperhey, of Middelburg, to be the inventor of the telescope. Compare the historical sketch in “Das neue Buch der Erfindungen,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 217-220. (Leipzig, 1865.) The instrument received its name from Prince Cesi, who, on the advice of the learned Greek scholar Demiscianus, called it a “teleskopium.”

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

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

[42] Cosmo II. showed all his life a sincere attachment to his old teacher, Galileo. From 1605, before Cosmo was reigning prince, Galileo had regularly given him mathematical lessons during the academical holidays at Florence, and had thereby gained great favour at the court of Tuscany.

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

[44] See the letter of Martin Hasdal from Prague, of 15th April, 1610, to Galileo (Op. viii. pp. 58-60); also a letter from Julian de’ Medici, Tuscan ambassador at the Imperial court, to Galileo, from Prague, 19th April, 1610. (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 20.)

[45] This reprint bore the following superscription: “Joannis Kepleri Mathematici CÆsarei Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo nuper ad mortales misso a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico Patavino.” Comp. Venturi, vol. i. pp. 99-120.

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

[47] Compare the letters of Martin Hasdal, Alexander Sertini, and Kepler to Galileo in 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 60-63, 65-68, 82-85, 88, 89, 101, 113-117.)

[48] See the letter which Kepler wrote about it to Galileo on 25th Oct. 1610. (Op. viii. pp. 113-117.)

[49] Wedderburn’s reply was called: “Quatuor Problematum, quÆ Martinius Horky contra Nuncium Sidereum de quatuor Planetis novis proposuit”; Roffeni’s, “Epistola apologetica contra coecam peregrinationem cujusdam furiosi Martini cognomine Horky editam adversus, Nuncium Sidereum.”

[50] Op. vi. pp. 114, 115.

[51] Op. vi. p. 127.

[52] May 7th, 1610. (Op. vi. pp. 93-99.)

[53] Op. vi. p. 165.

[54] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 343.

[55] Op. vi. p. 129.

[56] Op. vi. pp. 116-118. Ponsard in his drama, “Galileo,” of which a third edition appeared at Paris in 1873, in which he mostly turns history upside down, in Act i. sc. iii. and iv. takes off capitally the proud and silly opposition of the Aristotelians.

[57] Comp. Op. xv. p. 397, note 11, also Venturi, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. Jagemann (p. 52) even believes “that Gustavus Adolphus, who created an entirely new science of warfare which set all Europe in consternation and terror, had derived his wonderful knowledge from Galileo”!

[58] Op. vi., 71-75. It is unfortunately unknown to whom this letter was addressed; but, as appears from the contents, it must have been to some one high in office at the court of Tuscany.

[59] It is not known that these last mentioned treatises ever appeared. As not the least trace of them is to be found, and yet numerous particulars have come down to us of other works afterwards lost, it may be concluded that these essays were never written.

[60] Op. viii. pp. 63, 64.

[61] Op. viii. pp. 73, 74.

[62] Op. vi. p. 112.

[63] Libri justly says, p. 38: “this mistake was the beginning of all his misfortunes.”

[64] In a letter from Galileo to his brother Michel Angelo, of May 11th, 1606, he describes the somewhat comical scene of the nocturnal deportation of the Jesuits from the city of Lagunes. (Op. vi. p. 32.)

[65] Op. viii. p. 146-150.

[66] 11th Dec., 1610. (Op. vi. p. 128.)

[67] Op. vi. pp. 130-133 and 134-136.

[68] Op. vi. pp. 137, 138.

[69] Op. vi. p. 139, 140.

[70] Op. vi. p. 140, note 1. See also Vinta’s answer to Galileo, 20th Jan. 1611 (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” p. 27); also the Grand Duke’s letter to his ambassador at Rome, Giovanni Niccolini, of 27th Feb., 1611 (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 10).

[71] Pieralisi has first published this letter in his work “Urban VIII. and Galileo Galilei,” p. 41.

[72] See, for Bellarmine’s request and the opinion, Op. viii. pp. 160-162.

[73] Op. viii. p. 145.

[74] Gherardi’s Collection of Documents: Doc. i.

[75] Op. vi. p. 274.

[76] The full title was: “Dianoja Astronomica, Optica, Physica, qua Siderei Nuncii rumor de quatuor Planetis a Galilaeo Galilaeo Mathematico celeberrimo, recens perspicilli cujusdam ope conspectis, vanus redditur. Auctore Francisco Sitio Florentino.”

[77] Op. vi. p. 94, note 1; and xv. “Bibliografia Galileiana,” p. vi.

[78] This letter reports the facts above mentioned. (Op. viii. p. 188.)

[79] Op. viii. pp. 222-224.

[80] Op. viii. pp. 241, 242.

[81] Op. vi. pp. 194-197.

[82] “Discorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno alle cose che stanno in su l’aqua o che in quella si muovano.”

[83] Op. viii. p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i. pp. 195, 196.

[84] Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612.

[85] “Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro accidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da Galileo Galilei.”

[86] Letter of 20th April, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 262.)

[87] Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.)

[88] Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.)

[89] Op. viii. pp. 290, 291.

[90] Op. viii. pp. 291-293.

[91] Op. ii. pp. 6-13.

[92] Op. viii. pp. 337, 338.

[93] Vol. i. p. 397.

[94] Comp. Govi, p. 47.

[95] Epinois, “La Question de Galilei,” p. 43.

[96] Op. viii. pp. 337-343.

[97] The title of “Eminence” was first given to cardinals by Pope Urban VIII. in 1630.

[98] See Lorini’s Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois this letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which shows it to have been of the 7th. (Gherardi’s Collection of Documents, Doc. ii.)

[99] Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. ii.

[100] See Castelli’s letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this visit is described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.)

[101] In the letter before quoted of 12th March.

[102] Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350.

[103] Op. viii. p. 365.

[104] Op. viii. pp. 369, 370.

[105] Vat. MS. fol. 341.

[106] Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. iii.

[107] Compare the text of Caccini’s evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353 ro.-358 vo.)

[108] See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371 ro.-373 vo.)

[109] Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. v.

[110] Op. ii. pp. 13-17.

[111] Op. ii. pp. 17-26.

[112] Op. viii. pp. 350-353.

[113] Op. viii. pp. 354-356.

[114] As we should say, “as a working hypothesis.” [Tr.]

[115] This was the work which was condemned and absolutely prohibited by the Congregation of the Index a year later: “Lettera del R. P. Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de i Pittagorici e del Copernico della mobilitÀ della Terra e stabilitÀ del Sole, e il nuovo Sisteme del Mondo.” (For Cesi’s letter, Op. viii. pp. 356-358.)

[116] See Dini’s letter to Galileo, March 14th, 1615 (Op. viii. p. 360); and of August 18th, 1615 (Wolynski, “Lettere Inedite,” p. 34); and Ciampoli’s of March 21st (Op. viii. pp. 366, 367.)

[117] Op. viii. p. 368.

[118] Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.

[119] Op. viii. pp. 378, 379.

[120] See his letter to Galileo, May 16th, 1615. (Op. viii. pp. 376, 377.)

[121] Op. ii. pp. 26-64. It did not appear in print until twenty-one years later, in Strasburg.

[122] See the letters of Cosmo II., November 28th, to his ambassador Guicciardini, at Rome, to Cardinal del Monte, Paolo Giordano Orsini, and Abbot Orsini; also to Cardinal Orsini, of December 2nd. (Wolynski: “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” pp. 18-20.)

[123] Page 69.

[124] Compare the letters of Sagredo from Venice of 11th March and 23rd April, 1616, to Galileo at Rome. (Op. Suppl. pp. 107-113. Also Nelli, vol. i. p. 414.)

[125] Op. viii. p. 383.

[126] See his letters of 12th Dec., 1615, and 8th Jan., 1616, to the Tuscan Secretary of State, Curzio Picchena, at Florence. (Op. vi. pp. 211, 212, 214, 215.)

[127] Vat. MS. fol. 414 vo.

[128] Compare also Wohlwill, p. 86, note 1.

[129] See his letters to Picchena of 26th Dec., 1615, and 1st Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 213, 214.)

[130] Op. vi. pp. 215, 216.

[131] 23rd Jan., 1616. (Op. vi. pp. 218, 219.)

[132] Letter to Picchena, 6th Feb. (Op. vi. p. 222.)

[133] Letter to Picchena. (Op. vi. pp. 225-227.)

[134] Op. vi. pp. 221-223.

[135] See the letter of Mgr. Queringhi, from Rome, of 20th January, 1616, to Cardinal Alessandro d’Este. (Op. viii. p. 383.)

[136] Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza im~obile di moto locale.

Che la Terra non È centro del mondo, ne im~obile, ma si move secondo se tutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.)

[137] Sol est centru~ mundi, et omnino im~obilis motu locali;

Censura: Omnes dixerunt dicta propositione~ e~e stulta~ et absurdam in Philosophia, et formaliter heretica~, quatenus contradicit expresse sententijs sacre scripture in multis locis. Secundu~ proprietate verbor~, et secundu~ commune~ expositione~, et sensu~. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor~ doctor.

Terra non est centr. mundi, nec im~obilis, sed secundu~ se tota, movetur et moto diurno.

Censura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc propositione~ recipe~ eande~ censura in Philosophia; et spectando veritate~ Theologica~, at minus e~e in fide erronea. (Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.)

[138] Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616.

Ill???. D. Card???. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseos?. et Commiss. S??. Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologoru~ ad propositn??. Gallilei Mathem??., q. Sol sit centru~ mundi, et im~obilis motu locali, et Terra moveatur et motu diurno; S???. ordinavit Ill??. D. Card??. Bellarm?., ut vocet cora~ se d?. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad deserendas d??. op~onem, et si recusaverit parere, P. Comiss?. cora Noto (Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, ut i~o (omnino) abstineat huo~i (huiusmodi) doctrina, et op~onem docere, aut defendere, seu de ea tractare, si vero no~ acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. folio 378 vo.)

[139] Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem.

In Palatio solite habitn??: d?: Ill??: D. Card??: Bellarm?. et in mÃsionib. Domn??. sue Ill??: Idem Ill???: D. Card???: vocato suprad??. Galileo, ipsoq. corÃ D. sua Ill??: ex~nte (existente) in p~ntia adm. R. p. Fi~s Michaelis Angeli Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Com~issarij qualis s??. officij pred?. Galileu~ monuit de errore suprad?? op~onis, et ut illa deserat, et successive, ac ico~tinenti in mei &, et Testiu~ & p~nte e~t adhuc eodem Ill??. D. Card??. suprad?. P. Com~iss?. pred??. Galileo adhuc ibidem p~nti, et Constituto precepit, et ordinavit ... [Here the MS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the second might be nome (nomine); the first began with a p (proprie?) but is quite illegible.] S??. D. N. Pape et totius Congregn??. s??. officij, ut suprad??. oponione q. sol sit ce~: trum mundi, et im~obilis, et Terra moveatur omnino relinquat, nec ea~ de Cetero q?vis mo~ teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, aut scriptis, al~s (alias) con~ ipsu~ procedetur i~ (in) S??. offo., cui precepto Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum Rome ubi subra p~ntibus ibide~ R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia i~ Regno Cypri, et Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. PolitianeÑ (Poletianensis) familiarib. d?. Ill??. D. Card???. Testibus. (Vat. MS. folio 379 ro, 379 vo.)

[140] Marini, p. 42.

[141] Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141.

[142] In the Zeitschrift fÜr mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy between Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the Zeitschrift fÜr Mathematik, etc., 17th series. Part ii., pp. 9-31; part iii., pp. 41-45; part v., pp. 81-98.

[143]

Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616.

Facta relatione per Illumum. D. Card??. Bellarminum quod Galilaeus Galilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad deserendam (prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, disserendam) opinionem quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum, et immobilis, terra autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto Congregationis Indicis, qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et suspensa respective scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium....) Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini CarmelitÆ, SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S. Palatii hujusmodi suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi’s Documents, Doc. vi.)

[144] See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345.

[145] Op. vi. pp. 231-233.

[146] Op. Suppl. 109-112.

[147] Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sig? Galileo Galilei sia calumniato, Ò imputato di havere abiurato in mano nr~a, et anco di essere stato perciÒ penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et essendo ricercati della veritÀ diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no ha abiurato i mano nr~a nÈ di altra qua in Roma ne meno i~ altro luogo che noi sappiamo alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, nÈ manco hÀ ricevuto penitenzie salutarj, nÈ d’altra sorte, ma solo, ql’È stata denunziata la dichiarazione fatta da Nr~o Sig??: e publicata dalla Sacra Congregn?: dell’indice, nella quale si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al Copernico che la terra si muova intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel centro del Mo~do senza muoversi da oriente ad occidente sia co~traria alle sacre scritture, e perÒ no~ si possa difendere nÈ tenere. Et in fede di ciÒ habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta la prese~te di nr~a propria mano questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Card??. Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.)

[148] Martin, pp. 79, 80.

[149] Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p. 17) to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of Galileo, published in 1873.

[150] For the particulars, see Appendix, “Estimate of the Vat. MS.”

[151] Pietro Guiccardini had relieved his predecessor, Giovanni Sicculini, of his post on 14th May, 1611, when Galileo was still at Rome. Guiccardini remained there till 27th November, 1621.

[152] Op. vi. pp. 227-230.

[153] See Galileo’s letter to Picchena, from Rome, of 12th March. (Op. vi. pp. 233-235.)

[154] Wolynski’s “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 36.

[155] Op. vi. pp. 235-237.

[156] Op. viii. p. 385.

[157] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2. See these despatches verbatim in Wolynski’s “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 22.

[158] Op. vi. p. 238, note 2.

[159] See letter from Cesi to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 389, 390.)

[160] Op. ii. pp. 387-406.

[161] Op. vi. pp. 278-281.

[162] Op. xv. (Viviani), p. 350.

[163] Nelli, vol. i. p. 432.

[164] Op. iv. p. 16. This appears also from a letter from Galileo of 19th June, 1619, to Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, afterwards Pope Urban VIII., accompanying the treatise. (See this letter in “Pieralisi,” pp. 63, 64; and “Guitoloni et Gal. Galilei,” Livorno, 1872, vol. i. p. 263.)

[165] “Libra Astronomica ac Philosophica qua GalilÆi GalilÆi opiniones de cometis a Mario Guiduccio in Florentina Academia expositÆ, atque in lucem nuper editÆ examinatur a Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.” (Op. iv. pp. 63-121.)

[166] See the letter of Mgr. Ciampoli of 6th December, 1619, to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 430, 431.)

[167] Compare the letters of Stelluti (27th January, 1620) to Prince Cesi, 4th March and 18th May, 1620; and from Mgr. Ciampoli, 18th May, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. pp. 436-439, and 441-443.)

[168] See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. p. 447; Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 59.)

[169] See Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)

[170] Compare Cesarini’s letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1621, and 7th May, 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.)

[171] See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and 16-18; and Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., p. 65.)

[172] “Scandaglio della Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi nella controversia delle Comete, e particolarmente delle tre ultimamente vedute l’anno 1618, di Giovanni Battista Stelluti da Fabriano dottor di Legge.”

[173] “Il Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si ponderano le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi Sigensano.”

[174] See Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 12th January, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 22-24.)

[175] Op. ix. p. 26.

[176] See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, “Lettere,” etc., p. 68.)

[177] See Ciampoli’s Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)

[178] See Ranke: “Die rÖmischen PÄpste,” etc., vol. ii. p. 531, etc.

[179] See Op. viii. pp. 173, 206, 208, 209, 262, 427; ix. p. 31.

[180] Op. viii. p. 206.

[181] Op. viii. p. 262.

[182] Op. viii. p. 451. Pieralisi in his work, “Urban VIII. and Galileo Galilei,” Rome, 1875, pp. 22, 27, gives Barberini’s ode, which is in Latin, and consists of nineteen strophes, as well as a commentary on it, which has not been printed by Campanella. See also pp. 65, 66, Galileo’s reply to Barberini, in which he expresses his warm thanks and his admiration of the poetry. This is not in AlbÈri’s work.

[183] Op. iv., “Saggiatore,” p. 172.

[184] See for these transactions the letter of Mario Guiducci, from Rome, to Galileo, of 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)

[185] Cesarini’s letter to Galileo, 28th October, 1623. (Op. ix. pp. 43, 44.)

[186] Rinuccini’s letters to Galileo, 3rd November and 2nd December, 1623. (Op. Suppl. p. 154; and ix. p. 50.)

[187] Op. vi. pp. 289, 290.

[188] Op. ix. pp. 42, 43.

[189] Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.)

[190] See Rinuccini’s letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and Guiducci’s of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.)

[191] Compare Ciampoli’s letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix. p. 55.)

[192] Op. ix. p. 56.

[193] Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at Aquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)

[194] Ibid.

[195] ... “Fu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l’avea dannata, ne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria.” Comp. Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)

[196] Page 92.

[197] Comp. Galileo’s letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned.

[198] History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to Zacharias Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop the first microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century, probably in 1590.

[199] Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40.

[200] Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64.

[201] Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in 1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. His daughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri. The mother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with whom Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which was quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at that period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing to the religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo’s son did not accept it. It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved unworthy of it, to Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars, but with the condition, as it was derived from two ecclesiastical benefices, that he should adopt the tonsure, to which he consented. He drew the pension which thus irregularly accrued to him as long as he lived.

[202] Op. vi. p. 295.

[203] Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76.

[204] This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree of 10th March, 1619.

[205] Op. ii. pp. 64-115.

[206] See Guiducci’s letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)

[207] Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164.

[208] See Guiducci’s letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November, 21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp. 168-178.)

[209] Op. ix. p. 97.

[210] Op. iv. pp. 486, 487.

[211] “Dialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si discorre sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano, proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per l’una parte, che par l’altra.”

[212] Comp. Galileo’s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan, 1630, to Cesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi’s letter to Galileo, 12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71).

[213] Op. i. (“Dialogo di Galileo Galilei,” etc.), pp. 11, 12.

[214] Op. i. pp. 501-503.

[215] Martin, p. 99.

[216] Comp. for example the essay: “Der Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus”; also Marini, pp. 70-73.

[217] Op. vi. pp. 333-336.

[218] Ibid. pp. 333 and 336.

[219] Op. ix. p. 167.

[220] Ibid. pp. 173-175.

[221] This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned by Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having taken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal opinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of a charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for appearance’s sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629, been at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo’s most zealous adherents, and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded with him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is noteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave all other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive question of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the singular offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of “the astrological medicine”! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had been denounced by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal Gaetani applied to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning, to give his opinion on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In compliance with this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for Galileo, in which the expert theologian and mathematician brought the system into agreement with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations of the imprisoned philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the Sacred Congregation.

[222] “Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si sarrebe fatto quel decreto.” (Op. ix. p. 176.)

[223] Op. ix. pp. 176, 177.

[224] “Che lei È desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella.” (Op. ix. p. 178.)

[225] Op. ix. p. 188.

[226] In the narration of this most important transaction we have followed the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of Galileo, was handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an authentic document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions with Galileo’s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274-277; Suppl. pp. 233-235.) It is inconceivable how AlbÈri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have fallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received the imprimatur at all, though he himself publishes documents which prove the contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of 16th June, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo’s to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 (Op. vi. pp. 374-376); a letter of Riccardi’s to the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally, a letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420-423). Martin also expresses his surprise at this error of AlbÈri’s (p. 102, note 2).

[227] Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205.

[228] Op. vi. p. 346, note 2.

[229] Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei,” p. 35.

[230] Op. ix. pp. 198, 199.

[231] Ibid. pp. 201, 202.

[232] Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the “Dialogues,” this permission to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are also reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in 4to).

[233] Op. ix. pp. 205, 206.

[234] See Caterina Niccolini’s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.)

[235] Op. vi. p. 375.

[236] In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent followed Galileo’s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we have made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary commission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.), and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat. MS. 413 ro.-419 ro.)

[237] Compare the letter of Geri Bocchineri, private secretary at the 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.??? 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: “S???. 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 moeurs 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 4?.

[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.

Clyx.com