ring their hatred. They were of opinion that he should not honour an adversary concealed behind a pseudonym with a reply written by himself, but should depute the task to a pupil, or, if he intended to conduct his defence in person, clothe his reply in the form of a letter instead of a treatise, not addressed to Sarsi himself, but to one of his own party.1 He decided for the latter; and adopting a hint from Mgr. Ciampoli, he addressed the reply to Mgr. Cesarini, one of his most devoted friends and dauntless defenders.

But the completion of this afterwards famous rejoinder was delayed for two years, and its publication, which, according to custom with all works by members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, was undertaken by the Society, was delayed fully another year owing to the scruples of Prince Cesi and other "lynxes." Galileo's procrastination is to be explained partly by his continued ill health, but more so by the position of affairs at Rome as well as in Tuscany, which was by no means encouraging for a contest with a Jesuit.

The imperious Paul V. was still the reigning Pope, and his good will towards Galileo would certainly only have lasted so long as he was entirely submissive. His dialectic reply, which was pervaded by cutting irony aimed at a father of the order of Jesuits, even sometimes making him appear ridiculous, could not have been much to the taste of a Pope to whom the inviolability of the Church and her ministers was all in all. It is characteristic of this pontiff that, as appears from the negotiations with James I., he seriously claimed the right of deposing kings, and called every attempt to make him relinquish this claim "a heretical proceeding,” and pronounced the writings of some Venetian ecclesiastics who disputed it, to be worse than Calvinistic. Just as this stern

1

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.)

* See his letter of 12th and 17th July, 1620, to Galileo. (Op. viii. p. 447; Wolynski, "Lettere inedite," etc., p. 59.)

pontiff was gathered to his fathers (16th January, 1621), in consequence of an attack of apoplexy on the occasion of the celebration of the victory on the Weissenberg, and the goodnatured and infirm old man, Gregory XV., ascended the papal chair, Galileo sustained a blow which was most disastrous to him. This was the death, on 28th February, 1621, of his kind protector and patron, Cosmo II. The protection of an energetic prince who sincerely respected him, which he had hitherto enjoyed, was replaced by the uncertain favour of a feminine government, as the widowed Grand Duchess, whose tendencies were thoroughly Romish, assumed the regency for Ferdinand II., who was still in his minority.

Under these circumstances Galileo was but little inclined to bring out his reply; and perhaps the time when they were founding the Propaganda at Rome, and enrolling Loyola and Xavier among the saints, did not seem very opportune. From the new Pope personally there was nothing to fear. The phlegmatic little man, who was so bowed down by age and sickness that those about him often feared to lay complicated business matters before him, lest he should entirely break down, was certainly not likely to inspire awe; besides, Gregory had expressed himself to Ciampoli very favourably of Galileo.1 But the Pope's infirmities made it all the more necessary to proceed with caution; for they allowed the Romish administration to exercise full sway. And the man who guided it with almost sovereign authority was the Pope's nephew, Cardinal Lodovico Lodovisi, a former pupil and therefore zealous friend of the Jesuits.

Nevertheless Galileo's adherents, and especially his clerical friends at Rome, considered it absolutely necessary to publish his reply as soon as possible, with the precautions before mentioned, because his opponents construed his silence into a triumph for Grassi and the Aristotelian school.2 Prince.

1 See Ciampoli's letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. • Compare Cesarini's letters to Galileo of 23rd June, 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 5 and 18.)

(Op. ix. p. 30.)
1621, and 7th May,

Cesi, Mgrs. Cesarini and Ciampoli-the latter of whom meanwhile had become Secretary of the Papal Briefs to Gregory XV., a post which he also held under his successor, Urban VIII, until he fell into disgrace about Galileo-urged him repeatedly to finish his reply.1

Francesco Stelluti, a member of the Accadémia dei Lincei, a learned friend of Galileo's, did indeed at this time (June, 1622) bring out a work against "Lothario Sarsi," but he only defended Guiducci, and studiously avoided touching on the reproaches cast on Galileo, in order not to anticipate him.'

At length, in October of the same year, Galileo sent the MS. of his celebrated work, "Il Saggiatore" (The Assayer), to Mgr. Cesarini, at Rome. For five months it passed from hand to hand among the members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, who carefully criticised it, and with Galileo's consent, altered the passages which might possibly have been taken advantage of by his enemies to renew their intrigues against him. The Jesuits meanwhile had got wind of the completion of the reply, and did their utmost to get hold of one of the numerous copies of the MS.; but Cesarini, Cesi, Ciampoli, and the other "Lynxes," took good care of them, well knowing that if the Jesuits once made acquaintance with this crushing reply, they would use every endeavour to prevent its receiving the imprimatur. This was granted on 2nd February, 1623, by the supreme authorities of the censorship, not only without hesitation, but they spoke of the work in very favourable and flattering terms. The opinion1 See his letters to Galileo in 1621 and 1622. (Op. ix. pp. 11-14 and 16-18; and Wolynski, "Lettere," etc., p. 65.)

2 "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."

"I Saggiatore, nel quale con bilancia esquisita e quista si ponderano le cose contenute nella Libra Astronomica e Filosofica di Lothario Sarsi Sigensano."

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

which was drawn up by Father Nicolo Riccardi, a former pupil of Galileo's, who will often be mentioned in the sequel, then examiner, and afterwards even Magister Sacrii Palatii-was as follows:

"By command of the Master of the Palace I have read the work, 'Il Saggiatore,' and not only have I detected nothing in it which is contrary to good morals, or deviates from the divine truth of our religion, but I have found in it such beautiful and manifold observations on natural philosophy, that I think our age will not have to boast merely of having been the inheritor of the labours of earlier philosophers, but also of having been the discoverer of many secrets of nature which they were not able to penetrate, thanks to the subtle and solid researches of the author, whose contemporary I think myself happy to be, for now the gold of truth is no longer weighed wholesale and with the steelyard, but with the delicate scales used for gold.'

The commencement of the printing was again delayed till the beginning of May, and then proceeded but slowly, for it was not until 27th May that Ciampoli sent the first two sheets of the "Saggiatore" to the author, in order to prove to him the falseness of a report which had meanwhile gained currency, that the printing of the work had been prohibited.

An event then took place which seemed likely to produce a great change in Galileo's relations with Rome; indeed in the whole attitude of ecclesiastical authority towards the free progress of science. At all events, as we shall see, Galileo flattered himself with this hope, and not without some justification. On 8th July, 1623, Gregory XV. succumbed to age and infirmity in the second year of his pontificate. The man who at the age of fifty-five was now elevated to the papacy, not only did not in the least resemble his immediate predecessors, but his tendencies were in striking contrast to theirs. He was previously Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, and now ascended the papal throne as Urban VIII. 1 Op. ix. p. 26.

See Ciampoli to Galileo, 6th May, 1623. (Wolynski, "Lettere," etc.,

p. 68.)

'See Ciampoli's Letter to Galileo, 27th May, 1623. (Op. ix. p. 30.)

CHAPTER IX.

MAFFEO BARBERINI AS URBAN VIII.

His Character.-Taste for Letters.-Friendship for Galileo when Cardinal. -Letters to him.-Verses in his honour.-Publication of "Il Saggiatore," with Dedication to the Pope.-Character of the Work.-The Pope's approval of it.—Inconsistency with the assumed Prohibition.

SCARCELY any Pope has left to posterity so accurate a delineation of his character and aims in his own trenchant utterances as Urban VIII. When shown the marble monuments of his predecessors, he proudly observed that he "would erect iron ones to himself." And the fortress of Castelfranco on the Bolognese frontier (called, in honour of his Holiness, Fort Urbino), the new breastworks of the Castle of St. Angelo, the Vatican Library turned into an arsenal, the new manufactory of arms at Tivoli, and finally the costly harbour of Civita Vecchia, are so many silent testimonies to the cherished desire of this pontiff to transform the eternal city into an inviolable symbol in stone of the temporal power of the Pope, and to accredit himself as a true medieval vicegerent of Christ with the two-edged sword of the world. His athletic physique and iron energy were ever the vigorous executors of his ideas. In his self-sufficiency he disdained to take counsel with the Sacred College, saying that he "knew better than all the cardinals put together," and boldly set himself above all ancient constitutions, alleging the unheard of reason that "the sentence of a living Pope was worth more than all the decrees of a hundred dead ones." And finally, to leave his flock, the Christian peoples, in no manner of doubt about his pastoral humility, he revoked the resolve of the Romans never again