CHAPTER I. GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI. Arrival at Siena.-Request to the Grand Duke of Tuscany to ask for his release.-Postponed on the advice of Niccolini.-Endeavours at Rome to stifle the Copernican System.-Sentence and Recantation sent to all the Inquisitors of Italy.-Letter to the Inquisitor of Venice.—Mandate against the Publication of any New Work of Galileo's or New Edition. -Curious Arguments in favour of the Old System.-Niccolini asks for Galileo's release.-Refusal, but permission given to go to Arcetri.— Anonymous accusations.-Death of his Daughter.-Request for permission to go to Florence.-Harsh refusal and threat.-Letter to Diodati.-Again at work.-Intervention of the Count de Noailles on his behalf.-Prediction that he will be compared to Socrates.-Letter to Peiresc.-Publication of Galileo's Works in Holland.—Continued efforts of Noailles.-Urban's fair speeches. GALILEO arrived safely at Siena on 9th July, and was most heartily welcomed by Ascanio Piccolomini.1 But neither his devoted kindness, nor stimulating converse with his friend, who was well versed in science, and the learned Alessandro Marsili, who lived at Siena, could make him forget that he was still a prisoner of the Inquisition, and that his residence there was compulsory. He longed for liberty, the highest earthly good, and next to this for Florence, which had become a second home to him. In order to attain this fervent desire, on 23rd July he addressed a letter to Cioli,2 with an urgent request that his Highness the Grand Duke, to please whom Urban VIII. had done so much, would be graciously pleased to ask the Pope, on whose will alone it depended, for his release. Only five days afterwards, Galileo received tidings from Cioli that Ferdinand II. had in the Op. vii. pp. 31, 32. 1 Op. ix. p. 372. kindest manner consented to make the attempt, and that Niccolini was already commissioned to petition at the Vatican, in the name of the Grand Duke, for a full pardon for his chief philosopher.1 But the ambassador had good reasons for thinking that it was too soon, and that it would certainly be in vain to ask for Galileo's entire release, and replied to this effect to Cioli, adding the advice not to do anything in it till autumn.2 It was therefore decided at Florence, in consideration of Niccolini's doubts and his intimate knowledge of affairs at Rome, not to intervene with the Pope in favour of Galileo for two months, which decision was communicated by Bocchineri to the prisoner at Siena in a letter of 13th August.3 While Galileo was bearing his banishment in Siena, which Ascanio Piccolomini did all in his power to ameliorate, with resignation, and was even diligently at work on his "Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze," war was being waged with great vigour against the Copernican doctrine at Rome, and the utmost efforts were being made to stifle it in Catholic countries in general, and in Italy in particular. Urban VIII. first visited with severe punishment all those dignitaries of the Church who, in virtue of their official position, had conduced to the publication of the "Dialogues." Father Riccardi was deprived of his office, and the Inquisitor at Florence was reprimanded for having given permission to print the work. In accordance with a decree passed in the sitting of the Congregation of 16th June, 1633, the sentence on, and recantation of, Galileo were sent to all the nunciatures of Europe, as well as to all archbishops, bishops, and inquisitors of Italy. The form in which this commission was issued 1 Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th July. (Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.) 2 Niccolini's despatch to Cioli of 7th August. (Op. ix. p. 447.) Op. ix. pp. 383, 384. Vat. MS. fol. 476 vo. and 493 ro. ; also Gherardi's Documents, Doc. to the ecclesiastical dignitaries is of great historical interest. One of the letters which accompanied the decree and ordered its publication has been preserved to us by Father Polacco in his "Anti-Copernicus Catholicus," published at Venice in 16441 It was addressed to the Inquisitor at Venice, and was as follows; the rest were probably similar: Most Reverend Father, Although the treatise of Nicholas Copernicus, 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium," had been suspended by the Congregation of the Index, because it was therein maintained that the earth moves, but not the sun, but that it stands still in the centre of the world (which opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture); and although many years ago, Galileo Galilei, Florentine, was forbidden by the Congregation of this Holy Office to hold, defend, or teach the said opinion in any way whatsoever, either verbally or in writing; the said Galileo ventured nevertheless to write a book signed Galileo Galilei Linceus; and as he did not mention the said prohibition, he extorted licence to print, and did then actually have it printed. He stated, in the beginning, middle, and end of it, that he intended to treat the said opinion of Copernicus hypothetically, but he did it in such a manner (though he ought not to have discussed it in any way) as to render himself very suspicious of adhering to this opinion. Being tried on this account, and in accordance with the sentence of their Eminences, my Lords, confined in the prison of the Holy Office, he was condemned to renounce this opinion, to remain in prison during their Eminences' pleasure, and to perform other salutary penances; as your Reverences will see by the subjoined copy of the sentence and abjuration, which is sent to you that you may make it known to your vicars, and that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it; that they may know why they proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of his error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same. Rome, 2nd July, 1633. Your Reverences, as brother, Again it is worthy of note, that even in this letter it was deemed necessary to lay special stress on the circumstance that Galileo had acted contrary to a special prohibition issued several years before. But then, to be sure, this formed the only legal ground for the proceedings against him. 1 Page 68. From a letter from Guiducci to Galileo from Florence of 27th August, we learn the manner in which the publication had taken place there, on the 12th. Both the documents were read aloud in a large assembly of counsellors of the Holy Office, canons and other priests, professors of mathematics and friends of Galileo, such as Pandolfini, Aggiunti, Rinuccini, Peri, and others, who had been invited to the ceremony. This proceeding was followed in all the more important cities of Italy, as well as in the larger ones of Catholic Europe. It is characteristic of the great split which existed in the scientific world about the Copernican system, that Professor Kellison, Rector of the University of Douai, wrote in reply to a letter of the Nuncio at Brussels, who had sent the sentence and recantation of Galileo to that academy: "The professors of our university are so opposed to that fanatical opinion (phanaticæ opinioni), that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douai this paradox has never been approved, and never will be." 2 The Roman curia, however, did not confine itself to trying to frighten all good Catholics from accepting the Copernican doctrine by as wide a circulation as possible of the sentence against Galileo; but in order to suppress it altogether as far as might be, especially in Italy, all the Italian Inquisitors received orders neither to permit the publication of a new edition of any of Galileo's works, nor of any new work. the other hand, the Aristotelians, who had been very active since the trial, were encouraged to confute the illustrious dead, Copernicus and Kepler, and the now silenced Galileo, with tongue and pen. Thus in the succeeding decades the book market was flooded with refutations of the Copernican system.* 1 Op. ix. pp. 390-392. 2 Vat. MS. fol. 544. 3 Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363. On 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. In fighting truth with falsehood very curious demonstrations were sure now and then to come to light on the part of the adherents of the wisdom of the ancients. We will here only mention a book dedicated to Cardinal Barberini, which appeared in 1633: “Difesa di Scipione Chiaramonti da Cesena al suo Antiticone, e libro delle tre nuove stelle, dall' opposizioni dell' Autore de' due massimi sistemi Tolemaico e Copernicano," in which such sagacious arguments as the following are adduced against the doctrine of the double motion of the earth : "Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. "It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, etc., turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live there, it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth. The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one species; namely, that of stars-they therefore all move or all stand still. "It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the earth, which is a sink of impurity, among the heavenly bodies, which are pure and divine things." 1 But although Galileo was condemned to silence, there were courageous and enlightened men who, in spite of the famous sentence of the Inquisition, not only rejected such absurdities but made energetic advance along the new paths. At the Vatican, however, they seemed disposed, as we shall soon see, to make Galileo answerable for the defence of the Copernican system in Italy. For instance, at the beginning of November the Tuscan ambassador thought the time was come to take steps for obtaining pardon for Galileo with some prospect of success; and at an audience of the Pope on 12th November he asked, on behalf of the Grand Duke, for the prisoner's release. Urban replied somewhat ungraciously, that he would see what could be done, and would consult with the Congregation of the Holy Office; but he remarked that it had 1 Venturi, vol ii. p. 127. |