Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 15

by Karl von Gebler

CHAPTER V.

THE SUMMONS TO ROME.

Niccolini's Attempt to avert the Trial.—The Pope's Parable.—The Mandate summoning Galileo to Rome.—His Grief and Consternation.—His Letter to Cardinal Barberini.—Renewed Order to come to Rome.— Niccolini's fruitless Efforts to save him.—Medical Certificate that he was unfit to Travel.—Castelli's hopeful View of the Case.—Threat to bring him to Rome as a Prisoner.—The Grand Duke advises him to go.—His Powerlessness to protect his Servant.—Galileo's Mistake in leaving Venice.—Letter to Elia Diodati.

 

Only a few days later, on 15th September, the Pope informed the Tuscan ambassador through one of his secretaries, Pietro Benessi, that he (Urban) hereby notified to him, out of esteem for his Highness the Grand Duke, that he could do no less than hand Galileo's affairs over to the Inquisition. At the same time the strictest secrecy as to this information was enjoined both on the Grand Duke and Niccolini, with a threat that otherwise they would be proceeded against according to the statutes of the Holy Office.^[1]

Niccolini was astounded by this news, and hastened, two days afterwards, to the Pope, to make a final attempt to avert the danger of a trial before the Inquisition for Galileo. But his urgent though respectful solicitations met with no response. Urban indeed said that "Signor Galileo was still his friend,—but that opinion had been condemned sixteen years before." He then expatiated, as he had so often done before, on the danger of the doctrine, and ended by saying that Galileo's book was in the highest degree pernicious. When Niccolini remarked that he thought the "Dialogues" might be altered to the prescribed form, instead of being prohibited altogether, the Pope answered affably by telling him a parable about Cardinal Alciato. A manuscript was submitted to him with the request that, in order not to spoil the fair copy, he would mark the places requiring alteration with a little wax. The cardinal returned it without any marks at all. The author thanked him, and expressed his satisfaction that he had not found anything to find fault with, as there was not a single mark; but the cardinal replied that he had not used any wax, for if he had, he must have gone to a wax chandler's, and dipped the whole work into melted wax in order to amend it thoroughly.^[2] Thus had Cardinal Alciato enlightened the unfortunate author in his day, and Urban enlightened Niccolini by quoting the story, to which he could only reply with a forced smile, that nevertheless he "hoped his Holiness would allow them to treat Galileo's work as indulgently as possible."

Niccolini's efforts had been in vain, and measures were laid with almost breathless haste to deliver Galileo up to the Inquisition. This was finally effected in the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 23rd September, 1632, when it was pronounced that he had transgressed the prohibition of 26th February, 1616, and concealed it when he obtained the imprimatur. In a document of the Vatican Manuscript we have the papal mandate which followed this sentence. It runs as follows:-

 

"23rd September, 1632. His holiness charges the Inquisitor at Florence to inform Galileo, in the name of the Holy Office, that he is to appear as soon as possible in the course of the month of October, at Rome before the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. He must also obtain a promise from Galileo to obey this order, which the Inquisitor is to give him in the presence of a notary and witnesses, but in such a way that Galileo may know nothing about them, so that if he refuse and do not promise to obey, they may, if necessary, bear witness to it."^[3]

 

On 1st October the Inquisitor carried out this order, which Galileo had to certify by the following attestation:—

 

1st October, 1632, at Florence. "I, Galileo Galilei, certify that on the day indicated the order has been delivered to me by the honourable Father Inquisitor of this city, by command of the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office at Rome, to go to Rome in the course of the present month, October, and to present myself before the Father Commissary of the Holy Office, who will inform me what I have to do. I will willingly obey the order in the course of this month October. And in testimony thereto I have written these presents."

"I, Galileo Galilei wrote manu propria."^[4]

 

This mandate to present himself before the Inquisition quite overwhelmed Galileo, as is evident from his correspondence of that period. He was totally unprepared for it. Scarcely recovered from a severe complaint in the eyes, which had lasted several months and had prevented him from using them, otherwise suffering in health, and at an advanced age, he was now to go to Rome in the midst of the plague, which had broken out again with increased virulence, and entailed strict quarantine regulations, in order to give account of himself before the dread tribunal. No wonder that it dismayed him, and in spite of his promise "willingly to obey the order in the course of this month, October," we find him making every effort to get out of it. On 6th October he wrote in the greatest excitement to Cioli, who was just then with the Grand Duke at Siena, that he was in the greatest consternation at this summons to appear before the Inquisition at Rome, and as he was well aware of the importance of the matter, he would come to Siena to lay his schemes and plans before his Highness, for he had more than one in his head, and to consult him about the steps to be taken.^[5]

This journey, however, was not undertaken, as the court soon returned to Florence.

Galileo's deep depression is most evident from a long letter of 13th October addressed to a cardinal of the Barberini family,^[6] which was to reach him through Niccolini. Galileo remarks first that he and his friends had foreseen that his "Dialogues" would find opponents, but he had never imagined that the envious malice of some persons would go so far as to persuade the authorities that they were not worthy to see the light. He goes on to say that the summons before the Inquisition at Rome had caused him the deepest grief, for he feared that such a proceeding, usual only in the case of serious delinquents, would turn the fruits of all his studies and labours during many years, which had lent no little repute to his name with the learned all over the world, into aspersions on his fair fame. "This vexes me so much," continues Galileo, "that it makes me curse the time devoted to these studies in which I strove and hoped to deviate somewhat from the beaten track generally pursued by learned men. I not only repent having given the world a portion of my writings, but feel inclined to suppress those still in hand, and to give them to the flames, and thus satisfy the longing desire of my enemies to whom my ideas are so inconvenient." After this desperate cry from his oppressed soul, he expresses his conviction that, burdened with seventy years and many bodily sufferings, increased by constant sleeplessness, he shall not reach the end of this tedious journey—made more arduous by unusual difficulties—alive. Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation common to all men, he ventures to ask the good offices of the cardinal. He begs him to represent his pitiable condition to the wise fathers in Rome, not to release him from giving account of himself, which he is most anxious to do, as he is sure that it will only tend to his advantage, but only that it may be made easier for him to obey. There are two ways of doing this. One is for him to write a minute and conscientious vindication of all that he has said, written, or done since the day when the conflict began on Copernicus’s book and his new system. He is certain that his sincerity and his pure, zealous, and devout attachment to the holy Church and its supreme head, would be so obvious from this statement, that every one, if he were free from passion and party malice, must confess that he had behaved so piously and like a good Catholic, that not even any of the fathers of the Church to whom the epithet holy is applied, could have shown more piety. He asserts and will indisputably prove, by all the works he has written on this subject, that he has only entered into the controversy out of zeal for the holy Church, with the intention of imparting to her servants that knowledge which one or other of them might wish to possess, and which he had acquired by long study, as it treated of subjects difficult to understand and different from the learning generally cultivated. He will also show how many opinions contained in the writings of the fathers of the Church had been an encouragement to him, and how he was "finally confirmed in his intention by hearing a short but holy and admirable address, which came unexpectedly, like an echo of the Holy Spirit, from the lips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of life." But for the present he will not give this admirable saying, nor the speaker's name, as it does not seem prudent or suitable to involve any one in the present affair which concerns him personally alone.^[7] Having in a touching manner begged that what he should write may be read, and declared that should his vindication not give satisfaction on all points he will reply in detail to objections, he proceeds to the second means of averting the journey to Rome.

He only wishes that his adversaries would be as ready to commit to paper what they have perhaps verbally and ad aures said against him, as he was to defend himself in writing. If they will not accept his written vindication, and still insist upon a verbal one, there was an Inquisitor, Nuncius, archbishop, and other high officials of the Church at Florence, whose summons he was quite ready to obey. He says:—"It appears to me that things of much greater importance are decided by this tribunal. And it is not likely that under the keen and watchful eyes of those who examined my book with full liberty to omit, to add, and to alter as seemed good to them, errors so weighty could escape that the authorities of this city should be incompetent to correct or punish them." This passage again clearly indicates that Galileo knew nothing whatever of the prohibition of 1616; that he had no idea of having broken his word to the ecclesiastical authorities. His only thought is of a revision of his work as the result of a conviction that it contained errors.^[8]

The letter to the cardinal concludes with the following assurance:—"If neither my great age, nor my many bodily infirmities, nor the deep concern I feel, nor the wearisomeness of a journey under the present most unfavourable circumstances, are considered sufficient reasons, by this high and sacred tribunal, for granting a dispensation, or at least a delay, I will undertake the journey, esteeming obedience more than life."^[9]

Niccolini could not deliver this letter to the cardinal immediately, as he was just then absent from Rome. He received however, at the same time, an urgent petition from another quarter. Michael Angelo the younger wrote to this dignitary, with whom he was on friendly terms, and entreated him, out of consideration for the philosopher's age and infirmities, to use his powerful influence to get his affairs settled at Florence.^[10] But there was a long delay before Galileo's letter was delivered to the cardinal. The ambassador wished first to consult Castelli, whom the Grand Duke had appointed as his counsel in Galileo's affairs, whether it was to be delivered. Niccolini had doubts about these explanations, and expressed them both in a letter to Galileo of 23rd October,^[11] and in a despatch to Cioli of the 24th.^[12] In the former Niccolini says that he thinks Galileo's letter is more calculated to incense them against him than to pacify them, and the more he asserted that he could defend his work the more it would be thought that it ought to be condemned. He thinks that a delay will be granted to the accused of his journey to Rome, but that he will not be released from it on any consideration. Niccolini gave him the following friendly hint as to the attitude he should maintain: "It appears desirable not to enter into any defence of things which the Congregation do not approve, but to submit and to recant what the cardinals may desire; for to speak as a Christian, one must not maintain anything, but what they, as the highest tribunal, that cannot err, please."^[13] By such conduct the ambassador hopes for an easier solution of the question; not, however, without its coming to an actual trial, and Galileo may even be somewhat restricted in his personal liberty. He has great doubts about the passage referring to an "admirable address, which came unexpectedly like an echo of the Holy Spirit from the lips of a personage eminent in learning and revered for his sanctity of life," as he thinks that if the letter is handed to the cardinal, he will hand it to the Congregation, and the cardinals may request to be informed who this personage is. At all events he would like first to consult Castelli, who was not just then at Rome.

The result of the consultation was, however, to deliver the letter to Barberini. Niccolini reported to Galileo on 6th November,^[14] that he had received it in a very friendly spirit, and was altogether very kindly disposed towards him. The ambassador does not doubt that a delay will at any rate be granted, that Galileo may make the journey to Rome with less inconvenience.^[15] We learn from a document in Gherardi's archives, that Galileo's petitions were discussed at a sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office held on 11th November, in presence of the Pope, but that he would not grant them, and decreed that Galileo must obey, and ordered that the Inquisitor at Florence should be written to that he might compel Galileo to come to Rome.^[16]

Niccolini, meanwhile, was unwearied in trying to get Galileo's proposals accepted. He went to Cardinal Ginetti, who was a member of the Congregation and in high favour with the Pope, and to Mgr. Boccabella, assessor of the Holy Office, and represented to both Galileo's great age, his failing health, and the peril to his life of a journey through quarantine and plague. But as both prelates, on whom as members of the Holy Office strict secrecy was imposed, "only heard what he had to say, and answered nothing," Niccolini went to the Pope himself, to make one more attempt. Having as he thought put the imperious pontiff into the best of humours, by assuring him that the unfortunate savant was ready to render prompt obedience to every command, he laid all the circumstances before him, and used all his eloquence to awaken pity for the infirm old man. But in vain. Niccolini asked at last whether his Holiness had not seen Galileo's letter to Cardinal Barberini; and he said he had, but in spite of all that the journey to Rome could not be dispensed with. "Your Holiness incurs the danger," replied Niccolini, "considering Galileo's great age, of his being tried neither in Rome nor Florence; for I assure your Holiness that he may die on the way under all these difficulties combined with so much anxiety." "He can come very slowly (pian piano) in a litter, with every comfort, but he really must be tried here in person. May God forgive him for having been so deluded as to involve himself in these difficulties, from which we had relieved him when we were cardinal." This was the Pope's stern reply to the ambassador's urgent representations. And when he remarked that it was the sanction given to the book here which had occasioned all this, because from the signature, and the orders given to the Inquisitor at Florence, they felt quite secure, and had proceeded without scruple, Urban broke out into violent complaints about the conduct of Father Riccardi and Mgr. Ciampoli, and repeated that it was a question of a most pernicious doctrine.^[17]

Nicolini, seeing that his efforts were in vain retired, but only to hasten to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and to entreat him to take up the cause of this persecuted man. But the cardinal made the pertinent excuse that he could not act against the Pope's will, but he would procure all possible relaxation of the strict quarantine regulations for Galileo. Niccolini could not even obtain any definite promise of delay; and, much discomfited and with profound sorrow, he communicated the results of his sincere and unwearied endeavours in a letter to Galileo of 13th November, 1632, and a despatch to Cioli of the same date.^[18]

A few days after the receipt of this bad news, on 19th November, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence for the second time, in accordance with the papal mandate of 11th November. He sent the following report of it on 20th November, to Rome:—

"I have again summoned Galileo Galilei, who said that he was perfectly willing to go to Rome, and only hesitated on account of his advanced age, his evident ill health, the circumstance that he was under medical treatment, and many other things. I then charged him to comply with the order to go to Rome, and in presence of a notary and two witnesses gave him a respite of one month. He again appeared quite willing, but I do not know whether he will go. I told him what I had received."^[19]

On 9th December the papal orders were issued to the Inquisitor at Florence, as soon as the month had elapsed, to compel Galileo to set out for Rome.^[20] Niccolini wrote to Cioli on the 11th^[21] and to Galileo on the 12th^[22] December, that he had again tried to procure a longer respite, but had found it impossible. He moreover strongly advised Galileo to set out as soon as possible, and stay for at least twenty days' quarantine somewhere within the territory of Siena, as this prompt obedience would be greatly to his advantage at Rome.

But the time appointed had nearly elapsed, and Galileo made no preparations for starting. Shortly before it terminated, in accordance with his instructions, the Inquisitor at Florence sent his vicar to him. On 18th December the Inquisitor sent the following report to Rome:—

"My vicar found Galileo Galilei in bed. He told him he was quite willing to come, but in these times he had no heart for it; besides, just now, owing to having been attacked by sudden illness, he was not in a condition to set out. He has sent me the enclosed medical certificate. So that I have not failed to do my duty."^[23]

The medical certificate, dated 17th December, gives a clear idea of the physical condition of this much-tried man, and we therefore give it in full, It is signed by the doctors Vettorio de Rossi, Giovanni Ronconi, and Pietro Cervieri, and is as follows:—

"We, the undersigned physicians, certify that we have examined Signor Galileo Galilei, and find that his pulse intermits every three or four beats, from which we conclude that his vital powers are affected, and at his great age much weakened. To the above are to be ascribed frequent attacks of giddiness, hypochondriacal melancholy, weakness of the stomach, sleeplessness, and flying pains about the body, to which others also can testify. We have also observed a serious hernia with rupture of the peritoneum. All these symptoms are worthy of notice, as under the least aggravation they might evidently become dangerous to life."^[24]

But much importance does not seem to have been attached to this certificate at Rome; and in a despatch of 26th December, Niccolini expressed his fears to Cioli lest the ecclesiastical authorities at Florence should receive extreme orders.^[25] Castelli also, in a letter of 25th December, urged his old master to set out.^[26] But in this, as in all his letters of this period, he shows that he had no idea of the real moment to Galileo of the proceedings going on at Rome, and he was altogether ill informed about the course things were taking.^[27] Probably great reserve was maintained towards this faithful adherent of Galileo, who was also to be his advocate. Castelli always consoled him with the assurance that, to the best of his belief, the final decision of the holy tribunal would never be against him.^[28] Even in his letter of 25th December, Castelli says that he only considers it necessary for Galileo to set out for Rome, because he entertained a singular notion that Galileo's cunning persecutors desired nothing more than that he should not come to Rome, in order that they might decry him as an obstinate rebel; for he had not committed any crime against the Holy Office! It is plain that the worthy Father Castelli was not very sharp-sighted, as he had abundantly proved before by giving up the original of the celebrated letter of Galileo's to him of 21st December, 1613.

On 30th December, the fears mentioned by Niccolini in his despatch of 26th December were realised. On that day a papal mandate was issued to the Inquisitor of Florence, which said that neither his Holiness nor the Holy Congregation could or would tolerate such evasions; it must therefore be proved whether Galileo's state was really such that he could not come to Rome without danger to his life. His Holiness and the Holy Congregation would therefore send a commissioner, with a physician, to Florence, who would visit Galileo and make a true and trustworthy report on his condition, and if he were in a state to travel, bring him a prisoner in irons to Rome (carceratum et ligatum cum ferris). If, out of consideration for his health, or other danger to life, his coming must be postponed, as soon as he had recovered and the danger was over, he was to be brought a prisoner in irons to Rome. The document concluded with the remark that the papal commissioner and the physician would travel at Galileo's expense, because he had not obeyed the command to appear at Rome when his condition would have permitted it.^[29]

To avert these extreme measures from being actually carried out, the Grand Duke told Cioli to write to Galileo on 11th January, 1633, that he (Ferdinand) took a sincere interest in the affair, and regretted that he was unable to spare him the journey, but it was at last necessary that he should obey the supreme authorities. In order that he might perform the journey more comfortably, he would place one of the grand ducal litters and a trustworthy guide at his disposal, and would also permit him to stay at the house of the ambassador, Niccolini, supposing that he would, within a month, be released from Rome.^[30]

The pitiful impotence of an Italian ruler of that day in face of the Roman hierarchy is obvious in this letter. His sovereign does not dare to protect the philosopher—the greatest of whom Italy can boast—from papal persecution, but was obliged to give him up to the dreaded Inquisition. It must not, however, be supposed that the young Ferdinand, then only twenty-two, because he had been brought up in the strictest Romish fashion by the two Grand Duchesses and Cioli, acted otherwise than any other Italian ruler would have done in the like situation. Not one of them would have had courage, nor have been independent enough of Rome, to put an energetic veto on a papal mandate like this, The Venetian Republic, in which it had been established as an axiom by Paolo Sarpi that "the power of rulers is derived immediately from God, and spiritual as well as temporal things are subject to it," was the only State of Italy which would have asserted its sovereignty and would never have delivered up one of its officials to the Roman will. Galileo now suffered a bitter penalty for his former thankless conduct to the Free State. The grand ducal orders had to be unconditionally obeyed; and as any further delay might entail the worst consequences, Galileo fixed 20th January for his departure.^[31]

Before setting out, however, on the 15th of the month, he addressed a long letter to the celebrated jurist and advocate in the parliament of Paris, Elia Diodati (not to be confounded with Johannes Diodati, the translator of the Bible), who corresponded with the most learned men of the time, and took a lively interest in Galileo's studies and fate. Some parts of this letter show how well this strictly theistic, or more properly Roman Catholic savant, knew how to bring the modern astronomy into agreement with Christian philosophy and the Bible, and this from real conviction, for this letter to his friend at Paris was quite private. From this we may conclude that even his celebrated demonstrations to Father Castelli, of 21st December, 1613, and the still more elaborate ones to the grand Duchess Christine, 1615, were the result of honest conviction, and were not, as his enemies maintained, mere dialectic fencing, intended to bring Scripture and the Copernican theory into agreement. We give these interesting passages of the letter as well as those which refer to Galileo's unhappy situation:—

 

"I am sorry that the two books of Morin^[32] and Fromond^[33] did not reach me till six months after the publication of my 'Dialogues,' because otherwise I should have had an opportunity of saying much in praise of both, and of giving some consideration to a few particular points, especially to one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished that Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and that he should pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which seem to me very uncertain) to establish its truth. It will really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, he raises astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of much mind, I could have wished not to see him fall into, in my opinion, a grave though wide-spread error; namely, in order to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls scornful jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still more unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy Scripture, and at length goes so far as to call those views on these grounds nothing less than heretical. That such a proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun, the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order and motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations of God. If asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would answer, the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the same God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never uses words which appear to be contrary to things as they really are, and are only so used to accommodate them to the understandings of rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would reply, in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of Scripture, which, in a hundred passages, says things for the above reason, that if taken literally, are not only heresies, but blasphemies, since they impute to God, anger, repentance, forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, whether God, in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding of the multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which is God’s handmaid, and is not changeable at man’s desire, has not always observed, and does not still maintain, her usual course in respect to motion, form, and relative positions of the various parts of the universe—I am certain that he would answer, the moon has always been spherical, although for a long period the people thought she was flat; he would say, in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate itself to the comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so, why, in our search for knowledge of the various parts of the universe, should we begin rather with the words than with the works of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled that the opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary, the works are indisputably proved to vary from the literal meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures the second place, no detriment to Scripture results from this. Since, in order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, even to God Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose that in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such strict laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations, out of regard for the ignorance of the masses, which are opposed to fact? If it be true that the earth moves and the sun stands still, it is no detriment to Holy Scripture, since it speaks of things as they appear to the people.

"Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning, I wrote a letter^[34] of some length, in which, supported by the authorities of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in questions of natural science, and I proposed that in future it should not be brought into them. As soon as I am in less trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less trouble, because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited the circulation of my 'Dialogues.' I hear from well-informed parties that the Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin. And all this although, in order to obtain the imprimatur, I went in person to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of the Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding, and omitting, and even after he had given it the imprimatur, ordered that it should be examined again at Florence. The reviser here, finding nothing else to alter, in order to show that he had gone through it carefully, contented himself with substituting some words for others, as, for instance, in several places, 'Universum' for 'Nature,' 'quality' for 'attribute,' 'sublime spirit' for 'divine spirit,' excusing himself to me for it by saying that he foresaw that I should have to do with fierce foes and bitter persecutors, as has indeed come to pass."^[35]

1. See Niccolini's despatch to Cioli of 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp. 425-428.)
2. Niccolini's despatch to Cioli, 18th September, 1632. (Op. ix. pp. 425-428.)
3. Vat. MS. p. 394 vo.
4. After Galileo's signature follow the autograph attestations of the notary and witnesses, of whose presence Galileo knew nothing. (Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro.)
5. Op. vii. p. 6.
6. 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.
7. There is no clue whatever as to who this personage was. From what Galileo says, it must have been some high ecclesiastical dignitary.
8. 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."
9. Op. vii. pp. 7–13.
10. Vat. Ms. fol. 403 ro.
11. Op. ix. pp. 304–306.
12. Ibid. pp. 428, 429.
13. Niccolini was mistaken if he thought that this tribunal was, according to ecclesiastical notions, infallible.
14. Op. ix. p. 311.
15. See Niccolini to Cioli, 6th November. (Wolynski, "La Diplomazia," etc., p. 50.)
16. Gherardi's Collection of Documents, Doc. vii.
17. 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.)
18. For these documents, from which the above narrative is taken, see Op. ix. pp. 312, 313 and 429, 430.
19. Vat. MS. fol. 401 ro.
20. Gherardi's Documents, and Vat. MS. fol. 402 vo.
21. Op. ix. pp. 430, 431.
22. Ibid. pp. 318, 319.
23. Vat. MS. fol. 406 ro.
24. Ibid. pp. 407 ro.
25. Op. ix. p. 431.
26. Ibid. pp. 319, 320.
27. See Castelli’s Letters to Galileo of 2nd and 16th Oct., 1632. (Op. ix. pp. 295–298, and 299–301.)
28. See his letters. (Op. ix. pp. 306, 307, and 313–315.)
29. "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.)
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. "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 oridur et occidit. Eccles. Cap. I. Parisiis apud tuctorem juxta Pontem novum 1631, in 40."
33. 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. Anverpiæ ex officina Plantiniana 1631, in 40."
34. The letter to the Grand Duchess Christine.
35. Op. vii. pp. 16-20.