Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and that of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks, "the secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the expense of truth,"[1] it would not have put forth so downright a lie in optima forma as the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed prohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition. This prohibition might easily have been passed over in silence, while the calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the cardinal was not content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had "only" been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the Index about the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine's glaringly contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it not only entirely accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also with Bellarmine's report of the proceedings of 26th February in the private sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the cardinal certified nothing more nor less than what had actually taken place. It leads therefore to the following conclusions:—
1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal's admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine.
2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him.
3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616, is therefore untrue.
These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of historical events will confirm them step by step, while it can by no means be made to tally with the assumed strict injunction of the Commissary-General. Next however,
- ↑ Martin, pp. 79, 80.
a preséte di nŕa propria mano questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Cardle. Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.)
