The First Hearing.—Galileo’s submissive Attitude.—The Events of February, 1616.—Galileo denies Knowledge of a Special Prohibition.—Produces Bellarmine’s Certificate.—Either the Prohibition was not issued, or Galileo’s Ignorance was feigned.—His Conduct since 1616 agrees with its non-issue.—The Inquisitor assumes that it was issued.—Opinions of Oregius, Inchofer, and Pasqualigus.—Galileo has Apartments in the Palace of the Holy Office assigned to him.—Falls ill.—Letter to Geri Bocchineri.—Change of Tone at second Hearing hitherto an Enigma.—Now explained by Letter from Firenzuola to Cardinal Fr. Barberini.—Galileo’s Confession.—His Weakness and Subserviency. On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress of mind, for his first hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the fiscal attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all his answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of shortening the proceedings and averting a severe sentence by submissive acquiescence. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to form a correct judgment of his depositions before the dread tribunal.[352]
According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to the accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether he knows or conjectures the reason of his citation. Galileo replied that he supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He was then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” which treats of the two systems of the world, as entirely his own; to which he[202] replied after a close examination of the copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written by himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes to know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason. He deposed that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he had heard that scruples were entertained about the Copernican opinions, and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter, in order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This deposition seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case; for we know that he went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the one hand, to frustrate the intrigues of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert the threatened prohibition of the Copernican doctrines by his scientific demonstrations. The motive of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact that he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of 5th March.
The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a summons. “In the year 1616 I came of my own accord to Rome, without being summoned,” was the decided answer. The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time with several cardinals of the Holy Office. He explained that these conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he might instruct them about Copernicus’s book, which was difficult for laymen to understand, as they specially desired to acquaint themselves with the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. The Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.
Galileo: “Respecting the controversy which had arisen on the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary, and the earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index, that such an opinion,[203] considered as an established fact, contradicted Holy Scripture, and was only admissible as a conjecture (ex suppositione), as it was held by Copernicus.”[353]
Inquisitor: “Was this decision then communicated to you, and by whom?”
Galileo: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.”
Inquisitor: “You must state what his Eminence Cardinal Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether he said anything else on the subject, and what?”
Galileo: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, provincial of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that your reverence and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with speaking ex suppositione, and not with certainty.’ This letter of the cardinal’s is dated 12th April, 1615.[354] It means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely, must not be either held or defended.”
Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616, and communicated to him.
Galileo: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith submit a copy.”[355]
Inquisitor: “When the above communication was made to you, were any other persons present, and who?”
Galileo: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some Dominican[204] fathers were present, but I did not know them, and have never seen them since.”
Inquisitor: “Was any other command communicated to you on this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any one else, and what?”
Galileo: “I remember that the transaction took place as follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning, and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[356] But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican opinion, being contradictory to Holy Scripture, must not be held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not remember it, for it is several years ago.”
Inquisitor: “If what was then said and enjoined upon you as a command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?”
Galileo: “I do not remember that anything else was said or enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun is stationary.”
The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him before witnesses contained: “that he must neither hold, defend, nor teach that opinion in any way whatsoever.”[357] Will he please to say whether he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.
Galileo: “I do not remember that the command was intimated to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally; and I remember that the command was, not to hold nor defend. It may be that, ‘and not to teach’ was also there. I do not remember it, neither the definition ‘in any way[205] whatsoever’ (quovis modo), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as a few months later I received the certificate now produced, of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in which the injunction given me, not to hold nor defend that opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions of the said injunction which have just been made known to me, namely, not to teach, and in any way, I have not retained in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a reminder.”
Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal Bellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a command was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; but true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: “It may be, but I do not remember it.” But the Inquisitor treats the issue of the “command” as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may have appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the decree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity with it was issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo “that this command issued to him before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend, nor teach that opinion.” Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any way whatever” and “nor teach,” sound new, entrenches himself behind his stereotyped answer, “I do not remember it.” Then he appeals to the certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which does not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query who intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: “Cardinal Bellarmine.” He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the cardinal’s communication as the command. Galileo’s depositions do not contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of 26th February reports), after the cardinal’s communication, any further instruction was given him by[206] the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important proceeding should have entirely escaped Galileo’s memory. There are but two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo cannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.
Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial acumen, and whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo would only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if it would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen—supposing him to make false depositions—from the Inquisitor’s questions that he had the protocol of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction be in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his cause by stamping him as a liar. Wohlwill has pointed out that it would have been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed ignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner, never contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo’s depositions. His simplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course of the trial he should never for a moment deviate from his difficult part.
While the complexity of such a mode of defence renders the assumption of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all Galileo’s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the[207] strongest evidence for the credibility of his depositions. We recur first, simply to the letters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no trace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses his satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an entire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains open. And the attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new system is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. This is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published in the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought, more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues” themselves, in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would have infringed an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system.
We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements, in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold, teach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does not take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted on the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for example, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th February, 1616, and confront[208] them with the accused. And as no attempt is made to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply taken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say the least, were guilty of a great breach of judicial order, in using, without any close examination, a paper as a valid document on the trial, which was destitute of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely, the signatures of the accused, of the notary and witnesses, and in spite of three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments are needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from mere carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared that he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he afterwards had printed?
Galileo: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine, because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold, defend, or to teach the said opinion.”
The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what way, Galileo had received permission to print the “Dialogues.” Galileo br............