# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 21

PART III.
GALILEO'S LAST YEARS.
CHAPTER I.
GALILEO AT SIENA AND ARCETRI.
Galileo arrived safely at Siena on 9th July, and was most heartily welcomed by Ascanio Piccolomini. 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, 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 ​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. 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. 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.
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 ​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 1644. 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.
Your Reverences, as brother, Cardinal of St. Onufrius.
Rome, 2nd July, 1633.
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.
​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 (phanaticœ 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."
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. On 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.
​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."
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 ​come to his ears that some people were writing in defence of the Copernican system. Niccolini hastened to assure him that Galileo was not in the least implicated in it, and that it was done entirely without his knowledge. Urban answered drily, that he had not been exactly informed that Galileo had anything to do with it, but he had better beware of the Holy Office. In spite of reiterated urgent entreaty, Niccolini could get nothing more definite about Galileo's release than the above evasive promise, and he communicated the doubtful success of his mission to Cioli in a despatch of 13th November, in rather a depressed state of mind.
Urban was not disposed to grant a full pardon to Galileo, and therefore made a pretext of the Congregation to the ambassador, as if the decision depended upon it, whereas it rested entirely with himself. Niccolini, however, still persisted in his efforts. He went to Cardinal Barberini and other members of the Holy Office, warmly recommending him to their protection. Meanwhile an indisposition of the Pope, which lasted fourteen days, delayed the decision, as the Congregation did not venture to come to any without his concurrence. At length he made his appearance in the sitting of the Congregation of 1st December, and through the mediation of Cardinal Barberini, the petition for Galileo's release was at once laid before him. It was refused; but he was to be permitted to retire to a villa at Arcetri, a miglio from Florence, where he was to remain until he heard further; he was not to receive any visits, but to live in the greatest retirement. Niccolini informed him of this amelioration of his circumstances in a letter of 3rd December, with the expression of great regret that he could not at present obtain his entire liberation. He added that the Pope had ​charged him to say that Galileo might go to Arcetri at once, that he might receive his friends and relations there, but not in large numbers at one time, as this might give rise to the idea that he was giving scientific lectures. A few days after the receipt of this letter Galileo set out for Arcetri.
No sooner had he reached his villa, called "il Giojello," which was pleasantly situated, than he made it his first care to thank Cardinal Barberini warmly for his urgent intercession, which had, however, only effected this fresh alleviation of his sad fate. Some rhetorical historians make Galileo's two daughters leave the Convent of St. Matteo, which was certainly within gunshot of "Giojello," in order to tend their old and suffering father with childlike and tender care; a touching picture, but without any historical foundation. On the contrary, it was really one of Galileo's greatest consolations to pay frequent visits to his daughters, to whom he was tenderly attached, at St. Matteo, when permitted to do so by the Holy Office. It was also a great satisfaction to him that on a very early day after his arrival at Arcetri the Grand Duke came from Florence, and paid the convict of the Inquisition a long visit.
But while Galileo was once more partaking of some pleasures, the implacable malice of his enemies never slumbered. ​There were even some who would have been glad to know that he was for ever safe in the dungeons of the Inquisition. As, however, he gave them no pretext on which they could, with any shadow of justice, have seized him, they had recourse to the most disgraceful means—to lying, anonymous denunciation, in which his enlightened and therefore disliked friend, the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, was ingeniously involved. On 1st February, 1634, the following communication, without signature, was received at the Holy Office at Rome from Siena:—
Most Reverend Sirs,—
Galileo has diffused in this city opinions not very Catholic, urged on by this Archbishop, his host, who has suggested to many persons that Galileo had been unjustly treated with so much severity by the Holy Office, and that he neither could nor would give up his philosophical opinions which he had defended with irrefragable and true mathematical arguments; also that he is the first man in the world, and will live for ever in his works, to which, although prohibited, all modern distinguished men give in their adherence. Now since seeds like these, sown by a prelate of the Church, might bring forth evil fruit, a report is made of them.
Although this cowardly denunciation did not bear any immediate consequences either to Piccolomini or Galileo, events which took place soon after show most clearly the unfavourable impression it produced at the Vatican. Galileo, who was very unwell, asked permission of the Pope, through the mediation of his faithful friend Niccolini, to move into Florence for the sake of the regular medical treatment which he required, and which he could not well have at the villa outside the city. As if to dye his tragic fate still darker, just while he was awaiting the result of Niccolini's efforts, his favourite daughter Polissena, or by her conventual name Marie Celeste, was taken so ill that her life was soon despaired of.
It was on one of the last days of March that Galileo was returning to his villa with a physician from a visit to his ​dying daughter at the Convent of St. Matteo, in deep depression of spirits. On the way the physician had prepared him for the worst by telling him that the patient would scarcely survive till the morning, which proved to be the case. On entering his house in anguish of soul, he found the messenger of the Inquisition there, who in the name of the Holy Office gave him a strict injunction to abstain from all such petitions in future, unless he desired to compel the Inquisition to imprison him again. This unmerciful proceeding had been ordered by a papal mandate of 23rd March. The Inquisitor at Florence reported on it on 1st April to Cardinal Barberini, as follows:—
"I have communicated to Galileo what was commanded by your Eminence. He adduced as an excuse that he had only done it on account of a frightful rupture. But the villa he lives in is so near the city that he can easily have the physicians and surgeons there, as well as the medicines he requires."
A passage in a letter from Galileo to Geri Bocchineri at Florence, of 27th April, shows that the excuse was no empty pretext, and that he urgently needed to have medical aid always at hand. He says:—
"I am going to write to you about my health, which is very bad. I suffer much more from the rupture than has been the case before; my pulse intermits, and I have often violent palpitation of the heart; then the most profound melancholy has come over me. I have no appetite, and loathe myself; in short, I feel myself perpetually called by my beloved daughter. Under these circumstances I do not think it advisable that Vincenzo should set out on a journey now, as events might occur at any time which might make his presence desirable, for besides what I have mentioned, continued sleeplessness alarms me not a little."
A letter to Diodati at Paris, from Galileo, of 25th July, is also of great interest; an insight may be gained from it, not only into his melancholy state of mind, but it also contains some remarkable indications of the motives for the ​fierce persecution on the part of Rome. We give the portions of the letter which are important for our subject:—
"I hope that when you hear of my past and present misfortunes, and my anxiety about those perhaps still to come, it will serve as an excuse to you and my other friends and patrons there (at Paris), for my long delay in answering your letter, and to them for my entire silence, as they can learn from you the unhappy turn which my affairs have taken. According to the sentence pronounced on me by the Holy Office, I was condemned to imprisonment during the pleasure of his Holiness, who was pleased, however, to assign the palace and gardens of the Grand Duke near the Trinità dei Monti, as my place of imprisonment. As this was in June of last year, and I had been given to understand that if I asked for a full pardon after the lapse of that and the following month, I should receive it, I asked meanwhile, to avoid having to spend the whole summer and perhaps part of the autumn there, to be allowed, on account of the season, to go to Siena, where the Archbishop's house was assigned to me as a residence. I staid there five months, when this durance was exchanged for banishment to this little villa, a miglio from Florence, with a strict injunction not to go to the city, and neither to receive the visits of many friends at once, nor to invite any. Here, then, I was living, keeping perfectly quiet, and paying frequent visits to a neighbouring convent, where two daughters of mine were living as nuns; I was very fond of them, especially of the eldest, who possessed high mental gifts, combined with rare goodness of heart, and she was very much attached to me. During my absence, which she considered very perilous for me, she fell into a profound melancholy, which undermined her health, and she was at last attacked by a violent dysentery, of which she died after six days' illness, just thirty-three years of age, leaving me in the deepest grief, which was increased by another calamity. On returning home from the convent, in company with the doctor who visited my sick daughter shortly before her death, and who had just told me that her situation was desperate, and that she would scarcely survive till the next day, as indeed it proved, I found the Inquisitor's Vicar here, who informed me of a mandate from the Holy Office at Rome, which had just been communicated to the Inquisitor in a letter from Cardinal Barberini, that I must in future abstain from asking permission to return to Florence, or they would take me back there (to Rome), and put me in the actual prison of the Holy Office. This was the answer to the petition, which the Tuscan ambassador had presented to that tribunal after I had been nine months in exile! From this answer it seems to me that, in all probability, my present prison will only be exchanged for that narrow and long-enduring one which awaits us all.
From this and other circumstances, which it would take too long to repeat here, it will be seen that the fury of my powerful persecutors continually increases. They have at length chosen to reveal themselves to ​me; for about two months ago, when a dear friend of mine at Rome was speaking of my affairs to Father Christopher Griemberger, mathematician at the college there, this Jesuit uttered the following precise words:—'If Galileo had only known how to retain the favour of the fathers of this college, he would have stood in renown before the world, he would have been spared all his misfortunes, and could have written what he pleased about everything, even about the motion of the earth!' From this you will see, honoured Sir, that it is not this opinion or that which has brought, and still brings about my calamities, but my being in disgrace with the Jesuits.
I have also other proofs of the watchfulness of my persecutors. One is that a letter from some foreigner, I do not know from whom, addressed to me at Rome, where he supposed me still to be, was intercepted, and delivered to Cardinal Barberini. It was fortunate for me, as was afterwards written to me from Rome, that it did not purport to be an answer to one from me, but a communication containing the warmest praises of my "Dialogues." It was seen by many persons, and, as I hear, copies of it were circulated at Rome. I have also been told that I might see it. To add to all this, there are other mental disquietudes and many bodily sufferings oppressing me at the age of over seventy years, so that the least exertion is a torment and a burden to me. In consideration of all this, my friends must be indulgent to me for omissions which look like neglect, but really arise from inability."
This deep dejection, however, could not last long with a man of so active a mind as Galileo. The impulse which had been implanted in him to investigate the problems of nature was too strong to be repressed by either mental or bodily sufferings. So far from it, it was this which, ever re-asserting itself with its normal energy, helped him to bear them with resignation, and he often forgot his painful situation in his scientific speculations. Thus, but a few months after his daughter's death, we find him rousing himself and eagerly at work again on his masterpiece, the "Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze." He also resumed his extensive scientific correspondence, of which unfortunately, and especially of the following year, 1635, the letters of his correspondents only have mostly come down to us.
​While the prisoner of Arcetri was thus eagerly fulfilling his great mission to his age, his friends were exerting themselves in vain to obtain at least an extension of his liberty. The Count de Noailles, French ambassador at Rome, had once attended Galileo's lectures at Padua, and had become so enthusiastic an adherent, that he afterwards told Castelli that he must see Galileo once more before leaving Italy, even if he walked fifty miles on purpose. He therefore united his efforts with Niccolini's to obtain some amelioration for Galileo. But in vain. At an audience which Niccolini had on 8th December, 1634, Urban said indeed that he esteemed Galileo very highly, and was well disposed towards him; but all remained as before.
In the year 1634 the band of dauntless men, who again and again ventured to attempt to obtain Galileo's liberty from the papal chair, was increased by the celebrated officer of state and man of learning, Fabri von Peiresc. Like Noailles, he had attended Galileo's lectures at Padua, had since been one of his most ardent admirers, and had long maintained friendly intercourse with Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Peiresc now interceded eagerly with this prelate for Galileo, and even ventured openly to say, in a long and pressing letter of 8th December, 1634, to Barberini.:— . . "Really such proceedings will be considered very harsh, and far more so by posterity than at present, when no one, as it appears, cares for anything but his own interests. Indeed, it will be a blot upon the brilliance and renown of the pontificate of Urban VIII., unless your Eminence resolves to devote your special attention to this affair. . . ." On ​2nd January, 1635, Barberini wrote a long letter in reply, in which he was prolix enough on many subjects, but about Galileo he only made the dry remark, towards the end of the letter, that he would not fail to speak to his Holiness about it, but Peiresc must excuse him if, as a member of the Holy Office, he did not go into the subject more particularly. In spite of this, however, only four weeks later, Peiresc again urged Barberini, in a letter of 31st January, to exert his powerful influence on behalf of Galileo. Peiresc justified his zeal by saying, "that it arose as much from regard for the honour and good name of the present pontificate, as from affection for the venerable and famous old man, Galileo; for it might well happen, by a continuance of the harsh proceedings against him, that some day posterity would compare them with the persecutions to which Socrates was subjected."
Galileo, who had received copies of these letters, thanked Peiresc most warmly in a letter of 21st February, 1635, for his noble though fruitless efforts, and added the following remarkable words:—
If the issue of the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616 were admitted, this letter would be a piece of hypocrisy as glaring as it was purposeless; for in that case Galileo would not have been an innocent man under condemnation, who had committed no crime, and his conscience could not have consoled him in his painful situation. What he wrote to Peiresc about his religious spirit was also quite true. Galileo really was a truly religious man; his own revolutionary discoveries had not for a moment given rise to any doubts in his mind of supernatural mysteries as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. All his letters, even to his most intimate friends, proclaim it indisputably. He also perfectly well knew how to make his researches and their results agree with the dogmas of his religion, as is clear from his explanations to Castelli, Mgr. Dini, and the Grand Duchess Christine. The strangest contradictions were continually arising from this blending of a learned man striving to search out the truths of nature, and a member of the only true Church bound in the fetters of illusive credulity. Thus, at the end of 1633, he did not hesitate to act in opposition to his solemn oath, literally construed, by secretly sending a copy of his condemned and prohibited "Dialogues" to Diodati, at Paris, that they might be translated into Latin, and thus be more widely circulated. In 1635 the work really appeared in a Latin translation, from the press of the Elzevirs, in Holland, edited by a Strasburg professor, Mathias Bernegger, in order that no suspicion might rest upon Galileo of having had anything to do with ​it. Such an act was very improper for a pious Catholic, and Galileo really was one. In the following year, however, he told his old friend, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, at Venice, with great delight, that Bernegger had brought out by the same publishers the Apology to the Grand Duchess Christine of 1615, in Italian with a Latin translation. The secret translator, concealed under the pseudonym of Ruberto Robertini Borasso, was also Diodati. In a letter to Micanzio, as well as in another of 12th July, Galileo expressed an ardent wish that a large number of copies of it might be introduced into Italy, "to shame his enemies and calumniators. As we know, this letter to the Grand Duchess contained nothing but a theological apology for the Copernican system, so that what gratified Galileo so much in its publication, was that the world would now learn that he, who had been denounced as a heretic, had always been an orthodox Christian, into whose head it had never entered, as his enemies gave out, to attack the holy faith. Martin is quite justified in saying that "the reputation of a good Christian and true Catholic was as dear to Galileo as that of a good astronomer."
While Galileo was enjoying the twofold satisfaction of seeing his "Dialogues" attain a wider circulation (they had meanwhile been translated into English), and yet of being acknowledged as a pious subject of the Roman Catholic Church, the Count de Noailles continued his efforts at Rome, before his approaching departure from Italy, to obtain pardon for Galileo. Castelli, who, in consequence of his too great devotion to Galileo and his system, had been banished for three years from Urban's presence, had ​at length, by the end of 1635, been taken into favour again, and reported faithfully to Galileo all the steps taken to procure his liberty. The utmost caution had been exercised in order to attain this end. Count Noailles and Castelli had persuaded Cardinal Antonio Barberini, in repeated interviews, that nothing had been further from Galileo's intention than to offend or make game of Urban VIII., upon which the cardinal, at the request of the French ambassador, promised to intercede with his papal brother for Galileo. On 11th July Noailles made the same assurances to the Pope at an audience, whereupon he exclaimed: "Lo crediamo, lo crediamo!" (We believe it), and again said that he was personally very well disposed to Galileo, and had always liked him; but when Noailles began to speak of his liberation, he said evasively that this affair was of the greatest moment to all Christendom. The French diplomatist, who knew Urban's irritable temper, did not think it advisable to press him further, and consoled himself for the time, even after this cool reply, with the thought that the brother cardinal had promised to use his good offices for Galileo.
Castelli informed Galileo in a letter of 12th July of all this, and advised him to write a letter of thanks to Cardinal Antonio for his kind intercession, which he at once did. Noailles placed all his hopes on a farewell audience with the Pope, in which he meant to ask for Galileo's pardon. On 8th August he drove for the last time to the Vatican. Urban was very gracious, and when Galileo's affairs were introduced he even promised at last to bring the subject ​before the Holy Congregation. Noailles told Cardinal Antonio of this most favourable result with joyful emotion, who said at once: "Good! good! and I will speak to all the cardinals of the Holy Congregation." They were apparently justified in entertaining the most sanguine hopes, but the future taught them that all this was nothing but fair speeches with which Urban had taken leave of the French ambassador. For there can be no doubt that if the Pope, with bis absolute power, had been in earnest about Galileo's liberation, the Congregation would not have been slow to comply with his wishes. Galileo, however, remained as before, a prisoner in his villa at Arcetri, which he had meanwhile bought, and the papal favour, of which a promise had been held out, was limited to allowing him, at the end of September, to accept an invitation from the Grand Duke to visit him at his Villa Mezzomonte, three miles from Florence, and on 16th October to leave his place of exile for one day to greet the Count de Noailles, at Poggibonsi, in passing through it on his way to France. This was the extent of the papal clemency for the present, and it was not till the old man was quite blind and hopelessly ill with one foot in the grave, that any humane feeling was awakened for him at the Vatican.
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 372.
* ↑ Op. vii. pp. 31, 32.
* ↑ Comp. the letters of Cioli and Geri Bocchineri to Galileo of 28th July. (Op. ix. pp. 278, 279.)
* ↑ 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. xviii.
* ↑ Page 68.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 390-392.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 544.
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 75-77, 81; Suppl. pp. 362, 363.
* ↑ 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.
* ↑ Venturi, vol ii. p. 127.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 447, 448.
* ↑ Comp. Niccolini's despatch to Cioli, 3rd Dec. (Op. ix. p. 448.)
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 534 ro.
* ↑ Vat. MS., fol. without paging after 534; also Gherardi's Documents, Doc. xx.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 407, 408.
* ↑ At the close of this year two documents were published which have often been used as historical sources for the story of Galileo's trial; namely, (1) a narration by Francesco Buonamici of the famous trial; and (2) an assumed letter of Galileo's to his friend and correspondent, Father Vincenzo Renieri, intended to give a concise history of the trial. The first has been pronounced by historical research to be quite worthless, even if not, as H. Martin (p. 185) thinks, a forgery; the second as decidedly apocryphal, so that neither are mentioned here. (Comp. Op. ix. pp. 449-452; vii. pp. 40-43; and the valuable treatise by G. Guasti: "Le relazioni di Galileo con alcuni Pratesi a proposito del Falso Buonamici scopalto del Signor H. Martin." Archivo Storico Italiano. Firenze, 1873, vol. xvii.)
* ↑ See Galileo's letter to Barberini, 17th December, 1633. (Vat. MS. fol. 541 ro.)
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 2 and 11.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 547.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 549.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 550 vo.; and Gherardi's Documents, Doc. xxii.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 551 ro.
* ↑ Op. vii. p. 44.
* ↑ Op. vii. pp. 46-51.
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 66-69; 71-74; vii. pp. 56, 57.
* ↑ Op. vii. pp. 52-58; x. 41-134; Suppl. pp. 271-278.
* ↑ Castelli's letter to Galileo, 2nd Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 64.)
* ↑ Castelli's letter to Galileo, 9th Dec., 1634. (Op. x. p. 65.)
* ↑ Comp. Piresc's leter to Galileo, 26th Jan., 1634 (Op. x. pp. 8-11), and to Card. Barberini, 5th Dec, 1635 (Op. x. p. 94).
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 94-96. In Albèri the date of this letter is wrongly given as 1635; Pieralisi has found the original of it in the Barberiana, with date 5th Dec, 1634. (Pieralisi, pp. 304-310.)
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 96-98. In Albèri this letter is dated 1636 instead of 1635.
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 98, 99. Date wrongly given in Albèri as 13th instead of 31st Jan. See Pieralisi, pp. 313-317.
* ↑ These words were written in a truly prophetic spirit; for such a parallel was actually drawn by Voltaire in (vol. iv. p. 145) his "Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations, et sur les principaux faits de l'histoire, depuis Charlemagne jusquà Louis XIII."
* ↑ Op. Suppl. pp. 361-363.
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 25-33; vii. pp. 52, 53, and 128.
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 29-33; vii. p. 140.
* ↑ Op. vii. pp. 65, 66, and 67, 68; also Galileo's letter to Bernegger, 15th July, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 69, 70.)
* ↑ Page 222.
* ↑ Comp. Galileo's letter to Giovanni Buonamici, 16th August, 1636. (Op. vii. pp. 139, 140.)
* ↑ See Castelli's letter to Galileo of 2nd June, 1635, in which he says that "he had at last been again permitted to kiss his Holiness's toe." (Op. x. pp. 99, 100.)
* ↑ Comp. the letters of Castelli and the Count de Noailles to Galileo of 19th April and 6th May, 1636. (Op. x. pp. 149, 150, and 153.)
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 159, 160
* ↑ Op. x. pp. 161 and 163.
* ↑ See Castelli's letter to Galileo, 9th August. (Op. x. pp. 163, 164.)
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Op. Suppl. p. 280.
* ↑ Op. x. p. 172.