# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 4

CHAPTER IV.
ASTRONOMY AND THEOLOGY.
While the storm which was to burst over Galileo's head was thus slowly gathering, he was making important progress in the departments of physics and mechanics.
His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important results. In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic philosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating or partial immersion of bodies in water depended chiefly on their form, for by his approved method of studying the open book of nature he clearly showed the error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid the foundations of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of course; but their polemics cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of antiquated wisdom had in their impotence mostly to content themselves with wretched sophisms as opposed to Galileo's hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the authority of Aristotle.
The combatants who took the field with various writings to ​defend the Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were the professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle Colombo, in 1612, and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered by Benedetto Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the National Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity for his opponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune. Although professing to be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to belong to the Greek Non-Uniat church, which entailed the loss of his professorship at the University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to answer Palmerini, but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The lame objections of the other two received a brilliant refutation in a work published in 1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in the National Library at Florence, which is mostly in Galileo's handwriting, it is evident that he was the real author.
During the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the treatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy with the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of their discovery. In three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there in 1612) he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym of "Apelles," the earliest observation of these appearances, and explained them conformably to the traditional opinions. He propounded the ingenious idea that these spots were a multitude of little planets, passing over the sun's disk as they revolved round the earth. By this clever explanation he secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed himself the decided foe of Galileo. Challenged to do so by Welser, Galileo replied in three letters addressed to him, in which "Apelles" came off but poorly. Galileo ​convincingly refuted his opponent's explanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his own right to the priority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made it known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner's, were published in March, 1613, under the title "History and Explanation of the Solar Spots," with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a dedication to his illustrious friend Salviati, of the "Accadémia dei Lincei."
The publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican system. This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these essays. The controversy on the two systems came more and more to the front. And yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples seem at first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical circles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals Maffeo Barberini (afterwards Pope Urban VIII), and Federigo Borromeo thanking Galileo in the most friendly terms for sending them his work, and expressing their sincere admiration for the researches described in it. And Battista Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a similar letter of thanks, not only fully endorsed these opinions, but expressed his firm belief that they would in time be universally acknowledged, although now they had many opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable character, and partly from the envy and obstinacy of those who had from the first maintained the contrary view.
The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less friendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics at the papal residence. Father Castelli, who in ​October of the same year was called to the chair of mathermatics at this university, reports in a letter of 6th November, in which he tells Galileo what reception he had met with from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of the university, Mgr. D'Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his first interview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of the earth, or even take occasion in any digression to mention it as probable!
An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate cause of turning the controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo. One day in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were guests at the Grand Duke's table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. The conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena of the Medicean stars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia, professor of physics at the university, was constrained with a heavy heart to confirm in answer to the question of the Grand Duke's mother, Christine. Castelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo's splendid discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master his displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that all Galileo's telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth, only the double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay impossible, as the Holy Scriptures were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then over, and Castelli took leave, but he had scarcely left the palace when he saw Christine's porter hastening after him and calling him back. He obeyed, and found the whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke's apartments. Christine now began, after a few introductory remarks, to attack the Copernican doctrines, appealing to Holy Scripture. Castelli at first made some humble attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into the controversy; but as this was of no avail he resolutely took the theological standpoint, and defended the modern views of the universe so impressively and ​convincingly that nearly all present, even the Grand Duke and his consort, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone made any opposition. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause of the unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion.
Castelli hastened to apprise Galileo of this incident, but remarked expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand Duchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear his replies.
This then was the provocation to that famous letter of Galileo's to his friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological digressions occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended for publication, was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents, and to form the groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been related it will be seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo that it was he who first introduced the theological question into the scientific controversy about the two systems is entirely unwarranted. On the contrary, these explanations to Castelli, of 21st December, bear telling testimony to the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the Scriptures involved in a purely scientific discussion, and that the right of deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He sharply defines the relation in which the Bible stands to natural science, marking the limits which it can only pass at the expense of the healthy understanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully admits that the Scriptures cannot lie or err, but thinks that this does not hold good of all their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions, nay, even in heresies and blasphemy, if they always interpret the Bible in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must attribute to God hands, feet, and ears, human feeling such as anger, repentance, hatred, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future.
"As therefore," continues Galileo, "the Holy Scriptures in ​many places not only admit but actually require a different explanation from what seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands; it was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which apparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contains thousands of words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature."
Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself intelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even its main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God which are unlike His character and even opposed to it, who will maintain that in speaking incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes to clothe its real meaning in words literally true? Proceeding on the principle that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo goes on to draw the following conclusions.
"Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the part of the wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find out the real meaning of its statements, in accordance with the conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the ​literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to man's understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be known in the world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best not to add, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation and the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are in no danger of having at any time cogent reasons brought against them, especially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who, although quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are obviously destitute of those faculties which are needed, I will not say for the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations by which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.
I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, and which being far above man's understanding cannot be made credible by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit. But that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us in any other way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire for ourselves by means of those faculties, that it seems to me I am not bound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and this is precisely the case with astronomy, of which there is so little that the planets are not even all enumerated."
Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a scientific controversy was only a subterfuge of his ​opponents, who, feeling that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had entrenched themselves behind an unassailable bulwark, Galileo proceeds to discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were fond of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern views and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries with their own weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally, and God really arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua's prayer, and thus prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the impossibility, of the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican agrees with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes on, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west to east, and the daily one from east to west. Being diametrically opposed to each other, they cannot both be the sun's own motions. The annual motion is the one which belongs to it; the other originates in the primum mobile, which carries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions day and night. If therefore God desired to prolong' the day (supposing the Ptolemaic system to be the right one) He must have commanded, not the sun but the primum mobile, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the Bible that God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the heavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained them to be, or the literal meaning must be departed from, and we must conclude that the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God commanded the sun to stand still, meant the primum mobile, but, accommodating themselves to the comprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun, said just the opposite of what they would have said to scientifically educated people. Galileo also says that it was highly improbable that God should have commanded the sun alone to stand still, and have allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature would have been deranged by it without any occasion, and his belief was that God had enjoined a temporary rest on the ​whole system of the universe, at the expiration of which all the heavenly bodies, undisturbed in their mutual relations, could have begun to revolve again in perfect order: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like irony.
At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the passage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar spots the revolution of the sun on its axis is demonstrated; moreover it is also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature, the heart of the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with certainty, is the source of light to the planets revolving round it, but also lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a revolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal motion on its own axis, it would certainly suffice merely to stop the sun in his course, in order to bring the whole system to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day without disordering nature.
Castelli saw nothing ominous in this exhaustive reply to the Grand Duchess Christine's objections, and took care to give it a wide circulation by means of numerous copies. Galileo's enemies, however, eagerly grasped the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their hands by his friend. They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which exactly adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo's emphatic opinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific controversy into the reproach that he assailed the universal authority of the Bible; by making Joshua’s miracle the subject of his disquisitions he laid himself open to the cutting remark that the statements of Holy Scripture must be protected from the arbitrary interpretations of profane laymen.
Gherardini, the worthy bishop of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely unaware of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged about the system that Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened to bring the matter ​before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified by being informed that the founder of that system was not any man then living in Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before, and that his work had been dedicated to Pope Paul III., and had been graciously accepted by him.
Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in Father Caccini, a Dominican monk, the right tool for setting on foot the long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse of the pulpit, for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And as the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared as Galileo's first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon against the astronomer and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent, 1614, in the church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his wit by selecting as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter of Joshua and the first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: Viri Galilœi quid statis aspicientes in cœlum: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" Astronomy was thus happily introduced into the pulpit. The furious preacher asserted that the doctrine taught by Galileo in Florence, of the earth's revolution round the sun, was quite irreconcilable with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly contradicted several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning of which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, as he further asserted that no one was permitted to interpret the Bible in any other sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as good as denounced the doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a coarse attack on mathematicians in general, whose science he called an invention of the devil; and with a wish that they should be banished from all Christian states, since all heresies proceeded from them.
As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished for his learning, who was all his life an admirer of Galileo, told ​him in a letter of 10th January, 1615, how heartily he regretted this miserable exhibition. He said, among other things: "I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which has taken place, and the more so because the author of it is a brother of my order; for, unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities (tutte le bestialità) which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and do actually commit." This sentence has caused all Galileo's biographers who mention this letter, with the exception of Nelli, to conclude that Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a glance at the Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum, etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif and Echard, would have shown them that from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin Secco, of Pavia, was general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi. Perhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the Dominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.
Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the insult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But Prince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any steps were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the affair and to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal Bellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told him (Cesi) that he held the opinion to be heretical, and that the principle of the earth's double motion was undoubtedly contrary to Holy Scripture. In this complicated state of affairs the prince recommended that several mathematicians should complain of the public insults to the science of mathematics and its disciples. But he gave another express warning to leave the Copernican system entirely alone, or they might take occasion at Rome to consult whether the further spread of this opinion was to be permitted or con​demned. Cesi added that in that case it would very likely be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there, and its opponents were generally hated; besides, it was very easy to prohibit and suspend.
Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus to all the later persecutions of Galileo.
The questionable merit of having brought Galileo's affairs before the tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend of Caccini, and brother of the same order. Galileo's fatal letter to Castelli had fallen into his hands; and when, later on, thanks to Caccini's zeal, a great ferment began about it in monkish circles at Florence, Lorini was moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a copy of it secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement, which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the Congregation of the Index, is couched in a most artful and miserable style. The denunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention Galileo by name (for he still had powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of the Church), only speaks of the "Galileists" in general, "who maintain, agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and the heavens stand still." He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus, in order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question. Lorini goes on to say: "all the fathers of this (his own) devout convent of St. Mark find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or presumptuous, as when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture are indefinite; that in discussions about natural phenomena the lowest place must be assigned to them; that the commentators have often been mistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should not be mixed up with anything but matters of religion; that in nature philosophical and astronomical evidence is of more value than holy and Divine (which pas​sages your reverence will find underlined by me in the said letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only understand that the command was addressed to the primum mobile, as this itself is the sun." In these statements Lorini perceives great peril for the Church; he is indignant "that they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures after their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation of the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy Scriptures appear to be entirely opposed to. . . . They tread the entire philosophy of Aristotle, of which scholastic philosophy has made so much use, under foot," he exclaims: "in short, to show how clever they are, they (the Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter them abroad in our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its own good spirit and the watchfulness of our august rulers." He feels moved to inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and that if any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures. After this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: "I, who hold that all those who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians, but a little over wise and self conceited in their opinions, declare that I am actuated by nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred cause." After this assurance he begs that this letter of his, ("I do not say the enclosed letter,") he hastens to add in a parenthesis, "may be kept secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion between servant and master," and not as a legal deposition. In conclusion, he expressly mentions the celebrated sermon of Caccini, probably in order that he might be called as a ​witness against Galileo, an object which, as we shall see, was attained.
In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called upon at once to institute a secret inquiry about the astronomer. As Lorini had only been able to show a copy of Galileo's letter to Castelli in confirmation of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be of great importance to obtain possession of the original, written and signed by Galileo, To attain this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the principle that "the end sanctifies the means." Cardinal Mellini, under date of 26th February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to write to the Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were to procure that document "in a skilful manner." On the very next day the order was despatched.
It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco Bonciani, He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With this end in view he began by adjuring the father, who was quite taken aback by such an exhortation, to give up certain extravagant opinions, particularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it would be to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his ruin, for those opinions (to say nothing of their folly) were dangerous, repulsive, and mischievous, for they were directly opposed to Holy Scripture. The philosophical arguments with which the archbishop tried to convert Castelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax in the profound remark that as all things (creatura) had been created for the use and benefit of man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a star. After giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the same for Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the world the folly of that ​opinion. But, in order to do it successfully, he must first acquaint himself thoroughly with Galileo's arguments; and, therefore (and now comes the gist of the matter) he urgently begs Castelli to let him see Galileo's apologetic letter.
Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli's possession, for he had returned it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive the trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo of the request and warmly to second it. But Galileo had suspicions, and delayed to reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two letters to Rome, of 8th and 28th of March, that Castelli was convinced that he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and as the common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo had not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks "whether he shall be more open with Castelli?" But this time cunning did not attain its end; at the repeated urgency of Castelli, Galileo at last sent him a mere copy without signature, and with the express reservation that he was not to let it go out of his hands. From a letter of Castelli's to Galileo we learn that in obedience to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically concealed his annoyance at the failure of his intrigue, and put a good face on it, for Castelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly praised Galileo's demonstrations, and lauded to the ecclesiastics present the modesty and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed.
So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo's criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for his opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in the document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they looked ill, they were capable ​of being taken in a good sense, and were not of that nature that they could be said to deviate from Catholic doctrine.
Meanwhile a papal mandate had been issued, under date of 19th March, to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially well informed about Galileo's errors. He appeared before the holy tribunal the very next day, and eloquently poured forth his accusations; but, although upon oath, he did not adhere very strictly to truth. For not only did he denounce the opinion of Copernicus as guasi heretical, being opposed to all scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of many passages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines were to be found both in the letter to Castelli and in the purely scientific treatise on the solar spots, but added the far more serious charge that he had heard that Galileo maintained the three following propositions: "God is not a self existent being, but an accident; God is sentient because the Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be performed by the saints are not real miracles." He further says that Galileo is at any rate "suspicious in religious matters," because he belongs to "a certain Accadémia dei Lincei," and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi at Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions from real facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of heresy out of an academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety, and to place Galileo's religion in doubt on account of his scientific correspondence with magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost like madness.
In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman, Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the same year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper but a bad listener. ​Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple of the Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with Ximenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition concerning the nature of the Godhead, but it originated entirely in scholasticism and had nothing to do with Galileo. Caccini, listening behind a partition, caught something of the conversation; and, thinking that Attavanti was a well instructed follower of Galileo, and was merely repeating what he had taught him, explained the fragments of the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these stupid accusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and Attavanti that neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo, except that he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.
After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of Caccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry into the "History and Explanation of the Solar Spots." This, and the oft discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which Galileo's enemies based the accusation of philosophical and theological error.
* ↑ "Discorso al Serenissimo D. Cosimo II., Gran-Duca di Toscana intorno alle cose che stanno in su l'aqua o che in quella si muovano."
* ↑ Op. viii, p. 231, note 2; Nelli, p. 318; Venturi, vol. i, pp. 195, 196.
* ↑ Dated 4th May, 14th August, and 1st December, 1612.
* ↑ "Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari, e loro accidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte al Sig. Marco Velsero da Galilco Galilei."
* ↑ Letter of 20th April, 1613, (Op, viii. p. 262.)
* ↑ Letter of 26th May, 1613. (Op. viii. p. 271.)
* ↑ Letter of 8th June, 1613. (Op. viii. pp. 274, 275.)
* ↑ Op. viii. pp. 290, 291.
* ↑ Op. viii. pp. 291-293.
* ↑ Op. ii pp. 6-13.
* ↑ Op. viii. pp. 337, 338.
* ↑ Vol. i. p. 397.
* ↑ Comp. Govi, p. 47.
* ↑ Epinois, "La Question de Galilei," p. 43.
* ↑ Op. viii. pp. 337-343.
* ↑ The title of "Eminence" was first given to cardinals by Pope Urban VIII. in 1630.
* ↑ See Lorini's Denunciations, fol. 342, Vat. MS. According to Epinois this letter was of the 5th, but Gherardi publishes a document which shows it to have been of the 7th.(Gherardi's Collection of Documents, Doc. ii.)
* ↑ Vat. MS. 347 vo.; also Gherardi's Documents, Doc, ii.
* ↑ See Castelli's letter to Galileo, 12th March, 1615, in which this visit is described. (Op. viii. pp. 358, 359.)
* ↑ In the letter before quoted of 12th March.
* ↑ Marini, pp. 84-86, and Vat. MS. fol. 349, 350.
* ↑ Op. viii. p. 365.
* ↑ Op. viii. pp. 369, 370.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 341.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 352 ro.; and Gherardi's Documents, Doc. iii.
* ↑ Compare the text of Caccini's evidence. (Vat. MS. fol. 353ro-358vo.)
* ↑ See the protocol of both these examinations. (Vat. MS. fol. 371 ro-373 vo.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 375 vo., and Gherardi's Documents, Doc. v.
Layout 2