# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 6

CHAPTER VI.
THE INQUISITION AND THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, AND THE ASSUMED PROHIBITION TO GALILEO.
The Inquisition, perhaps still incensed by Galileo's active propagandism, even among the learned world of Rome, and by his brilliant defence of the new system, now hastened to bring to a conclusion the transactions which had been going on for a considerable time against it. A decree of 19th February, 1616, summoned the Qualifiers of the Holy Office (they were not judges exactly, but had to give their opinion as experts) and required them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo's work on the solar spots:—
I. The sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place.
II. The earth is not the centre of the world, and is not immovable, but moves, and also with a diurnal motion.
In accordance with the papal decree, these theologians met four days afterwards, at 9 am. on 23rd February, and published the result of their deliberations the next day, as follows:—
​The first proposition was unanimously declared to be false and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many passages, both if taken in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation and conceptions of the holy Fathers and learned theologians.
The second proposition was declared unanimously "to deserve the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least erroneous in the faith."
The Vatican MS. reports the further steps taken against Galileo as the chief advocate of the Copernican system, as follows:—
​This is followed in the Vatican MS. by a record intended to look like an official report on the course of the proceedings ordained above. Every unbiassed reader will expect to find in it either that Galileo refused to obey the admonitions of the cardinal, and that the Commissary-General of the Inquisition then issued the other strict injunction, or that Galileo immediately submitted, in which case the official of the Inquisition would not have had to interfere. Instead of this we find the following document, couched half in a narrative tone, half like the report of a notary:—
"Friday, the 26th.—At the Palace, the usual residence of the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo having been summoned and brought before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in presence of the Most Revd. Michael Angelo Segnezzio, of the order of preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said Cardinal warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion, and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine being still present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope, and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, in presence of Badino Nores, of Nicosia, in the kingdom of Cyprus, and Augustino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbacy of Rottz, in the diocese of Politianeti, inmates of the said Cardinal's house, witnesses."
​The discrepancy between this record and that of 25th February is obvious: that says that the Pope had ordered that Cardinal Bellarmine should admonish Galileo to renounce the opinions of Copernicus, and only in case he should refuse, was the Commissary to issue the order to him to abstain from teaching, defending, or discussing those opinions. Here in the report of the 26th we read, that "immediately after" the admonition of the cardinal, the Commissary issued this stringent order, and with the significant modification, "nor to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever." In this report of the proceedings it is not expressly stated whether Galileo at first refused or not, but, according to the wording of the report, it is almost impossible that he could have done so, since it represents that the Cardinal's admonition was followed immediately by the absolute prohibition from the Commissary. But such a mode of procedure was by no means in accordance with the papal ordinance, and would rather have been an arbitrary deviation from it.
Until within the last ten years, in all the works, great or small, which treat of Galileo's trial, we find this absolute prohibition which he was said to have received related as an established historical fact. It was the sole legal ground on which the indictment was based against Galileo sixteen years later, and he was condemned and sentenced by his judges by an ostentatious appeal to it. Up to 1850 not a single document had been seen by any of the authors who wrote so confidently of the stringent prohibition of 1616, which confirmed its historical truth. And yet it could but exist among ​the inaccessible archives relating to the trial of Galileo, since the Inquisitors relied upon it in 1633, and it was the pole and axis of the famous trial. And what the world had accepted in good faith on the somewhat doubtful veracity of the Inquisition was at length, apparently confirmed by the testimony of Mgr. Marino Marini, prefect of the Vatican Archives. In that year he published at Rome a book entitled, "Galileo e l'Inquisizione, Memorie storico-critiche," which, as the author stated, was founded upon the original documents of the trial. It actually contained many "extracts" from the original protocols; and founded upon documentary materials accessible only to the author, it was encircled with the convenient halo of inviolability. And for nearly twenty years no serious objection was raised to it. Many historians did shake their heads and say that the work of the right reverend gentleman was as much like a glorification of the Inquisition as one egg to another, and some were not much impressed by the author's high-flown assertion that "the entire publication of the documents would only redound to the glory of the Inquisition," but drily remarked that it was really a great pity that Mgr. Marini had allowed so splendid an opportunity to slip of performing a great service alike to history and the Church, while the fragments produced were of little value to either one or the other. None of this served to refute a single sentence of the apology in question. It became, on the contrary, notwithstanding its obvious partizanship, the chief source for subsequent narratives of the trial. And it could not fail to be so; for even taking this partizanship into account, how could the dates given be doubted? Could any one suspect a misrepresentation of the whole subject? Did suspicions of an arbitrary use and distortion of the documents at the author's command seem justified? Assuredly not. Besides, the papal archivist appealed with apparent scrupulous exactness to the Roman MS. Although, therefore, the light thrown by Marini on the trial of Galileo seemed ​to be one-sided, the correctness of his facts in general admitted of no doubt. Among these the special prohibition of 1616 played a conspicuous part. It is laid before the reader as beyond all question, and fully confirmed by documents. The author, however, prudently refrained from publishing these "documents" verbatim,—the reports of the Vatican MS. of 25th and 26th February. The discrepancy between them would then have come to light. That was to be avoided, and so Marini, by the approved method of rejecting all that did not suit his purpose, concocted from the two reports a story of the assumed prohibition to Galileo so precise as to leave nothing to be desired.
In 1867 Henri de L'Epinois surprised the learned world with his work, "Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation d'après des Documents inédits." He reproduced for the first time in full the most important documents which had been at Marini's command. It now came to light how unjustifiably he had used them. Epinois printed the important reports of 25th and 26th February verbatim. But the story of the prohibition of 1616 had so firmly rooted itself in history, that neither Epinois himself nor the next French historian, Henri Martin, who published a comprehensive work on Galileo based on the published documents, thought of disturbing it.
It was not until 1870 that doubts began to be entertained, in Germany and Galileo's own country, simultaneously and independently, of the authenticity of the prohibition of 1616. In Germany it was Emil Wohlwill who first shook this belief after careful and unbiassed investigation of the Roman MS. published by Epinois, by his excellent treatise: "Der Inquisitions Process des Galileo Galilei. Eine Prüfung seiner rechtlichen Grundlage nach den Acten der Römischen Inquisition." (The Trial of Galileo Galilei. An Examination into its Legal Foundation by the Acts of the Roman Inquisition.) And just when German learning was seeking to prove by ​keen critical discussion the untenableness of the usual narrative, the document was published in Italy which raised Wohlwill's conjectures to certainty.
Up to 1870 the conclusion that Galileo did not for a moment resist the cardinal's admonition, but submitted at once, could only be drawn, as it was drawn by Wohlwill, partly from the wording of the report of the proceedings of 26th February, 1616, partly from Galileo's sincere Catholic sentiments, for he was to the end, from conviction, a true son of the Church. However much there might be to justify the conclusion, therefore, it was founded only on probability, was confirmed by no documents, and was therefore open to assault. It was attacked by Friedlein in a review of Wohlwill's brochure. But when Friedlein was trying to prove that Galileo must have resisted the cardinal's admonitions, and only submitted to the peremptory threats of the official of the Inquisition, the document had been already published in Italy which placed the question beyond doubt. This is an extract of the protocol of the sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office of 3rd March, 1616, and forms part of the collection of documents published by Professor Silvestro Gherardi in the Rivista Europea, 1870. It is as follows:—
"3rd March, 1616.
"The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of the Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon (deserendam) [disserendam (discuss) was the word originally written] the opinion he has hitherto held, that the sun is the centre of the spheres and immovable, and that the earth moves, and had acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of the Index having been presented, prohibiting and suspending respectively the writings of Nicholas Copernicus (De Revolutionibus orbium cœlestium. . . ) of Diego di Zuñiga on Job, and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite ​Friar—His Holiness ordered this edict of prohibition and suspension respectively, to be published by the Master of the Palace."
This document, as Gherardi justly perceived, is of far greater importance than merely for the evidence it affords that Galileo at once submitted to the Cardinal's admonition; it permits the conclusion, almost to a certainty, that a proceeding like that described in the note of 26th February never took place. It is clear from the above that Cardinal Bellarmine was giving a report of the proceedings of 26th February at a private sitting of the Congregation of the Holy Office under the personal presidency of the Pope. His report agrees precisely with the papal ordinance of 25th February: he had admonished Galileo to give up the Copernican doctrines, and he had consented. This was to all appearance the end of the business. The cardinal does not say a word about the stringent proceedings said to have taken place in his presence before notary and witnesses. And yet this part of it would have been of far greater importance than the first. It may perhaps be said that it was not the cardinal's business to report the doings of the Commissary of the Inquisition. But the objection is not valid; for in the first place the conditions did not exist which would have justified the interference of the Commissary, and in the second, his report would certainly also have been given at the sitting where the proceedings of 26th February were reported. But in the note of 3rd March there is not a trace of the report of Brother Michael Angelo ​Segnitius de Lauda. It is, however, so incredible that no communication should be made to the Congregation about the most important part of the proceedings of 26th February, and that Cardinal Bellarmine should not have made the slightest reference to it in his report, that this document of 3rd March, 1616, discovered by Professor Gherardi, would be sufficient of itself to justify the suspicion that the course of the proceedings on 26th February, 1616, was not at all that reported in the note relating to it in the Vatican MS., but was in accordance with the papal ordinance of 25th February, and ended with the cardinal’s admonition.
Let us see now whether the ensuing historical events agree better with this suspicious note. Two days after the sitting of 3rd March, in accordance with the order of Paul V., the decree of the Congregation of the Index on writings and books treating of the Copernican system was published. It ran as follows:—
"And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture—of the motion of the earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is also taught by Nicholas Copernicus in De Revolutionibus orbinim Cœlestium, and by Diego di Zuñiga in (his book on) Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled, Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the motion of the earth, and the stability of the sun, and the new Pythagorean system of the world, at Naples, printed by Lassaro Scorriggio, 1615: wherein the said father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the quiescence of the sun in the centre of the world, and of the earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, De Revolutionibus orbium, and Diego di Zuñiga, on Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend ​Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, 1616.
In this decree, as is strikingly pointed out by Emil Wohlwill, a distinction is drawn between two classes of writings: those which advocate the positive truth of the Copernican system—which are absolutely interdicted and condemned; and those to which, by some modifications, a hypothetical character can be given—these are to be suspended until the needful corrections have been made. This indicated the precise attitude which the Church thought to take with regard to the Copernican system. As a mere working hypothesis it was not dangerous to the Roman Catholic religion; but as irrefragable truth it shook its very foundations. They were, therefore, determined at Rome that it should not make way as truth—it was to be tabooed, banished, and if possible stifled; but as a mathematical hypothesis, the use of which was obvious even to the Romish savans, it might be allowed to stand. The cardinal's admonition and the decree are in logical agreement with this intention. Galileo was to "renounce" the opinions of Copernicus, that is he was not to maintain them as established fact; as a hypothesis, like the rest of the world he might retain them. But according to the document of 26th February, entire silence was enjoined upon Galileo upon the subject of the double motion of the earth, for in the injunction neither to hold, teach, or defend it in any way (quovis modo), the hypothetical treatment was obviously included.
Perhaps it may be said that they wanted to get rid of the most distinguished and therefore most dangerous defender of the Copernican system, who by his telescopic discoveries had made the controversy a burning question of the day. But this conjecture does not stand the test of close investigation, for Galileo's work on the solar spots, which was based upon the sun’s being stationary, was not placed upon the index of forbidden or suspicious books. And in all the proceedings ​of the curia against him at that period, the friendly feeling for him personally, of powerful patrons in the Church, is obvious, and it makes any specially rigorous action against him very improbable. We have also other indications that this categoric prohibition to Galileo had not then been, de facto, issued.
His letters of this epoch afford the strongest evidence. We cannot expect to find in them precise information about the proceedings of 26th February, as it was contrary to the rules of the Inquisition to make public its secret orders, under the severest penalties; but they contain no trace of the deep depression which would have been caused by the stringent orders of the Holy Office against him personally. On the contrary, he writes on the 6th March (the day following the issue of the decree) to Picchena: "I did not write to you, most revered sir, by the last post, because there was nothing new to report; as they were about to come to a decision about that affair which I have mentioned to you as a purely public one, not affecting my personal interests, or only so far as my enemies very inopportunely want to implicate me in it." He goes on to say that he alludes to the deliberations of the Holy Office about the book and opinions of Copernicus; and mentions with evident satisfaction, that the purpose of Caccini and his party to have that doctrine denounced as heretical and contrary to the faith had not been attained, for the Holy Office had simply stated that it did not agree with Holy Scripture, and therefore only prohibited the books which maintained, ex professo, that the Copernican doctrine was not contrary to the Bible. Galileo then tells him more particularly what the decree contained, and that the correction of the works of Copernicus and Zuñiga was entrusted to Cardinal Gaetaori. He emphatically states that the alterations will be confined to such passages as aim to prove the agreement of the modern system with Scripture, and "here and there a word, as when Copernicus calls the earth a star." He adds: "I have, as will be seen from the nature of the case, ​no interest in the matter, and should not, as I said before, have troubled myself about it, had not my enemies drawn me into it." He means by this that the prohibition to try and make the doctrine of the double motion square with Scripture was indifferent to him; he would never have concerned himself with theology if he had not been driven to it. He then goes on: "It may be seen from my writings in what spirit I have always acted, and I shall continue to act, so as to shut the mouth of malice, and to show that my conduct in this business has been such that a saint could not have shown more reverence for the Church nor greater zeal."
In the next letter to Picchena, six days later, Galileo repeats what he has said about the correction of the work of Copernicus, and says emphatically that it is clear that no further restrictions will be imposed. From a reply from Galileo's faithful friend, Sagredo, to letters unfortunately not extant, it is evident that he had by no means expressed himself as cast down by the issue of the affair. Sagredo writes in the best of spirits: "Now that I have learnt from your valued letters the particulars of the spiteful, devilish attacks on and accusations against you, and the issue of them, which entirely frustrates the purposes of your ignorant and malicious foes, I, and all the friends to whom I have communicated your letters and messages, are quite set at rest."
It is clear, then, from Galileo's correspondence, that he took the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, and speaks with satisfaction of the trifling alterations to be made in Copernicus's work. How could the man, who was forbidden to "hold, teach, or defend" the repudiated doctrine "in any way," write in this style?
A document issued by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, relating to these transactions, is of the utmost importance to the assertion that no such prohibition had ever been issued ​to Galileo. After the publication of the decree of 5th March he remained three months at Rome. His enemies took advantage of this to spread a false report that he had been obliged formally to recant, and absolutely to abjure his opinion. Galileo seems to have been indignant at this; he pacified his adherents who sent anxious inquiries to their master, and complained bitterly of the unscrupulousness of his enemies, for whom no means of injuring him were too bad. But in order to confute these calumnies and guard himself against them in future, before leaving Rome he begged a certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine to prove the falsity of this perfidious fiction, This dignitary consented, and wrote the following declaration:—
"We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare, that the said Signor Galileo has not abjured, either in our hand, or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or anywhere else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him, neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him; but only the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this 26th day of May, 1616."
​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," 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, ​the question immediately arises, Through whose means did the falsehood get into the acts of the trial, and was it bona or mala fide? Historical research can only partially answer this question. All these notifications were entered by a notary of the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, 1616, also. Did he, perhaps merely from officious zeal, enter a note of an official proceeding as having actually taken place, which undoubtedly was to have taken place under certain circumstances, but in their absence did not occur, or even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power which had long been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the failure for the time of its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters for future use by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge of the motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; as however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or independent falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in probability that we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo's enemies, which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its purpose.
Wohlwill, Gherardi, Cantor, and we ourselves have long been of opinion that this note originated, not in 1616, but in 1632, in order to legalise the trial of Galileo. But after having repeatedly and very carefully examined the original acts of the trial, preserved among the papal secret archives, we were compelled to acknowledge that the material nature of the document entirely excludes the suspicion of a subsequent falsification. The note was not falsified in 1632; no, in 1616 probably, with subtle and perfidious calculation, a lie was entered which was to have the most momentous consequences to the great astronomer.
* ↑  Che il sole sij centre del mondo, et per consequenza imobile di moto locale, Che la Terra non è centro del mondo, ne imobile, ma si move secondo se tutta etia di moto diurno. (Vat. MS. fol. 376 ro.)
* ↑ Sol est centru mundi, et omnino imobilis motu locali; Censura: Omnes dixerunt dicta propositioné ée stultá et absurdam in Philosophia, et formaliter hereticá, quatenus contradicit expresse sententijs sacre scripture in multis locis. Secundú proprietate verbor, et secundú communé expositioné, et sensú. Sanct. Patr. et Theologor doctor. Terra non est centr. mundi, nec iḿobilis, sed secundu se tota, movetur et moto diurno. Censura: Omnes dixerunt, hanc propositioné recipé eandé censura in Philosophia; et spectando veritaté Theologicá, at minus ée in fide erronea. (Vat. MS. folio 377 ro.)
* ↑ Die Jovis, 25th Februarij, 1616. Ill$^{mns}$. D. Card$^{lis}$. Millinus notificavit R.R. pp. D.D. Asseos$^r$. et Commiss S$^d$ Officij, quod relata censura P.P. Theologoru ad proposit$^{nes}$ Gallilei Mathem$^{al}$, q. Sol sit centrú mundi, et iḿobilis motu locali, et Terra moveatur ét motu diurno; S$^{mus}$. ordinavit Ill$^{mo}$. D. Card$^{ll}$. Bellarm$^n$, ut vocet corã se d$^{oo}$. Galileum, eumq. moneat ad deserendas d$^{aia}$ oṕonem, et si recusaverit parere, P. Comiss$^r$ cora Noto (Notario) et Testibus faciat illi preceptum, ut ĩo (omnino) abstineat huõi (huiusmodi) doctrina, et oṕonem docere, aut defendere, seu de ea tractare, si vero nõ acquieverit, carceretur. (Vat. MS. folio 378 vo.)
* ↑ Die Veneris, 26th eiusdem. In Palatio solite habit$^{ula}$ d$^i$ Illᵐⁱ D. Cardⁱˢ, Bellarmⁿ et in mãsionib, Domᶜⁱᵃ sue Illᵐᵉ Idem Illᵐᵘˢ D. Cardˡˡᵉ vocato supradᵗᵒ Galileo, ipsoq. corã D. sua Illᵐᵃ: exnte (existente) in ͂pntia adm. R. p. Fĩs Michaelis Angeli Seghitij de Lauda ord. Pred. Comissarij qualis sᵗⁱ officij predᵐ Galileũ monuit de errore supradᵗᵉ op͂onis, et ut illa deserat, et successive, ac icõtinenti in mei &, et Testiũ & ͂pnte ͂et adhuc eodem Illᵐᵒ D. Cardⁱˢ supradᵒ P. Comissʳ. predᵗᵒ Galileo adhuc ibidem ͂pnti, et Constituto precepit, et ordinavit . . [Here the MS. is defaced. Two words are wanting, the second might be nome (nomine); the first began with a p (proprie?) but is quite illegible.] S$^{[illegible]}$ D. N. Pape et totius Congreg$^{[illegible]}$ s$^{[illegible]}$ officij, ut suprad$^{[illegible]}$ oponione q. sol sit cé: trum mundi, et imobilis, et Terra moveatur omnino relinquat, nec ea de Cetero q*vis mo teneat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo, aut scriptis, als (alias) con ipsu procedetur i (in) S$^{to}$ offo., cui precepto Idem Galileus aequievit, et parere promisit. Sub. quib. & actum Rome ubi subra pntibus ibidé R.D. Badino Nores de Nicosia i Regno Cypri, et Augustino Mongardo de loco Abbatie Rose, dioc. Politianen (Poletianensis) familiarib. di [illegible] D. Card$^{[illegible]}$ Testibus. (Vat. MS. folio 379 ro, 379 vo.)
* ↑ Marini, p. 42.
* ↑ Marini, pp. 93, 94, and 141.
* ↑ In the Zeitschrift für mathematischen u. naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht, 1st series, part iv., pp. 333-340. See the controversy between Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. Friedlein in the Zeitschrift für Mathematik, etc., 17th series. Part ii, pp. 9-31; part iii, pp. 41-45; part v., pp. 81-98.
* ↑  Feria V. die III. Martii, 1616.Facta relatione per Illumum. D. Card.$^{em.}$ Bellarminum quod Galilaeus Galilei mathematicus monitus de ordine Sacrae Congregationis ad deserendam (prima stava scritto chiarissimamente, disserendam) opinionem quam hactenus tenuit quod sol sit centrum spherarum, et immobilis, terra autem mobilis, acquievit; ac relato Decreto Congregationis Indicis, qualiter (o, variante, quod) fuerunt prohibita et suspensa respective scripta Nicolai Cupernici (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. . . .) Didaci a Stunica, in Job, et Fr. Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitæ, SSmus. ordinavit publicari Edictum, A. P. Magistro S. Palatii hujusmodi suspensionis et prohibitionis respective. (Gherardi's Documents, Doc. vi.)
* ↑ See this decree in full, Appendix, p. 345.
* ↑ Op. vi. pp. 231-233.
* ↑ Op. Suppl. 109-112.
* ↑ Noi Roberto Cardinale Bellarmino havendo inteso che il Sig' Galileo Galilei sia calumniato, ò imputato di havere abiurato in mano nra, et anco di essere stato perciò penitenziato di penitenzie salutari; et essendo ricercati della verità diciamo, che il suddetto S. Galileo no ha abiurato i mano nra nè di altra qua in Roma ne meno i altro luogo che noi sappiamo alcuna sua opinione o dottrina, nè manco hà ricevuto penitenzie salutarj, né d' altra sorte, ma solo, ql'è stata denunziata la dichiara-zione fatta da Nŕo Sig$^{re}$. e publicata dalla Sacra Congreg$^{ne}$. dell' indice, nella quale si cotiene che la dottrina attribuita al Copernico che la terra si muova intorno al sole, e che il sole stia nel centro del Mõdo senza muoversi da oriente ad occidente sia cotraria alle sacre scritture, e però nõ si possa difendere nè tenere. Et in fede di ciò habbiamo scritta, e sotto-scritta a preséte di nŕa propria mano questo di 26 di Maggio, 1616. Il me desimo di sopra, Roberto Card$^{le}$. Bellarmino. (Vat. MS., 423 ro and 427 ro.)
* ↑ Martin, pp. 79, 80.
* ↑ Prof. Riccardi has stated this conjecture in the Introduction (p. 17) to his valuable collection of documents relating to the trial of Galileo, published in 1873.
* ↑ For the particulars, see Appendix, "Estimate of the Vat. MS."
Layout 2