# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 20

CHAPTER X.
CURRENT MYTHS.
Before following Galileo's fate to the end, so far as his relations with the curia are concerned, it seems desirable to glance at the fables and exaggerations, mostly originating in malice and fierce partisanship, which, in defiance of the results of the latest historical research, are not only circulated among the public at large, but introduced, to some extent, even in works which profess to contain history.
According to these legends, Galileo languishes during the trial in the prisons of the Inquisition; when brought before his judges, he proudly defends the doctrine of the double motion; he is then seized by the executioners of the Holy Office, and subjected to the horrors of torture; but even then—as heroic fable demands—he for a long time remains steadfast; under pain beyond endurance he promises obedience, that is, the recantation of the Copernican system. As soon as his torn and dislocated limbs permit, he is dragged before the large assembly of the Congregation, and there, kneeling in the penitential shirt, with fierce rage in his heart, he utters the desired recantation. As he rises he is no longer able to master his indignation, ​and fiercely stamping with his foot, he utters the famous words: "E pur si muove!" He is, therefore, thrown into the dank dungeons of the dreaded tribunal, where his eyes are put out!
The blinding of Galileo is a creation of the lively popular mind, which, with its love of horrors, embellishes tragical historical events by fictitious additions of this kind, just suited to the palates of people accustomed to coarse diet. Galileo's subsequent loss of sight may have given rise to the fable, which first appeared in the "History of Astronomy" by Estevius. It is not known who was the inventor of the assumed exclamation, "E pur si muove," which sounds well, and has become a "winged word;" but besides not being historic, it very incorrectly indicates the old man's state of mind; for he was morally completely crushed. Professor Heis, who has devoted a treatise to the origin of this famous saying, thinks that he has discovered its first appearance in the "Dictionnaire Historique," Caen, 1789; Professor Grisar tells us, however, in his studies on the trial of Galileo, that in the "Lehrbuch der philosophischen Geschichte," published at Würzburg, 1774, fifteen years earlier, by Fr. N. Steinacher, the following edifying passage occurs:—
"Galileo was neither sufficiently in earnest nor steadfast with his recantation; for the moment he rose up, when his conscience told him that he had sworn falsely, he cast his eyes on the ground, stamped with his foot, and exclaimed, 'E pur si muove.'"
Besides the fact that these words are not attributed to Galileo by any of his contemporaries, not even the best ​informed, the fallacy of the whole story is obvious; for the witnesses of this outbreak, his judges, in fact, would assuredly not have allowed so audacious a revocation of his recantation to escape unpunished; it is, indeed, impossible to conjecture what the consequences would have been; the recusant would certainly not have been released two days afterwards from the buildings of the Holy Office.
Although this dramatic scene is not mentioned as worthy of credit by any modern historian, it is different with the hair shirt in which Galileo is said to have performed the humiliating act. Libri, Cousin, Parchappe, and very recently Louis Combes, all gravely relate that the philosopher had to recant "en chemise."
The official document, although it goes very much into detail as to the way in which the oath was performed, says nothing of the shirt, and these authors should have said nothing either. The doubtful source in which this fable originated is an anonymous and very confused note on a MS. in the Magliabechiana Library at Florence, where among other nonsense we find: "the poor man (Galileo), appeared clad in a ragged shirt, so that it was really pitiable." We agree with Epinois, that history requires more authentic testimony than that of an anonymous note.
​But upon what testimony, then, do a large number of authors speak with much pathos of the imprisonment which Galileo had to undergo? No sort of documents are referred to as evidence of the story; this is quite intelligible, for none exist. Or is the rhetorical phrase, "Galileus nunc in vinculis detinetur," contained in a letter of May, 1633, from Rome, from Holstein to Peiresc, to be taken as evidence that Galileo was really languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition? One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial,—the official despatches of Niccolini to Cioli, from 15th August, 1632, to 3rd December, 1633, from which we have so freely quoted,—would have convinced any one that Galileo spent altogether only twenty-two days (12–30th April, and afterwards 21–24th June, 1633) in the buildings of the Holy Office; and even then, not in a prison cell with grated windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. But such writers do not seem to have been in the habit of studying authorities; thus, for example, in the "Histoire des Hérésies," by P. Domenico Bernini, and in the "Grande Dictionnaire Bibliographique" of Morcri, we find it stated that Galileo was imprisoned five or six years at Rome! Monteula, in his "Histoire des Mathematiques," and Sir David Brewster, in his "Martyrs of Science," reduce the period, perhaps from pity for the poor "martyr," to one year; Delambre, however, felt no such compassion, and says in his "Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne," that Galileo was condemned to an imprisonment which lasted "several years"! Such an error is the more suprising from the last celebrated author, as we know that trustworthy extracts from the original acts of the Vatican MS. were in his hands. Even in a very recent work, Drager's "Geschichte der Conflicte zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft," Leipzig, 1875 ("History of the Conflicts between ​Religion and Science"), it is seriously stated that Galileo was detained three years in the prisons of the Inquisition!
Thus we see that the fable of Galileo's imprisonment has been adopted by several authors without any historical foundation, and this is to a far greater extent the case with the famous story of the torture to which he is said to have been subjected. As it has held its ground, although only sporadically, even up to the most recent times, it seems incumbent on us to go more deeply into this disputed question.
Curiously enough, it is towards the end of the eighteenth century that we find the first traces of this falsehood, and from the fact that three savans, Frisi, Brenna, and Targioni, who wrote lives of Galileo at that time, raised a protest against it. Although they were not then able, as we are now, to base their arguments upon the Acts of the trial, they had even then authentic materials in their hands—the despatches between Niccolini and Cioli, then recently published by Fabroni—which rendered it utterly improbable that the old man had been placed upon the rack. These materials were thoroughly turned to account eighty years later by T. B. Biot, in his essay, "La verité sur le procès de Galilei." He clearly showed from the reports of the ambassador that Galileo had neither suffered torture during his first stay in the buildings of the Holy Office, from 12–30th April, when he daily wrote to Niccolini, and was in better health when he returned to the embassy than when he left it; nor during the three days of his second ​detention, from 21–24th June, at the end of which he was conducted by Niccolini, on the evening of the 24th, to the Villa Medici. On 6th July he set out thence, "in very good health," for Siena, and in spite of his advanced age performed four miles on foot for his own pleasure, which an infirm old man of seventy, if he had suffered torture a fortnight before, would surely not have been able to do.
But all these plain indications go for nothing with some historians, whose judgment is warped by partisanship, and who are not willing to give up the notion that Galileo did suffer the pangs of torture. And so we find this myth, at first mentioned by a few authors as a mere unauthentic report, assuming a more and more distinct form, until it is brought forward, with acute and learned arguments, as, to say the least, very probable, by Libri, Brewster, Parchappe, Eckert, and others.
These writers base their assertion on the following passage in the sentence:—
"And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination (examen rigorosum), at which (without prejudice however, to the matters confessed by you, and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic."
These writers assert, on the one hand, that the expression "examen rigorosum" in the vocabulary of the Inquisition could mean nothing but torture; and on the other, they take the expression that Galileo had "answered as a good Catholic" under examen rigorosum, to mean that they had extorted from him a confession as to his intention, and conclude that torture had been resorted to. But on closer scrutiny of the wording of the passage, the meaning appears to be exactly the contrary; for the sentence in parenthesis says plainly that Galileo had "answered as a good Catholic" ​"without prejudice" to his previous depositions or the conclusions which his judges had previously arrived at as to his intention, and which Galileo persistently denied. His Catholic answer consisted in his repeated assurance that he did not hold the opinion of Copernicus, and had not held it after the command to renounce it had been intimated to him. The Inquisition could but call this a Catholic answer, as Galileo thereby entirely renounced the condemned doctrine..
We turn now to the other assertion of these writers, that "examen rigorosum" means torture. This is in a general sense correct, if by torture the actual application of it is not intended. But they take the passage in the sentence for decisive evidence that torture was actually carried out, in which they are mistaken, as the following passage from the "Sacro Arsenale" undoubtedly proves: "If the culprit who was merely taken to the torture chamber, and there undressed, or also bound, without however being lifted up, confessed, it was said that he had confessed under torture and under examen rigorosum!" The last expression then by no means always implies the actual application of torture. Dr. Wohlwill knows this passage, and the sentence therefore only proves to him that Galileo was taken into the torture chamber; what took place there, whether the old man was actually tortured, or whether they contented themselves with urging him to speak the truth, and threatening him with the instruments they were showing him (a degree of torture called territio realis), appears shrouded in mystery to Dr. Wohlwill. In spite of his acquaintance with the literature of the Inquisition, he has fallen into a mistake. He thinks that ​the territio realis was the first degree of torture. But this was not the case. Limborch's work, "Historia Inquisitionis," with which Wohlwill does not seem to be acquainted, contains definite information on the point. He says that there were five grades of torture, which followed in regular order, and quotes the following passage verbatim from Julius Clarus: "Know then that there are five degrees of torture: First, the threat of the rack; second, being taken into the torture chamber; third, being undressed and bound; fourth, being laid upon the rack; fifth, turning the rack." The territio realis was therefore by no means the first degree of torture; the first was the threat of torture, still outside the torture chamber in the ordinary court, called territio verbalis, which proceeding we find in the examination of Galileo on 21st June. The expression "examen rigorosum" in the sentence, appears therefore, taking it to indicate torture in a general sense, fully justified by historical facts.
It would be more difficult to prove that "examen rigorosum" in the sentence meant actual torture, or territio realis. According to the rules of the Holy Office, a number of strict regulations were prescribed for the procedure, which began with taking the accused into the torture chamber, and the neglect of any one of them made the whole examination null and void. The most important were as follows: First, ​a short final examination had to take place outside the torture chamber, at which the accused was told that he had better confess, or recourse will be had to torture. (This took place precisely according to the rules of the Holy Office at Galileo's trial at the examination on 21st June.) If the accused persisted, and if in a special Congregation for this case the necessity of recourse to torture had previously been agreed upon (this must have taken place in the Congregation of 16th June), the judge had to order the removal of the accused to the torture chamber by a special formal decree, as follows:—"Tunc D.D. sedentes . . . visa pertinacia et obstinatione ipsius constitati, visoque et mature considerato toto tenore processus . . . decreverunt, ipsum constituum esse torquendum tormento funis pro veritate habendo . . . Et ideo mandaverunt ipsum constitutum duci ad locum tormentorum."
Second, a notary of the Inquisition had to be present in the torture chamber, and the judges had to see "that he noted down not only all the answers of the accused, but all his expressions and movements, every word that he uttered on the rack, even every sigh, cry, and groan.
Third, within twenty-four hours after his release from the torture chamber, the accused had to ratify all his utterances under the torments of the rack, or under threat of them, in the usual court. Otherwise the whole proceeding was null and void.
Of all these documents, which must have existed if actual torture had been employed, or even if Galileo had been taken into the torture chamber, there is not a trace in the Acts of the trial in the Vatican. Dr. Wohlwill and Dr. ​Scartazzini assert, with more boldness than evidence, that most of these documents did exist, but that afterwards and in the present century, as the whole of the documents have been tampered with for a special purpose, these compromising papers have been withdrawn! The Vatican MS. contains one document which, one would think, is indisputable evidence that only the territio verbalis was employed against Galileo. We allude to the Protocol of the last examination of 21st June. Up to the final answer of the accused the questions of the Inquisitor agree verbatim with the formula of examination which the "Sacro Arsenale" gives for questioning as to the Intention; but when, if it was intended to proceed to torture or even to take Galileo into the torture chamber, the decree about it should follow, we find instead the concluding sentence: "Et cum nihil aliud posset haberi in executionem decreti habita eius subscriptione remissus fuit ad locum suum." This is, up to the words "in executionem decreti," the usual concluding sentence of the last examination when it ended without torture. These exceptional words refer to the decree of 16th June, 1633, which minutely described the judicial proceedings to be taken against Galileo, and by which certainly the threat of torture, but by no means actual recourse to it, was ordained by the Pope and the Sacred Congregation.
​The concluding sentence of the last examination of Galileo being on the one hand in exact agreement with the decree of 16th June, and on the other being a precise and definite statement, is a strong proof of the correctness of the opinion long defended by calm and impartial historians, like Albèri, Reumont, Biot, Cantor, Bouix, Troussart, Reusch, and even the passionate opponent of Rome, Prof. Chasles, that Galileo's feeble frame was never subjected to the horrors of torture. Wohlwill also acknowledges the force of this concluding sentence—if it be genuine. He thinks these words are a falsification in the present century, while originally Galileo's last answer was followed by the necessary decree for proceeding to torture, and then by the protocol about the proceedings in the torture chamber. Dr. Scartazzini goes even further than Wohlwill, and maintains that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol of the examination of 21st June, as now found in the Vatican MS., is a later falsified insertion. We shall see why he thinks so by and by.
We may remark in passing, from our own experience, that it is always venturesome to affirm that there are falsifications in a MS. without even having seen it, to say nothing of having examined it. Thus, for instance, a glance at the original shows on material grounds that there can be no suspicion of falsification or later insertion in the protocol of 21st June. Both pages on which it is written, fols. 452, 453, are second pages to fols. 413 and 414, on which the protocol of Galileo's trial of 12th April begins. A later ​insertion is therefore an impossibility. Besides, the protocol of 21st June ends in the middle of fol. 435 ro, and, after a space of scarcely two fingers' breadth follows an annotation of 30th June, 1633, in exactly the same handwriting as the annotations of 16th June, 1633, 23rd September, 9th and 30th December, 1632. This really seems to render the bold conjecture of falsification wholly untenable.
The unquestioned genuineness of Galileo's signature, which concludes this as well as all the other protocols, is also a guarantee of its authenticity. Dr. Scartazzini has taken advantage of our information that this signature, unlike all Galileo's others, is in a very trembling hand, to assert that it is not genuine. We are of opinion that a forger would have taken every pains to make the signature as much like the others as possible, and certainly would not have written in remarkably trembling characters. No; this signature, which is unmistakably like the rest, reflects his fearful agitation, and is by no means a forgery, of the nineteenth century.
Let us see now why Dr. Scartazzini insists that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol of 21st June, is a falsification. The reason is not far to seek. As we have seen, according to the rules of the Inquisition, if Galileo had really suffered torture, or if they had only proceeded to territio realis against him, within twenty-four hours of leaving the torture chamber he would have had to confirm the depositions made there, in the ordinary court. But the passing of the sentence and the recantation took place on the 22nd, on the day therefore on which the tortured Galileo would have had to ratify these depositions, and not till after this could the sentence be legally drawn up. Dr. Scartazzini sees plainly enough that Galileo's ratification, the drawing up and passing of the sentence, and the recantation, could not possibly all have taken place in one morning. But he finds his way out of this cul-de-sac in a remarkably simple manner; he boldly asserts that the date is false, that the ​last examination was not on 21st June, but earlier, perhaps on the 17th! The whole protocol, therefore, must be false. Of course Dr. Scartazzini has not a shadow of evidence to give for his assertion. He contents himself with the singular reason that the papal decree of 16th June did not admit of a delay of five or six days, but would be at once carried out. This arbitrary assertion is contradicted by the official report of Niccolini to Cioli of 26th June, 1633, in which he says that Galileo was summoned on Monday evening to the Holy Office, and went on Tuesday morning to learn what was wanted of him; he was detained there, and taken on Wednesday to the Minerva. The dates given by Niccolini agree precisely with those of the protocol of Galileo's last hearing, which is assumed to be false! In face of this evidence, so conclusive for any serious historian. Dr. Scartazzini remarks: "the Tuscan ambassador's memory must have failed him, whether involuntarily or voluntarily." We leave all comment on this kind of historical evidence to the reader.
But we must raise a decided protest, in the name of impartial history, against the way in which Dr. Scartazzini, in order to lend some probability to the above remark, afterwards tries to make out that Niccolini had repeatedly sent romances to Florence, in order to represent to the Grand Duke, who was so anxious about Galileo, how much he (Niccolini) had exerted himself for him, and had actually achieved. Thus Dr. Scartazzini comes to the conclusion, which must excite the ire of every right-minded person, that "the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, is a liar." Niccolini then, Galileo's noblest, most devoted, and ​indefatigable friend, who was at his side in every difficulty, and certainly did more for him at Rome than was ordered at Florence, and perhaps even more than was approved,—this historical figure, worthy of our utmost reverence,—was a liar! Happily it is with Dr. Scartazzini alone that the odium of the accusation rests; in the annals of history, the name of Niccolini stands untarnished, and every Italian, every educated man, will think with gratitude of the man who nobly and disinterestedly stood by the side of Galileo Galilei at the time of his greatest peril. Honour be for ever to his memory!
We give, in conclusion, one more instance of a curious kind of evidence that Galileo really was subjected to torture. Professor Eckert thinks he knows with "almost geometrical certainty that Galileo suffered torture during the twenty-four hours which he spent before the Inquisition." In proof of this assertion the author says: "In conclusion, the two hernias which the unfortunate old man had after his return is a proof that he must have endured that kind of torture called il tormento della corda." This shrewd conclusion falls to the ground in face of the medical certificate of 17th December, 1632, wherein among the rest we find: "We have also observed a serious hernia, with rupture of the peritoneum." And further, this certificate affords indisputable evidence that both his age and his state of health, in consequence of the rupture, were sufficient to protect him against torture according to the rules of the Holy Office. Galileo would have had to be professionally examined by a physician and surgeon, and, according to their written report, he would either have been subjected to torture, or a dispensation would have been granted against it, and all this would have been minutely ​recorded in the Acts of the trial. It is needless to say that among these papers there is not a trace either of any protest of Galileo's, nor of the certificates of the physicians of the Holy Office; and that according to the protocol of the hearing of 21st June, it never went so far, and the Pope himself, as the decree of 16th June undoubtedly proves, never intended that it should.
No, Galileo never suffered bodily torture, nor was he even terrified by being taken into the torture chamber and shown the instruments; he was only mentally stretched upon the rack, by the verbal threat of it in the ordinary judgment hall, while the whole painful procedure, and finally the humiliating public recantation, was but a prolonged torture for the old man in his deep distress. Libri, Brewster, and other rhetorical authors have desired to stamp Galileo as a "martyr of science" in the full sense of the words. But this will not do for two reasons, as Henri Martin justly points out. In the first place, Galileo did not suffer torture; and in the second, a true martyr, that is, a witness unto blood, never under any circumstances, not even on burning coals, abjures his opinions, or he does not deserve the name.
For the sake of Galileo's moral greatness, his submission may be regretted, but at all events greater benefit has accrued from it to science, than if, in consequence of a noble steadfastness which we should have greeted with enthusiasm, he had perished prematurely at the stake or had languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition. It was after the famous trial that he presented the world with his immortal "Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze."
* ↑ Fabroni, "Vitæ Italorum." Pisa, 1778, vol. i. p. 144.
* ↑ Heis, "Das Unhistorische des dem Galilei in dem Munde gelegten: 'E pur si muove.'" Munich, 1868.
* ↑ "Der Galileischen Process auf Grund der neuesten Actenpublicationen historisch und juristisch geprütf." Von Prof. H. Grisar, S. J. Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie. 2nd series. Innsbrück, 1878.
* ↑ Ferry, author of the article "Galilée" in "Dictionnaire de Conversation," Paris, 1859, undoubtedly believes the story. But the man who makes Galileo be born at Florence, study at Venice, and become Professor at Padua directly afterwards, thinks that Galileo did nothing more for science after his condemnation, and that (in 1859) his works were still on the Index, can hardly be reckoned among historians.
* ↑ Louis Combes's "Gal. et L'Inquisition Romaine," Paris, 1876, is a pamphlet of no scientific value whatever, distinguished by astounding ignorance of the Galileo literature. The author complains that the original documents relating to the trial are buried among the secret papal archives, and that nothing more is known of them than what Mgr. Marini has thought fit to communicate! The publication, then, of the most important documents of the Vat. MS., by Epinois, 1867, seems to have escaped the notice of M. Louis Combes!
* ↑ Nelli, vol. ii. p. 562, note 2.
* ↑ Page 69, note 2.
* ↑ Venturi, vol. ii. p. 182; Nelli, vol. ii. p. 537.
* ↑ See Appendix: History of the Vat. MS.
* ↑ See Dr. Emil Wohlwill's "1st Galileo gefoltert worden." Leipzig, 1877.
* ↑ "Elogio del Galilei." Livorno, 1775.
* ↑ In Fabroni, "Vitæ Italorum," i.
* ↑ "Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fosiche in Toscana." i. Firenze, 1780.
* ↑ "Lettere inedite di uomini illustri." Firenze, 1773–75.
* ↑ "Journal des Savans: July, Aug., Sep., Oct., 1858.
* ↑ Niccolini's despatch to Cioli, 25th April. (Op. ix. p. 441.)
* ↑ Niccolini to Cioli, 3rd May. (Op. ix. p. 442.)
* ↑ Niccolini to Cioli, 26th June. (Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.)
* ↑ Niccolini to Cioli, 10th July. (Ibid. p. 447.)
* ↑ Even Wohlwill allows, p. 29, that the opinion that "Catholic answer" means answer under torture is not tenable
* ↑ "Il Reo, che solamente condotto al luogo della tortura ò quivi spogliato, ò pur anco legato senza però esser alzato, confessa dicesi haver confessato ne' tormenti, e nell' esamina rigorosa." ("Sacro Arsenale overo Prattica dell' Officio della Santa Inquisitione." Bologna, 1865, Mesini's ed. p. 412.)
* ↑ Page 25.
* ↑ "Gradus torturae olim adhiberi soliti, fuerunt quinque, qui certo ordine fuerunt inflicte, quos describit Julius Clarus 'in pract crim.' § Fin. qu. 64, versic. 'Nunc de gradibus,' ubi ita ait, 'Scias igitur, quod quinque sunt gradus torturae; scilicet Primo, minae de torquendo. Secundo: conductio ad locum tormentorum. Tertio, spoliato at ligatura. Quarto- elevatio in eculeo. Quinto, squassatio." (Philippi a Limborch S.S. Theologiae inter Remonstrantes Professoris, Historia Inquisitionis. Amstelodami apud Henricum, Westenium, 1692, p. 322.)
* ↑ Prof. P. Grisar also remarks in his critique of Wohlwill's last work Zeitschrift für Kath. Theol. ii. Jahrgang, p. 188), that in the language of the old writers on criminal law, the territio verbalis was often included in the expression torture, and appeals to Julius Clarus, Sentent. crimin. lib. 5, § Fin. qu. 84, nr 31; Francof. 1706, p. 318; Sigism. Scaccia, de judiciis, lib. 2. c 8. nr 276; Francof. 1669, p. 269.
* ↑ "Sacro Arsenale," p. 155.
* ↑ Ibid. pp. 157, 161, 165.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 157; Salleles, "De materiis tribunalium S. Inquisitionis," reg. 361, nos. 110, 117.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 410; Limborch, p. 325.
* ↑ In his brochure, "Ist Galilei gefoltert worden."
* ↑ "Il Processo di Galileo Galilei e la Moderna Critica Tedesca," III. Revista Europea, vol. v., fasc. ii., 1878.
* ↑ Page 214.
* ↑ "Sacro Arsenale," pp. 62, 64.
* ↑ The passage in the decree is: "S$^{mus}$ decrevit ipsum (Galileo) inter rogandum esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura et si sustenuerit, previa abiuratione de vehementi in plena Congregatione S.O. condemnandum ad carcerem," etc. (Vat. MS. Fol. 451 vo.) Wohlwill says that the first part of this decree has had about as many interpretations as authors who have quoted it. This may in no small degree be due to the fact that it was not known whether the original reading was et or ac sustinuerit. As it is now decided in favour of et, perhaps an agreement may be come to, and the more so as several students of Galileo's trial have adopted a translation which agrees as to the meaning, to which we ourselves, now that the et is unquestionable, adhere. H. Martin, Pro. Reusch, Dr. Scartazzini, Pro. P. Grisar, Epinois in his latest work, and the present writer, translate: "His Holiness ordained that he (Galileo) was to be examined as to his intention, to be threatened with torture, and if he kept firm (to his previous depositions) after abjuration de vehementi, he was to be sentenced to imprisonment by the whole Congregation of the Holy Office," etc. Whatever may be thought of the translation, one thing is certain, that by this decree the threat of torture was ordained, but assuredly not its execution.
* ↑ "Il Processo di Gal. Gal.," etc.: Revista Europea, vol. v., fasc. ii. p. 232, 1878.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 444, 445.
* ↑ "Il Processo di Gal. Gal.," etc.: Revista Europea vol. v., fasc. ii., 16th January, 1878, p. 233.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 247.
* ↑ "Galileo Galilei; dessen Leben," etc., Basle, 1858, p. 16.
* ↑ Vat. MS. fol. 407.
* ↑ "Farinacci, de indiciis et tortura," a. 41.
* ↑ Th. del Bene, "De officio S. Inquisitionis," vol. i. p. 574.
* ↑ "Sacro Arsenale," pp. 171, 172.
* ↑ Page 197.