# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 11

PART II.
PUBLICATION OF THE "DIALOGUES ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD," AND TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.
CHAPTER I.
THE "DIALOGUES" ON THE TWO SYSTEMS.
It is a curious fact that the very work which was destined to be one of the most powerful levers in obtaining general recognition for the true order of the universe originated in what we now know to be an erroneous idea. The famous book, "Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and Copernican," arose out of the treatise on the tides which Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, at the suggestion of Cardinal Orsini. The important influence of these "Dialogues," both on science and the subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss them more particularly.
The book contains a great deal more than is promised by the title; for the author included in it, in connection with the discussion of the two systems, nearly all the results of his researches and discoveries in science, extending over nearly fifty years. He also endeavoured to write in a style which ​should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but which would be both intelligible and attractive to every educated person; and in this he attained complete success, for he wished by means of this book to extend as widely as possible a knowledge of the true order of nature. The form of the work was most happily chosen. The results of the researches of a lifetime were not given to the reader in a work redolent of the pedantry of the professor's chair, in which scientific demonstrations drag on with wearisome monotony, but in the lively form of dialogue, which admitted of digressions and gave the author scope for displaying his seductive eloquence, his rare skill in dialectics and biting sarcasm—in short, for his peculiarly brilliant style.
The dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of whom adduce the scientific reasons for the double motion of the earth, while the third honestly tries to defend the opinions of the Aristotelian school with all the scientific means at his disposal, and as these did not suffice, with the arts of sophistry also. If he has but little success, the fault lies with the cause he advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders of the Copernican system the names of his two famous pupils and friends, neither of them then living, Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and Giovan Franceso Sagredo, senator of Venice, thereby erecting a better monument to them than he could have done in marble. Salviati is the special advocate of the Copernican theory. Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman, intelligent, impartial, and desirous to learn. The advocate of the Ptolemaic system was called briefly Simplicius, a pseudonym over which the learned have often puzzled their heads. Did he give this name of simpleton satirically to the champion of the ancient system, or was it merely an allusion to Simplicius, the commentator of Aristotle, as Galileo stated in his "Avviso al lettore?"
The selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous attitude which the author maintains in his "Dialogues." The sarcastic vein is obvious throughout, but is ingeniously con​cealed behind a mask intended to inspire confidence. Salviati conducts the arguments for the Copernican theory with such convincing force and clearness, and annihilates so completely all the objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no unbiassed reader can fail to perceive the scientific superiority of the modern theory to the old. And as Galileo conscientiously puts in the mouth of the Peripatetic philosopher every possible argument in favour of the Aristotelian cause, as well as the objections to the other side, the total defeat of its advocate is a victory all the more brilliant for the immortal Canon of Frauenburg.
The condition that the Copernican doctrine is only to be employed as a hypothesis is ostensibly fully complied with. If Salviati or Sagredo demonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness of some Ptolemaic axiom, or add an important stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to interpolate some remark to weaken the impression. It must be confessed, however, that the agreement of this "hypothesis" with all the phenomena of nature is as clear as daylight; and when, for instance, it is said that the final decision in the present controversy rests neither with mathematics and physics, nor with philosophy and logic, but solely with a "higher insight," or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that he does not in the least wish to maintain the truth of the Copernican doctrine, but applies the word "possibly" to it, or speaks of it as a "fantasia" or "vanissima chimera," the reader cannot fail to perceive that these prudent reservations, which always occur at critical passages, are made with the sole purpose of rendering the publication of the work possible.
The preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with the contents of the "Dialogues," and owe their origin to the same motive. In the preface the ecclesiastical prohibition of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is actually called a "salutary edict" (un salutifero editto)! The reader learns further, to his no small astonishment, that the purpose of this comprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion ​which has gained much credit abroad, that this adverse judgment of Rome was not the result of mature deliberation, but merely of the hasty impulse of judges who were not qualified to decide on these questions of natural science. Galileo asserts that his zeal did not permit him to keep silence in face of those audacious accusations, and that being in possession of all the circumstances connected with that prudent decision, he felt constrained to bear witness to the truth before all the world. In bringing forward here all his speculations on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show that at Rome, where he had taken part in the consultations, they had been fully aware of all the arguments which could be adduced in favour of the new doctrine.
On the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which divergent and often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall enter in detail in its right place.
The conclusion of the work, which is divided into four "days," agrees no better with the rest of the contents than the preface. Although the Copernicans everywhere gain the day, Galileo takes care, for very good reasons, not to draw any conclusions from it on the fourth day. The discussion ends apparently without coming to any result. Salviati disclaims any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed to him a "chimera" or a "paradox." Addressing himself to Sagredo, he remarks that Sagredo had often agreed with the opinions he had expressed, but he thinks that this was often more from their originality than their conclusiveness. Having therefore thanked him for his "polite indulgence," he apologises to Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, and assures him that he had no intention of offending him, but rather of inducing him to communicate his sublime ideas (!), which would certainly be instructive to himself. In conclusion, they agree to meet again for a final discussion.
Did Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin ​thinks it probable, "for," he says, "Galileo might at that period still have hoped that the ecclesiastical authorities would tolerate the new system during his lifetime, especially should some new discovery, as, for instance that of a small annual parallax of the fixed stars, afford certain proof in favour of his system. In that case Galileo would have been at last allowed to express his opinions without reserve." We think it very possible, indeed probable, that Galileo did intend to add a fifth day at a favourable opportunity, in which he would have given the result of the previous discussions; but he certainly was not waiting for "some new discovery." It was his firm conviction that none was wanted, since his telescopic observations amply proved the truth of his theory; neither would the most convincing discovery have enabled him to express his views without reserve, for they had by no means been condemned by the clergy from want of proof, but as "foolish and absurd philosophically and formally heretical."
We are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed the task of defending the action of the curia against Galileo, maintain that the ecclesiastical party objected to the new system because its accordance with the phenomena of nature had not been sufficiently proved. But even were this granted, in view of the opposition raised on scientific grounds and the rooted attachment to old opinions, every unbiassed person must demur to the assumption that in the attitude of Rome towards the Copernican question the interests of science had any influence whatever. It could not be an advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The subsequent harsh proceedings against Galileo, when seventy years of age, the hostile and peremptory attitude which Rome maintained towards him until his death, as well as towards ​the new system and all discussion of it, bear ample testimony, in our opinion, that the clergy had the interests of science very little at heart, and that their sole desire was to maintain the foundation-stone in its place on which the ingenious structure of the Christian Catholic philosophy was raised; namely, the doctrine that mother earth is the centre of the universe.
In December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated work on the two systems, except the introduction and a few finishing strokes. He announced this to his friends in sundry letters, and told Prince Cesi in two letters of 24th December, 1629, and 13th January, 1630, that he intended coming to Rome to see to the printing of the "Dialogues." The prince in his reply expressed entire approval of the project, and encouraged Galileo to set out for Rome very soon, "where he would have no further trouble about the proofs than to give such orders as he pleased."
Altogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably favourable for the publication of the "Dialogues." Galileo's devoted adherent, Castelli, had been summoned to Rome in 1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great consideration with the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest scion, Taddco, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried friend informed Galileo in a letter of 6th February, that Father Riccardi, who meanwhile had been raised to the office of chief censor of the press (Magister Sacri Palatii) had promised his ready assistance in Galileo's affairs. Castelli also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi was concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of information in the same letter, however, was not quite so satisfactory; the personage second in importance at the papal court, Urban's brother, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the "Dialogues," said nothing particular against the theory itself, so ​far as it was treated as a hypothesis, but had made the just remark that the earth, if it revolved round the sun, must be a star, an idea "which was too far opposed to theological truth." Castelli appeased the cardinal by assuring him that Galileo had weighty arguments against this, and it is characteristic of the prevailing confusion of ideas on astronomical subjects, that Barberini thought this possible, and that Castelli wrote to Galileo that he would not find it hard to steer clear of this rock. Another instance of the trammels placed by religion on the advancement of science.
A second letter of Castelli's to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, contains far more important and encouraging intelligence. According to this, Thomas Campanella had told the Pope at an audience, that a short time before he had tried to convert some German nobles to the Catholic faith, that he had found them favourably disposed, but when they heard of the prohibition of the Copernican system, they were so indignant that he could do nothing more with them. To this Urban ​replied: "It never was our intention; and if it had depended upon us, that decree would not have been passed." These pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when repeated to Galileo were well calculated to mislead him into infringing the decree, in the spirit if not in the letter. They seem, however, to have been at least as incorrect as the reply reported on the same subject to Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. Urban entirely forgot that he had not interceded in any way in 1616 for the astronomical system threatened with condemnation. And his conduct showed that he must have been a party to it. We need only call to mind how inexorable he had been on the question in 1624 to Galileo himself, and how sternly he afterwards allowed proceedings to be taken against him. Urban could only have acted in this way because he was convinced of the danger of the Copernican system to the Christian philosophy. And he was far too shrewd not to perceive how the modern views threatened a religion based upon ancient astronomy. His remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing but smooth words, and this is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But they could not fail to inspire Galileo with confidence that under Urban VIII. an ingenious circumvention of the decree would give no offence at the Vatican. Besides this, Castelli reported in the same letter that Mgr. Ciampoli, who was also well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo's personal appearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty that might occur about publishing the "Dialogues." Another letter from Castelli of 6th April urged him to set out for the papal residence, where, to quote the words of Ciampoli, "they were longing for him more than for a lady love."
​Full of hope from these promising reports, on 3rd May Galileo arrived at Rome with the MS. of his "Dialogues." And events during his two months' stay seemed to realise his expectations. Soon after his arrival he had a long audience of Urban VIII, and wrote on 18th May in high spirits to Florence:—"His Holiness has begun to treat my affairs in a way that permits me to hope for a favourable result." Riccardi also met Galileo, as was to be expected from Castelli's letters, in the most obliging way. Galileo showed him his work with the express request that he would examine it closely. The papal censor, however, could not but perceive, with all his personal regard for Galileo, that in his "Dialogues" he had by no means always kept, de facto, within the limits of hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system, and in some parts had far exceeded them. He decided, therefore, both as his official duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have the book altered to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections were to be made, and both preface and conclusion were to be altered so as to agree with them. Riccardi intrusted the first task to his official assistant, Father Rafael Visconti, who seemed well qualified for it in his capacity of professor of mathematics. He executed it with equal prudence and ingenuity, improved many passages, and finally approved the work thus revised.
The middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo was anxious to leave Rome on account of the heat. But Riccardi wished to look through the "Dialogues" once more after they had been revised by Visconti, before giving them his imprimatur. Galileo represented that this second revision was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi to grant permission for the printing for Rome.
​On the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning and end of the work in accordance with a plan of the supreme authorities of the censorship. There were also still a few passages to be personally discussed with the author; and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome without danger to his health, which was already beginning to suffer, it was agreed that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile he would prepare the index and the dedication to the Grand Duke, and revise the preface and conclusion. The main condition, however, under which Riccardi gave the book his imprimatur, was that after its final completion it should be submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of time, he engaged to look it through sheet by sheet, and to send each at once to press after inspection. As was usual in the case of members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, the work was to be published in the name of this society, and the president, Prince Cesi, was to see it through the press.
So at the end of June Galileo returned to Florence with his MS. and the ecclesiastical imprimatur, which was granted bona fide for Rome without reserve. There were indeed sundry conditions attached to it, to be arranged privately; but they seemed to present so little difficulty, that a few days after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli that Signor Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly satisfied, and with his affairs quite settled.
​But events were now at hand which long deferred Galileo's ardent desire to see the results of his unwearied researches and labours speedily given to the world, and which involved complications afterwards taken advantage of by his enemies to effect the ruin of their great opponent.
* ↑ "Dialogo di Galileo: dove nei congressi di quattro giornate si discorre sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo Tolemaico e Copernicano, proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per l'una parte, che par l'altra."
* ↑ Comp. Galileo’s letters of 7th Dec., 1624, and 12th Jan., 1630, to Cesare Marsili (Op. vi. pp. 300 and 355); also Cesi's letter to Galileo, 12th Oct., 1624 (Op. ix. p. 71).
* ↑ Op. i, ("Dialogo di Galileo Galilei," etc.), pp. 11, 12.
* ↑ Op. i. pp. 501-503.
* ↑ Martin, p. 99.
* ↑ Comp. for example the essay: "Der Heilige Stuhl gegen Galileo Galilei u. das astronomische System des Copernicus"; also Marini, pp. 70-73.
* ↑ Op. vi. pp. 333-336.
* ↑ Ibid. pp. 333 and 336.
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 167.
* ↑ Ibid. pp. 173-175.
* ↑ This celebrated Dominican monk, who in 1599 had been condemned by Spanish despotism to imprisonment for life, ostensibly for having taken part in the insurrection in Calabria, but in fact for his liberal opinions, had been released by Urban VIII. in 1626, under pretext of a charge of heresy. After having been detained for three years for appearance's sake, in the palace of the Holy Office, he had, after 1629, been at large in Rome. Campanella was one of Galileo's most zealous adherents, and, so far as his imprisonment permitted, he had corresponded with him for years. A letter of his to Galileo of 8th March, 1614, is noteworthy (Op. viii. pp. 305-307), in which he entreats him to leave all other researches alone and to devote himself solely to the decisive question of the system of the universe. In conclusion he makes the singular offer to cure Galileo, who was then lying ill, by means of "the astrological medicine"! In 1616, when the Copernican theory had been denounced by the Inquisition as heretical, the Inquisitor Cardinal Gaetani applied to Campanella, who was widely known for his learning, to give his opinion on the relation of the system to Holy Scripture. In compliance with this demand, Campanella wrote a brilliant apology for Galileo, in which the expert theologian and mathematician brought the system into agreement with the Bible. But even the zealous demonstrations of the imprisoned philosopher did not avail to avert the decree of the Sacred Congregation.
* ↑ "Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi non si sarrebe fatto quel decreto." (Op. ix. p. 176.)
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 176, 177.
* ↑ "Che lei è desiderata piu che qualsivoglia amatissima donzella." (Op. ix. p. 178.)
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 188.
* ↑ In the narration of this most important transaction we have followed the memorial which, later on, at the beginning of the trial of Galileo, was handed to the Pope by the preliminary commission. This is an authentic document, agreeing as far as it relates to these transactions with Galileo’s correspondence. (Op. vi. pp. 274–277; Suppl. pp. 233–235.) It is inconceivable how Albèri (Op. Suppl. p. 238, note 2) can have fallen into the mistake of supposing that Galileo had not received the imprimatur at all, though he himself publishes documents which prove the contrary; as, for instance, the letter of Visconti to Galileo of 16th June, 1630 (Suppl. p. 235); Galileo's to Cioli of 7th March, 1631 (Op. vi. pp. 374–376); a letter of Riccardi's to the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, Niccolini, of 28th April, 1631 (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244); and finally, a letter from Niccolini to Cioli of Sep., 1632 (Op ix. pp. 420–423). Martin also expresses his surprise at this error of Albéri's (p. 102, note 2).
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 193 and 205.
* ↑ p. vi. p. 346, note 2.
* ↑ Wolynski, "La Diplomazia Toscana e Gal. Galilei," p. 35.