# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 13

CHAPTER III.
THE "DIALOGUES" AND THE JESUITS.
By the beginning of January, 1632, the printing of the "Dialogues" was so far advanced, that on the 3rd Galileo had the satisfaction of telling his friend, Cesare Marsili, at Bologna, that the work would be completed in ten or twelve days. It did not, however, appear till February. On the twenty-second of that month Galileo presented his book to the Grand Duke, to whom it was dedicated, and to the other members of the house of Medici. On the twenty-third he sent at first thirty-two copies to Cesare Marsili. He had a large number of copies handsomely bound for his powerful friends and patrons at Rome, but they could not be despatched immediately, since, owing to the continued prevalence of the plague, they would have had to be purified in the quarantine houses, which might have injured them. It was not till May that two unbound copies reached the papal residence in a roundabout way. One of these came into the hands of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who lent it to Father Castelli. In a letter to Galileo of 26th September, 1631, he had vowed that, after the appearance of the ​"Dialogues," he would read no other book but that and the Breviary; and in a letter of 29th May, he now expressed to the author his admiration of his work, which surpassed all his expectations, Shortly afterwards, Count Filippo Magalotti, who was on very friendly terms with Galileo, and from his relationship to the Barberinis, was an influential personage, imported eight copies from Florence, and, as charged by the author, presented one copy each to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, to the Tuscan ambassador Niccolini, Father Riccardi, Mgr. Serristori, counsellor of the Holy Office, and the Jesuit Father Leon Santi.
While these few copies were being eagerly devoured by impatient readers at Rome, and passed rapidly from hand to hand, the book had been circulating in the rest of Italy in spite of the difficulties of communication. The applause which this famous work called forth from all men of independent minds was unexampled, and was only equalled by the bitterness and consternation it excited among the scientific conservatives. The learned world of Italy was divided into two hostile camps: that of Ptolemy on the one side, that of Copernicus-Galileo on the other. In the one were to be found progress, recognition of truth, free independent thought and research; in the other blind worship of authority and rigid adherence to the old school. And the latter party was far the most numerous; it was also reinforced by those, of whom there were a considerable number, who opposed the great reformer of science from interested motives. Besides this, the academic corporations were not favourable to him, because he so dangerously revolutionised the modern methods of teaching. The university of his native city seemed especially adverse to him. It had carried its animosity so far a few years before as to try to deprive him of the income which he enjoyed as its first mathematician by the Grand Ducal decree of 12th July, 1620, though, thanks to ​the energetic remonstrances of some influential patrons, the attempt was not successful.
In addition to all this there is another consideration, which played a much larger part in the sad story of Galileo's trial than is generally supposed, The clergy, and especially the Jesuits, had hitherto had a monopoly of science. Everybody knows how assiduously it had been cultivated in ancient times in the cells and schools of the convents, and that the ecclesiastical orders were the guardians and disseminators of learning, while among both populace and nobles ignorance flourished like a weed. When by the natural law of progress the nations of Europe emerged from the simplicity of childhood into the storm and stress period of youth; when inventions,—especially printing,—and above all the discovery of America, began to spread knowledge and culture among the masses, it was once more the servants of Rome who, justly estimating the spirit of the age, placed themselves, so to speak, in the van of the intellectual movement, that they might guide its course. The strongest evidence that the Church was in exclusive possession of the highest mental powers is afforded by the Reformation; for the first stirrings of doubt, of critical, philosophical speculation, arose in the bosoms of the Roman Catholic clergy, All the reformers, from Abelard and Arnold of Brescia, to Huss and Luther, sprang, without exception, from among them.
Just at the juncture when the split into two creeds threatened to divide the joints and marrow of the supreme power of the Church, the man appeared who most effectually contributed to restore it by founding a new ecclesiastical order, with a very peculiar organisation. This was Ignatius Loyola. And if we seek for the explanation of the profound influence gained by this corporation in all parts of the world, and every grade of society, we shall find it in four factors: the highest enthusiasm for the common cause; willing ​obedience to the central authority—the general for the time being; utter unscrupulousness as to means; and the supremacy which knowledge always confers. Far from occupying themselves, like the Protestant clergy, exclusively with theology, there was no branch of knowledge that was not cultivated by these champions of the Church; indeed they stood for a century at the summit of learning. And now, in the most recent epoch of that stigmatised century, Galileo the layman steps forth upon the arena of the science of the heavens and the earth, and teaches the astonished world truths before which the whole edifice of scholastic sophistry must fall to the ground. The Jesuit monopoly of the education of youth and of teaching altogether, became day by day more insecure, and the influence of the society was threatened in proportion. Was it to be wondered at that the pious fathers strained every nerve in this final conflict for mastery, and in the attempt to prevent their world-wide mission of educating from being torn from their hands? This explains why the reformers of science appeared just as dangerous to them as those of religion; and they resisted the former, as they had done the latter, with all the resources at their command.
Galileo, as one of the most advanced pioneers of science, was in the highest degree inconvenient to the Jesuits; members of their order had also repeatedly measured lances with the great man in scientific discussion—Fathers Grassi and Scheiner, for instance—with very unfortunate results, by no means calculated to make the Society of Jesus more favourable to him. But now that his "Dialogues on the Two Systems of the World" had appeared, which, as every intelligent man must perceive, annihilated with its overwhelming mass of evidence the doctrines of the old school, and raised the modern system upon its ruins, the Jesuits set every ​lever in motion, first to suppress this revolutionary book, and then to compass the ruin of the author.
Riccardi himself remarked to Count Magalotti at that time: "The Jesuits will persecute Galileo with the utmost bitterness."
Besides, they found welcome allies in the overwhelming majority of the rest of the clergy. With them the theological considerations we have mentioned formed the motive. And the louder the applause with which the independent scientific world greeted Galileo's latest remarkable work, the fiercer burnt the flame of ecclesiastical hate. There can be no doubt that the full significance of the "Dialogues" had not been apprehended by any of the censors to whom they had been submitted. This is obvious from the fact that they seriously thought that the diplomatic preface, and a few phrases in the work itself, would suffice to make it appear innocuous. The commotion made by the book in the scientific and theological world convinced them of their mistake.
Meanwhile, Galileo in Florence gave himself up to unmixed delight at the brilliant success of his "Dialogues." His learned friends and followers, such as Fra Bonaventura Cavalieri, Giovan Batista Baliani, Castelli, Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, Alfonzo Antonini, Campanella, and many others, expressed to him in repeated letters, and often with genuine enthusiasm, their admiration of his splendid work; not one of them had any foreboding that it was to bring its grey-headed author before the bar of the Inquisition; and Galileo himself least of all. He expected violent opposition from his scientific opponents, and was prepared to engage in the contest, but he considered himself quite secure from ecclesiastical persecution. Had not influential personages at Rome, Cesi, Mgr. ​Ciampoli, Cesarini, and Castelli, been urging him for years to finish his work, the tendency of which they well knew? And when it was at last complete, it was these same friends, as well meaning as they were influential, who had done their best to forward the publication. Besides, the book had appeared not only with the imprimatur and under the protection of the Inquisition at Florence, as prescribed, and with the permission of the political authorities of the city, but Galileo could show also the imprimatur of the Pater Magister Sacri Palatii, which was not at all usual with works not printed at Rome. He considered this a double security; Jesuitism, on the contrary, contrived afterwards to forge an indictment out of this unusual circumstance. Not a word had appeared in print without having been read by the organs of papal scrutiny and having received the sanction of the Church. Might not the author well look forward to the publication of his work with perfect tranquillity, and feel himself secure from any collision with the ecclesiastical authorities? Undoubtedly, if he had not made the solemn promise sixteen years before, "entirely to renounce the opinion that the sun is the centre of the universe, and is stationary, and that the earth on the contrary moves, and neither to hold the same, nor in any way to teach or defend it in speaking or writing."
Galileo's proceedings at this time, as before and after, prove that he was totally unaware of this assumed prohibition; anyhow, he pays not the slightest attention to it. He sends ​copies of his work to the most eminent persons at Rome is; delighted at its immense success; arms himself for defence against the indignant Aristotelians, but never thinks of a conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, which, sincere Catholic as he was, would have given him great pain apart from consequences. Even in June and July there were some ill-disposed persons, to the great annoyance of Riccardi, zealously trying to discover something in the book which could be formulated into an accusation against the author. The title page was adorned with a drawing of three dolphins, one with the tail of another in its mouth, with an insignificant motto above it. This illustration was impugned because it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical approbation, and they expatiated with more malice than wit upon the meaning of the mysterious device. It was a great relief to Riccardi's mind when it was pointed out by Count Magalotti that the same illustration appeared on almost all the works which issued from the press of Landini at Florence, where the "Dialogues" had been printed. This bait, then, had not taken, and Galileo's foes, worthy members of the Society of Jesus, had to find some other mode of ensnaring him. They now brought against him the twofold reproach, that the preface was printed in different type from the rest of the book, which was true; and that several weighty arguments which the Pope had brought against the Copernican system in conversation with Galileo, though they might perhaps have been adduced in the MS., were not in the printed book; this was a lie. The truth however at once came to light, for these "weighty arguments" were reduced to one, which was brought forward at the conclusion of the "Dialogues." But Jesuitism, as we shall soon see, drew very singular conclusions from the very natural circumstance that it was mentioned by ​Simplicius, the defender of Ptolemy. The brethren of Father Grassi and Father Scheiner,—the latter of whom had been for a few months at Rome, and was greatly incensed at the "Dialogues,"—well knew how to lay hold of the Pope by his most vulnerable points, his personal vanity and boundless ambition, which made him feel every contradiction like an attack on his authority. They were assiduous in confirming Urban in his opinion that the Copernican doctrine endangered the dogmas of the Christian Catholic faith in the highest degree, and now represented that the publication of the "Dialogues" was an incalculable injury to the Church. Besides this, they persuaded the Pope that in his latest work Galileo had again, though this time under concealment, entered into theological interpretations of Holy Scripture. They thus stigmatised him as a rebel against the papal decrees, who had only obtained the licence from Riccardi by ​cunning devices,—a misrepresentation of the facts which, however, did not fail of its effect on Urban. This is conclusively proved by the despatches of Niccolini to Cioli of 5th and 11th September, 1632, of which we shall have to speak more particularly.
The crowning point of the intrigues of Galileo's foes was, however, the cunning assertion that by Simplicius no other was intended than Urban VIII. himself; and they actually made him believe it. One would scarcely have thought this possible with this shrewd Pope, who was so well-disposed towards Galileo; but it is beyond all question that it was so, and it put him in a boundless rage. It is decidedly indicated by his attitude towards Galileo at the trial, especially at the beginning of it. At that time it put him in such ill humour to be spoken to about Galileo, that all who interested themselves for him agreed that it was better not to confer with Urban himself, but with Cardinal Barberini or the ministers. The repeated attempts also made by Galileo and his friends, even years afterwards, to convince Urban that it had never entered his head to insult him, and that it was a cunning slander, prove that for a long time the Pope had taken Simplicius for his counterfeit.
As this manifest falsehood is revived by certain writers, even at this time of day, as having been Galileo's real intention, it seems necessary to throw a little more light on it. The telling remarks which Albèri makes on the subject might well suffice to show the absurdity of the imputation. He says that in the first place the attachment and devotion always shown by Galileo towards Urban, to the sincerity of which numerous letters bear witness, exclude all idea of so perfidious an act; and in the second, that it was Galileo's own interest to retain the goodwill of his powerful patron, and not frivolously to ​fritter it away. But we pass from this argument ad absurdum to one ad concretum. Simplicius is said to be Urban VIII. But not appropriately, for he was no such headstrong Peripatetic as is represented by Simplicius; had he been so, it was impossible that in 1624 he should have enjoyed having "II Saggiatore" read to him at table, that cutting satire on the Aristotelian wisdom in general, and the wisdom of Father Grassi in particular; and that in the next year he should have been so much pleased with Galileo's reply to Ingoli.
Galileo's enemies founded their assertion on the circumstance that at the end of the work Simplicius employs an argument which the Pope himself had brought forward in repeated conversations in 1624 with Galileo, and on the weight of which he plumed himself not a little. It consisted of the reflection, undoubtedly more devout than scientific, that God is all-powerful, so that all things are possible to Him, and that therefore the tides could not be adduced as a necessary proof of the double motion of the earth without limiting His omnipotence. This pious objection is received by both Salviati and Sagredo with the utmost reverence. The former calls it heavenly and truly admirable, and the latter thinks that it forms a fitting conclusion to the discussion, which opinion is acted upon. The Pope's argument is thus by no means made to appear ridiculous, but quite the contrary. As to the main point, Simplicius says expressly that "he had this argument from a very eminent and learned personage." If this means Urban VIII., it is plain that Simplicius cannot be Urban VIII. Q.E.D.
In writing his "Dialogues," Galileo found himself in a difficult position. As he brought forward all the arguments ​of the disciples of Ptolemy against the new system, the vain pontiff would have been sorely offended if he had not introduced his. But who should mention it, if not Simplicius? Galileo might think that Urban would not perhaps like to see his argument treated as the original suggestion of Simplicius, who did not appear in a brilliant light, and devised the expedient of making him quote it, as that of "a very eminent and learned personage," whereby he would imagine that he had steered clear of every obstacle. But there was no security against calumny. How little idea Galileo could have had of making Urban ridiculous under the guise of Simplicius appears also from the fact that in 1636, when seeking full pardon from the Pope, and when he would be most anxious not to irritate him, he had just completed his famous work, "Dialogues on the Modern Sciences," in which Simplicius again plays the part of defender of the ancient principles; and that he published it in 1638, just when, in view of the unfavourable answer of 1636, he was begging at least for the favour of being nursed at Florence. There can be no doubt that this suspicion materially contributed to injure Galileo's cause. Pieralisi, indeed, makes an assertion as novel as it is untenable, that this bold slander was first heard of in 1635, and therefore not until after the famous trial; and in his book, "Urban VIII. and Gal. Galilei," he devotes a chapter of forty-six pages to prove this latest novelty. But all his arguments are upset by the following passage by Galileo in a letter to his friend Micanzio on 26th July, 1636:—
"I hear from Rome that his Eminence Cardinal Antonio Barberini and the French ambassador have seen his Holiness and tried to convince him that I never had the least idea of perpetrating so sacrilegious an act as to make game of his Holiness, as my malicious foes have persuaded him, and which was the primary cause of all my troubles."
​Pieralisi is acquainted with these words, and seeks to weaken their indisputable force as evidence in a lengthy disquisition; but an impartial critic only sees in this the apologist of Urban VIII., who desires, at all hazards, to shield him from the suspicion of having been actuated in the matter of Galileo's trial by personal motives, which will always be recognised in history as a fact, though it is also an exaggeration of some historians to maintain that it was the actual starting-point of the whole process, Urban having wished to revenge himself for this assumed personal insult. No, it had its effect, but was not the chief motive. The Jesuits had inspired the Pope with the opinion that the "Dialogues" were eminently dangerous to the Church, more dangerous and abhorrent even than the writings of Luther and Calvin, and he was highly incensed at the representation that Galileo had shamefully outwitted Father Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and even his Holiness himself, in obtaining the licence. Offended majesty, the determination to guard the interests of the Church and the authority of the Bible, indignation at Galileo’s assumed cunning, and annoyance at having been duped by it,—these were the motives which impelled Urban VIII. to the deed called the institution of the trial of the Inquisition against Galileo.
* ↑ Op. vi. p. 389.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 390.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 271.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 253.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 270-272.
* ↑ Op. Suppl. p. 319.
* ↑ Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp. 163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234.
* ↑ Comp. on this subject the chapters on "Die Gesellschaft Jesu" in "Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart," by Fr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966.
* ↑ …"I Gesuiti lo persequiterano acerbissimamente." (See Magalotti's letter to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th Aug., 1632. Op. Suppl. p. 321.)
* ↑ See their letters. (Op. ix. pp. 264–267, 270–272, 276–282.)
* ↑ See their letters to Galileo. (Op. ix. pp. 25, 72, 97, 166–168, 174–177, 210, 255; Suppl. p. 181.)
* ↑ On the reverse side of the title page of the "Dialogues" stands:— "Imprimatur, si videbitur Rever. P. Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici. A. Episcopus Bellicastensis Vices gerens. Imprimatur. Fr. Nicolaus Ricardus, Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister. Imprimatur Florentiæ; ordinibus consuetis servatis. 11 Septembris 1630. Petrus Nicolinus Vic. Gen. Florentiæ. Imprimatur. Die 11 Septembris 1630. Fra Clemens Egidius Inquisit. Gen. Florentiæ. Stampisi. A. di 12 di Settembre 1630. Niccolò dell 'Altella."
* ↑ It is reproduced in Venturi, vol. ii. p. 117.
* ↑ See on all this the two detailed letters of Count Magalotti to Mario Guiducci, from Rome, of 7th August and 4th September, 1632. (Op. Suppl. pp. 318-329.)
* ↑ Scheiner had two years before published a work called "Rosa Ursina," in which he again fiercely attacked Galileo, and stoutly maintained his unjustifiable claims to the first discovery of the solar spots. Galileo did not directly answer him in his "Dialogues," but dealt him some side blows, and stood up for his own priority in the discovery with weighty arguments. Castelli, in a letter to Galileo of 19th June, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 274), gives an amusing description of Scheiner's rage. When a priest from Siena praised the book in his presence at a bookseller's, and called it the most important work that had ever appeared, Scheiner left the shop, pale as death, and trembling with excitement in every limb. But he did not always thus curb his rage. The natural philosopher, Torricelli, who afterwards became famous, a pupil of Castelli's, reported to Galileo, in a letter of 11th September, 1632 (Op. ix. p. 287), a conversation he had had with Scheiner about the "Dialogues." Although he shook his head about them, he had concurred in Torricelli's praise, but could not help remarking that he found the frequent digressions tedious; and no wonder, for they often referred to himself, and he always got the worst of it. He broke off the conversation by saying that "Galileo had behaved very badly to him, but he did not wish to speak of it." In a letter of 23rd February, 1633, to Gassendi (Op. ix. p. 275), Scheiner is less reserved. Rage and fury evidently guided his pen, and he complains bitterly that Galileo had dared in his work to "lay violent hands" on the "Rosa Ursina." Scheiner was doubtless one of the most zealous in instituting the trial against Galileo, although Targioni (vol. i. p. 113, note a) overshoots the mark in making him his actual accuser.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 420–425.
* ↑ See Magalotti's letter to Guiducci of 4th September, 1632 (Op. Suppl. p. 324); and Niccolini's report to Cioli of 5th September (Op. ix. p. 422).
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 271, note 1.
* ↑ Comp. Niccolini's report to Cioli of 13th March, 1633. (Op. ix. p. 437)
* ↑ Op. i. "Dialogo di Galileo Galilei," etc., p. 502.
* ↑ This point has been recently thoroughly discussed by Henri Martin. Comp. pp. 159–168.
* ↑ Pages 34-38, etc.
* ↑ . . ."Che fu il primo motere di tutti i miei travagli." (Op. vii, p. 71.)
* ↑ This erroneous idea is found among a large number of historians; for instance, Biot (Journal des Savans, July-Oct. 1858), pp. 464, 465; Philarète Chasles, pp. 129, 130, 208; Reumont, p. 336; and Parchappe, p. 206. Epinois (pp. 56, 57) and Martin (pp. 159-168) have merely given the importance to this circumstance which it deserves, for it really was of great moment in the course of the trial.
* ↑ ". . .E da buona banda intendo i Padri Gesuiti aver fatto impressione in testa principalissima che tal mio libro è piu esecrando e piu pernicioso per Santa Chiesa, che le scritture di Lutero e di Calvino. . ." (Letter from Galileo to Elia Diodati of 15th Jan., 1633, Op. vii. p. 19. Comp. also his letter to King Ladislaus of Poland, Op, vii. p. 190.)