# Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia/Chapter 10

CHAPTER X.
PAPAL FAVOUR.
On the accession of Urban VIII. Galileo formed a project of offering his congratulations to the new Pope at Rome, and of using all his personal influence on the occasion to obtain toleration for the Copernican system, now no longer opposed by the weighty influence of Cardinal Bellarmine, for he had died two years before. But he first consulted his friends at Rome, whether he would be well received, and especially by his Holiness. He wrote among other things to Prince Cesi, on 9th October, 1623: "I have in my head plans of no small importance for the learned world, and perhaps can never hope for so wonderful a combination of circumstances to ensure their success, at least so far as I am able to conduce to it." Cesi, who well understood Galileo's mode of speaking, confirmed him in his intentions in his answer of 21st October, and urged him to carry out his project speedily. "It is necessary for you to come, and you will be very welcome to his Holiness," wrote the Prince. Thomas Rinuccini, brother of the Archbishop of Fermo, of whom Galileo made the same inquiries, replied as commissioned by the new Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Francesco ​Barberini, that Urban VIII. would always be pleased to receive him, and told him that he had had a long audience of the Pope himself three days ago, of which he reported to Galileo:—
"I swear to you that nothing pleased his Holiness so much as the mention of your name. After I had been speaking of you for some time, I told him that you, esteemed sir, had an ardent desire to come and kiss his toe, if his Holiness would permit it, to which the Pope replied that it would give him great pleasure, if it were not inconvenient to you, and if the journey would not be injurious to your health; for great men like you must spare themselves, that they may live as long as possible."
Galileo now resolved to go to Rome as soon as he could, but his uncertain health and the unprecedentedly bad weather, which had laid whole tracts of land under water, delayed his departure. His friends at Rome wrote meanwhile again and again, encouraging him to set out, for the Pope, Cardinal Barberini, and all his exalted patrons and numerous adherents were longing for his presence; and Mgr. Ciampoli assured him that he "would find that his Holiness had a special personal affection for him."
At length, on the 1st April, Galileo was able to set out, although the state of his health was still such that he could only perform the journey in a litter. He reached Aquasparta on 8th April, spent a fortnight with Prince Cesi in his fine place there, and discussed the affairs which lay so near his heart with his learned and influential friend. He did not arrive in Rome till towards the end of April. The long-expected guest would have been sure of a distinguished reception, even without the Grand Duchess Christine's letter of recommendation to her son, Cardinal de' Medici. Every one was aware of the favour which the new Pope entertained ​for the great astronomer. His old adherents, therefore, received him with greater delight than ever; and his enemies, for the time, only ventured to clench their fists behind his back. His letters of this period express the great satisfaction which this flattering reception afforded him. The prospect did not indeed look quite so favourable for his cause. Within six weeks he had had six long audiences of Urban VIII., had been most affably received by him, and had found opportunity to lay before him all his arguments in defence of the Copernican system; but he would not be convinced, and in one of these discussions tried to turn the tables, and to convince the advocate of the modern system of its incorrectness, in which he met with no success. And not only did Urban, in spite of his esteem for Galileo, turn a deaf ear to his arguments, but he would not grant his petition for toleration of the new doctrine; on this point he was quite inexorable.
In vain did Galileo obtain the support of several of the cardinals who were friendly to him, to gain permission from the supreme ruler of Christendom to teach the Copernican system as true, The Pope said to Cardinal Hohenzollern, who, at Galileo's request, warmly took up the question, and had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great caution was required in dealing with it, "that the Church neither had condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine as heretical, but only as rash." This language was, as Henri Martin justly observes, more than wanting in precision; for in the first place the Church had never condemned it at all, either as "heretical" or "rash," for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the "Church"; and in the second place, this commission had, in 1616, not condemned this ​opinion as "rash," but "foolish and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical," and this without the papal confirmation, so that no condemnation by the Church could be said to exist.
Galileo, finding that Urban, with all his friendly feeling towards him personally, would never be persuaded to revoke the decree of 5th March, 1616, resolved to return home after a stay of six weeks at Rome. There was little to be gained by remaining longer. As soon as the attitude which Urban intended to assume towards the prohibited doctrine became evident, Galileo's clerical adherents as far as possible avoided expressing themselves on the subject, and the moderate party among the Romanists merely advised him to take care that his scientific speculations did not contradict Holy Scripture.
Father Nicolo Riccardi, who was much attached to Galileo and took a great interest in his subsequent trial, was very ingenious in maintaining a safe neutrality between the two systems. This good man, to whom from his eloquence, or as others said because he was so fat, the King of Spain had given the nickname of "Il Padre Mostro," prudently agreed neither with the Ptolemaic nor the Copernican system, but contented himself with a view as peculiar as it was convenient. He saw no difficulty in the stars being moved, as we see them to be moved in the vault of heaven, by angels, a proceeding which demanded nothing on our part but wonder and admiration.
Meanwhile Galileo's stay at Rome had been of essential service to science, although in quite a different way from that which he intended on his arrival. In 1622 a certain Jacob Kuppler, from Cologne, came to Rome with a microscope made by a relative of his, a Dutchman of the name of Drebbel, in order to lay the new discovery, of which Drebbel claimed to be the inventor, before the papal government. ​Kuppler, however, died before he had an opportunity of exhibiting his instrument to the court. Soon afterwards many other microscopes were sent to Rome, where, however, no one knew how to use the complicated instrument. Galileo not only at once perceived its use, but greatly improved it. He afterwards sent many of these improved instruments to his friends, and before long his microscopes were in as great request as his telescopes. In order to rectify a mistake that has been often repeated, that Galileo was the inventor of this instrument of such vast importance to science, we mention here that he never claimed this merit himself; it was his eulogist, Viviani, who first claimed it for him, and his thoughtless followers have repeated it. Galileo had indeed, as he mentions in his "Il Saggiatore," discovered a method of using the telescope to magnify objects as early as 1610, but it required an over-zealous biographer to claim Galileo as the inventor of the microscope from this. It was, however, he who, in 1624, brought the microscope to a degree of perfection on which for a long time no advance was made.
Urban VIII. heaped favours of all sorts on Galileo before his departure. He promised him a pension for his son, three days afterwards he sent him a splendid picture, then again two medals—one of silver, the other of gold, and quite a ​number of Agnus Dei; poor consolation, it is true, for the disappointment of the great expectations with which he came to Rome. However, he did not return to Florence entirely without hope. Although there could be no longer any expectation of a public revocation of the famous decree, he was fain to believe that it would not be rigidly kept to, and thought that, supported by his papal patron, he should be able ingeniously to circumvent it. He was far from thinking that the fetters placed by the ecclesiastical power on the free course of the Copernican doctrine were removed, but he was of opinion that they were considerably loosened. And ensuing events, as well as all the news which Galileo received from his friends at Rome, were calculated to confirm the idea. The Pope, wishing to give a strong official proof of his favour, had himself addressed a letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which, to the no small chagrin of Galileo's enemies, he had not only done full justice to his services to science, but had laid special stress on his religious sentiments. In this letter of 7th June, 1624, Urban first mentioned Galileo's great discoveries, "the fame of which will shine on earth so long as Jupiter and his satellites shine in heaven." And after declaring that he felt a true fatherly affection for so great a man, his Holiness continued:—
"We have observed in him not only the literary distinction, but also the love of religion and all the good qualities worthy of the papal favour. When he came to congratulate us on our accession, we embraced him affectionately, and listened with pleasure to his learned demonstrations which add fresh renown to Florentine eloquence. We desire that he should not return to his native country without having received by our generosity manifold proofs of our papal favour. . . . And that you may fully understand to what extent he is dear to us, we wish to give this brilliant testimony to his virtues and piety. We are anxious to assure you that we shall thank you for all the kindness that you can show him, by imitating or even surpassing our fatherly generosity."
With his hopes raised still higher by these unusually gracious ​words of his papal patron, Galileo ventured, soon after his return from Rome, to reply to a refutation of the Copernican system, which in 1616 had been addressed to him as its most distinguished advocate in the then favourite form of a public letter, by a certain Ingoli, then a lawyer at Ravenna, and afterwards secretary of the Propaganda at Rome. Ingoli, though an adherent of the old system, was at the same time a sincere admirer of Galileo, so that his arguments against the theory of the double motion of the earth were characterised by great objectivity. After the events of 1616, Galileo had wisely refrained from answering it; in 1618, however, it had been done by another corypheus of science, Kepler, in his "Extracts from the Astronomy of Copernicus," in which he valiantly combated Ingoli's objections. But the latter did not consider himself beaten, and replied in a letter addressed to a chamberlain of Paul V.
Now, after the lapse of eight years, Galileo thought that, protected by the favour of Urban VIII. he might venture on a reply to Ingoli. But he again took care in writing it not to come into collision with the decree of 5th March. With the assumed imperious prohibition of February, 1616, this step of Galileo's can be no more made to agree than his sending his treatise on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, 1618, or the publication of "Il Saggiatore." Galileo undertakes, in the reply to Ingoli, to defend the Copernican doctrine under a double pretext. On the one hand, he says he wishes to show that, as he had given currency to the new system of the universe before it was condemned by ecclesiastical authority, he had not been the defender of an improbable or unreasonable idea; on the other hand, he wishes to prove to the Protestant Copernicans in Germany, that in Catholic Italy the views of their great countryman had not been rejected from ignorance of their great probability, "but from reverence for Holy Scripture, as well as zeal for religion and ​our holy faith." After this ingenious introduction, and an assurance that he had no intention whatever of representing the forbidden doctrine as true, he proceeds with equal politeness and vigour to refute all Ingoli's objections.
In spite of this diplomatic introduction, however, his friends at Rome, well aware of the malice of his enemies, and having had but a few months before to defend "Il Saggiatore," urgently dissuaded him from having this rather warm defence of a forbidden doctrine printed. He gave heed to their warnings, and so this reply was only circulated in numerous copies among the learned world in Italy.
Meanwhile the reports which Galileo was constantly receiving from his friends at Rome tended to increase his confidence in the favourable influence which Urban's personal liking for him, and his taste for art and science, were likely to exercise on tolerance of the Copernican system. Thus his devoted adherent Guiducci, in several letters of 6th, 13th and 24th September, 1624, told him, that through the mediation of the Jesuit father, Tarquinio Galuzzi, he had had several interviews with Galileo's former bitter adversary, Father Grassi, who had said that Galileo's theory that the phenomena of the tides were to be attributed to the double motion of the earth "was very ingenious," and that when the truth of these opinions was unanswerably established, the theologians would bestir themselves to alter the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which refer to the earth as being stationary! The guileless Guiducci added confidentially, quite taken with this Jesuit's amiability, that he had not noticed any great aversion to the new system in Grassi, indeed he did not despair of estranging "Lothario Sarsi" from Ptolemy.
Two months later, however, the same correspondent told Galileo that a violent harangue had been delivered in the ​Jesuit College at Rome against the adherents of the new doctrine, by Father Spinola, and some time afterwards he sent him a copy of it; but as it attacked all those who did not profess to be followers of an antiquated Peripateticism, it made but little impression on Galileo, and that little was entirely effaced when Mgr. Ciampoli wrote to him, on 28th December, 1625, that he had acquainted the Pope with several passages of his reply to Ingoli, and that he had highly approved them.
Before long Guiducci found out how bitterly he had been deceived in Grassi, and what a miserable game he had been playing with him as Galileo's friend. The memory of the favours by which the Pope had distinguished the great Tuscan when at Rome had scarcely died away when Grassi threw aside the mask, and "Lothario Sarsi" exhibited himself in a new and revised edition, fulminating rage and venom against Galileo and his system. Notwithstanding the hypocritical moderation exhibited to Guiducci, he had not forgotten the mortifying defeat which "Il Saggiatore" had subjected him to, and, though circumstances had prevented him from defending himself at once, he had by no means given up the intention of doing so. Two years having elapsed since Galileo's visit to Rome, Grassi thought he might venture, under pretext of a reply to "Il Saggiatore," to publish a new attack on its author. It was entitled, in bad Latin; "Ratio ponderum Libræ et Simbellæ, etc. Autore Lothario Sarsi Sigensano." It contained many personal accusations against Galileo, and the work altogether was characterized by a blind hatred, which repeatedly led the author into very foolish statements. For instance, Grassi tried incidentally to prove by very ingenious arguments that Galileo's physics would lead to the denial of the real presence in the Lord's Supper! But the ​enraged Jesuit went still further, and gave his readers pretty plainly to understand that since Galileo agreed on many questions of physics with Epicurus, Telesius, and Cardanus, he must also approve their godlessness, which strange assertion, however, he did not venture to sustain by any evidence.
To Galileo it seemed an encouraging sign of the times that it was considered desirable to seek a publisher for these accusations from a member of the Roman College away from the papal residence. Grassi's effusions came out at Paris in 1626, and at Naples in 1627. The very unfavourable reception of the work at Rome, except among a few pettifogging enemies of Galileo, also tended to confirm him in his unfortunately mistaken opinion that Rome, under the pontificate of Urban VIII., would have little or nothing to object to in the rich harvest promised by the researches of Copernicus and Kepler, as well as by his own discoveries in the field of science. He thought he could reckon on papal tolerance, if only the defence of the new system were so circumspectly handled as not to clash with the oft-mentioned decree of the Congregation.
On this assumption he had resolved, immediately after his return from Rome, to carry out the great work which he had long projected, and which, from the vast scientific knowledge it displayed, combined with a brilliant style, was to meet with greater success and favour than had ever been attained by any scientific work. This was his "Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the World."
* ↑ Op. vi. pp. 289, 290.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 42, 43.
* ↑ Letter of 20th October. (Op. ix. pp. 40, 41.)
* ↑ See Rinuccini's letter to Galileo of 2nd December, 1623; and Guiducci's of 18th December. (Op. ix. pp. 48-53.)
* ↑ Compare Ciampoli's letter to Galileo of 16th March, 1624. (Op. ix. p. 55.)
* ↑ Op. ix. p. 56.
* ↑ Compare his letter from Rome of 8th June to Cesi, who was then at Aquasparta. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ . . . "Fu da S. Santita risposto come S. Chiesa non l'avea dannata, ne era per dannarla per eretica, ma solo per temeraria." Comp. Galileo's letter to-Cesi, 8th June. (Op. vi. pp. 295-297.)
* ↑ Page 92.
* ↑ Comp. Galileo's letter to Cesi, 8th June, before mentioned.
* ↑ History has assigned the merit of this valuable discovery to Zacharias Jansen, a spectacle maker of Middelburg, from whose workshop the first microscope went forth near the end of the 16th century, probably in 1590.
* ↑ Rezzi, pp. 8-10 and 36-40.
* ↑ Op. vi. p. 297; ix. p. 64.
* ↑ Galileo was never married, but he had a son who was legitimised in 1619 by Cosmo II., and two daughters, by Marina Gamba, of Venice. His daughters took the veil in the Convent of S. Matteo, at Arcetri, The mother of his children afterwards married a certain Bartolucci, with whom Galileo subsequently entered into friendly correspondence, which was quite in accordance with the state of morals and manners in Italy at that period. The pension of sixty dollars was granted in 1627, but owing to the religious exercises attached as a condition, Galileo's son did not accept it. It was then transferred to a nephew, but, as he proved unworthy of it, to Galileo himself, with an increase of forty dollars, but with the condition, as it was derived from two ecclesiastical benefices, that he should adopt the tonsure, to which he consented. He drew the pension which thus irregularly accrued to him as long as he lived.
* ↑ Op. vi. p. 295.
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 60, 61; Pieralisi, pp. 75, 76.
* ↑ This work was placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree of 10th March, 1619.
* ↑ Op. ii. pp. 64-115.
* ↑ See Guiducci's letter to Galileo from Rome, 18th April, 1625. (Op. ix. pp. 78-80.)
* ↑ Op. ix. pp. 65-71; Suppl. pp. 162-164.
* ↑ See Guiducci's letters to Galileo of 8th, 15th, and 22nd November, 21st and 27th December, 1624; and 4th January, 1625. (Op. Suppl. pp. 168-178.)
* ↑ Op. ix, p. 97.
* ↑ Op. iv. pp. 486, 487.
Layout 2