Visconti was equally unfit for the task. He made some minor corrections which aimed at making the pro-Copernican arguments appear more "hypothetical", then handed the text back to his superior.
Riccardi felt even more helpless than before. He played for time, and finally decided that he must shoulder his responsibilities and revise the text himself. But he now met with the concerted pressure of Galileo and his allies: to wit, the Papal Secretary Ciàmpoli, who indirectly represented the will of His Holiness, and the new Tuscan Ambassador, Niccolini, who was married to the Father Monster's favourite cousin, Caterina.
The result of this pressure was that Riccardi agreed to make an unusual deal: to save time, he granted the imprimatur for the book in advance, on condition that he would revise it himself, and then pass on each revised sheet to the printer. He was to be assisted in his task by the universally respected President of the Linceian Academy, Prince Cesi.
As soon as this agreement was concluded, Galileo returned to Florence to escape the heat of Rome, on the understanding that he would be back in the autumn. But soon after his departure, Prince Cesi died. Another few weeks later, the plague broke out, and the strict quarantine made communications between Rome and Florence difficult. This provided a welcome opportunity for Galileo to wriggle out of the conditions under which the imprimatur had been granted: he demanded that the book be printed in Florence out of Riccardi's control. The devoted Castelli again played a fateful part in this manoeuvre, by feeding Galileo's suspicions with dark hints about "most weighty reasons which he did not wish to commit to paper" 29 – just as he had done, years ago, by the exaggerated importance he had given to the dinner talk with the Grand Duchess Christina.
Riccardi at first flatly refused to grant permission for printing the book in Florence without revising it; he demanded that Galileo should send the manuscript to Rome for this purpose. Galileo answered that quarantine regulations made the safe dispatch of the manuscript impossible, and insisted that the final revision should be done by a Florentine censor. He enlisted the support of the Grand Duke (to whom Riccardi, as a Florentine, owed allegiance). The Tuscan Ambassador, Niccolini, and the Papal Secretary, Ciàmpoli, also renewed the pressure. The Father Monster was a constant guest at the Niccolinis'; in the end it was his beautiful Cousin Caterina who made him yield, over a bottle of Chianti at her dinner table. He agreed that the work should be revised and printed in Florence, except for the preface and concluding paragraphs which must be submitted to himself.
The revision was to be done by the Florentine Inquisitor, Father Clemente Egidii. But this was not to Galileo's taste, who proposed Father Stefani instead of Egidii. Riccardi again agreed. Evidently Father Stefani was entirely under Galileo's sway, for he was "moved to tears at many passages by the humility and reverend obedience" of the book. Stefani made a few corrections, for form's sake, and the printing began early in 1631. Riccardi, who had dark forebodings, still tried to play for time by withholding the preface and concluding sections. Once again the Niccolinis' help was enlisted. They managed to wrench the revised preface and conclusion from their cousin, though he only consented "dragged by the hair", as Niccolini himself described it. And thus, in February 1632, the first printed copies of the Dialogue came from the press.
It took only a few weeks for Urban and the Holy Office to discover that they had been outwitted. By August, the book was confiscated, and in October Galileo was summoned to appear before the Inquisition in Rome. He succeeded in delaying his journey on grounds of ill health and other pretexts for four months; but in February '33, he had to go. He took up quarters at the Tuscan Embassy, as before; but for another three months nothing happened. It was on 12 April that his first interrogation at the Holy Office took place.
There is little doubt that the decision to instigate proceedings was Urban VIII's, who felt that Galileo had played a confidence trick on him. There is equally little doubt that the Jesuits used their influence to have the book banned, and to turn the Pope against its author. Apart from solidarity with Fathers Grassi and Scheiner, they were probably moved by the consideration that Galileo's rejection of the Tychonic compromise would hamper the gradual evolution of the Church towards the new cosmology, and that his all-or-nothing gamble, based on the spurious arguments about the sunspots and the tides, might play into the hands of the reactionary forces inside the Church, upsetting their careful cosmic strategy.
But it did not require much Jesuit cunning to turn Urban's perilous adulation into the fury of the betrayed lover. Not only had Galileo gone, in letter and spirit, against the agreement to treat Copernicus strictly as a hypothesis, not only had he obtained the imprimatur by methods resembling sharp practice, but Urban's favourite argument was only mentioned briefly at the very end of the book, and put into the mouth of the simpleton who on any other point was invariably proved wrong. Urban even suspected that Simplicius was intended as a caricature of his own person. This, of course, was untrue; but Urban's suspicion persisted long after his fury had abated:
"I hear from Rome," Galileo wrote three years after his trial, "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." 30
If corroboration were needed, it is to be found in Niccolini's reports. They stress that Urban "was so incensed that he treated this affair as a personal one", 31 and quote Urban's "bitter remark" that Galileo had deceived him.
6. The Trial
The proceedings against Galileo began with the appointment of a special commission to investigate the whole affair. The Commission's findings were that Galileo had transgressed orders in deviating from the hypothetical treatment of Copernicus, and maintaining absolutely the earth's motion; that he had erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides to it; and thirdly, that he had been deceitfully silent about the command laid upon him by the Holy Office in 1616 "to relinquish altogether the said opinion ... nor henceforth to hold, teach or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing." This third point referred to the controversial minute about the serving of an absolute injunction (see above, p. 461 f.) which the Commission had discovered in the archives.
The Commission did not recommend any specific steps to be taken against Galileo; as for his book, the contents were indicted on eight counts, but the Commission suggested that all these matters could be corrected if the book were thought to be of value. The report was then handed over for further action to the Inquisition, which issued its summons in October 1632, and first interrogated Galileo on 12 April of the following year.
According to the basic rule of inquisitorial procedure, the charges were not communicated to the accused; he was, on the contrary, asked whether he knew or guessed on what grounds he had been summoned. * Galileo said that he believed it was on account of his latest book. The Commissary, Firenzuola, then questioned him in detail about the events of 1616. Galileo stated that he had been told by the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine that "the opinion of Copernicus, if adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture and must neither be held nor defended, but that it could be taken and used hypothetically." He affirmed that he had "not in any way disobeyed this command, that is, had not by any means held or defended the said opinion." The Inquisitor then read to him the alleged absolute injunction of 1616 that Galileo must "neither hold, defend, nor teach that opinion in any way whatsoever". Galileo did not directly deny the absolute injunction, but said that he could not remember the words "not to teach" and "in any way"; he referred to Bellarmine's certificate which did not contain these words. The Inquisitor then went over the whole story of the negotiations concerning the imprimatur. He asked whether when he applied for permission to print the Dialogue, Galileo had informed Father Riccardi about the command that had been issued to him. Galileo answered that he did not think it necessary to
do so, "for I have neither maintained nor defended in that book the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary, but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive." 32
____________________
*
This has also become the standard procedure in trials by the Soviet State Police. The "inquisitorial" character of OGPU methods is more than a figure of political jargon. The absolute secrecy enjoined on the accused regarding the proceedings and even the fact that he is under investigation; the absence of lawyers for the defence, and the assumption that he is guilty unless proved innocent; the methods of psychological pressure, the alternation between threats and paternal reassurance, and above all, the metaphysical axiom of the "union of wills" between Church and penitent are only the more salient features which the OGPU copied after thorough study of the Inquisition's methods and procedure.
With that the first heading ended.
Five days after the hearing, three experts of the Inquisition, who had been appointed to examine the contents of the book, handed in their reports which, by the consensus of historians, were accurate and fair. By a long list of quotations they proved beyond doubt that Galileo had not only discussed the Copernican view as a hypothesis, but that he had taught, defended and held it, and that he had called those who did not share it "mental pygmies", "dumb idiots", and "hardly deserving to be called human beings".
To pretend, in the teeth of the evidence of the printed pages of his book, that it said the opposite of what it did, was suicidal folly. Yet Galileo had had several months' respite in which to prepare his defence. The explanation can only be sought in the quasi-pathological contempt which Galileo felt for his contemporaries. The pretence that the Dialogue was written in refutation of Copernicus was so patently dishonest that his case would have been lost in any court.
The next, unexpected turn of events is best described in the words of one of the principal personalities in the drama, the Commissary of the Inquisition, Firenzuola. In a letter to Urban's brother, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who was one of the judges at the trial, he reported: 33
"In compliance with the commands of His Holiness, I yesterday informed the Most Eminent Lords of the Holy Congregation of Galileo's case, the position of which I briefly reported. Their Eminences approved of what has been done thus far and took into consideration, on the other hand, various difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the book written by him, since in consequence of this denial there would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure and less regard to the other considerations belonging to this business. Finally, I suggested a course, namely, that the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat extra-judicially with Galileo, in order to render him sensible of his error and bring him, if he recognises it, to a confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing this object by merely adopting the method of argument with him; but, upon my indicating the grounds upon which I made the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might be lost, I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday afternoon, and after many and many arguments and rejoinders had passed between us, by God's grace, I attained my object, for I brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised that he had erred and had gone too far in his book. * And to all this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who experienced great consolation in the recognition of his error, and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested, however, a little time in order to consider the form in which he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner indicated.
I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for I trust that His Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will maintain its reputation; it will be possible to deal leniently with the culprit; and, whatever the decision arrived at, he will recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences of satisfaction herein desired. Today I think of examining him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to question him with regard to his intention and to receive his defence plea; that done, he might have his house assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.
Your Eminence's most humble and most obedient servant,
FRA VINCO. DA FIRENZUOLA
Rome, April 28, 1633."
____________________
*
I was amused and pleased to find that Santillana comments on the Commissary's private surprise visit to the accused Galileo: "It was Ivanov coming to Rubashov."
The letter speaks for itself: the tradition of the sacred cows was still alive, in spite of everything.
Two days after the interview on 30 April, Galileo was called for examination a second time, and was asked whether he had anything to say. He made the following statement:
"In the course of some days' continuous and attentive reflection on the interrogations put to me on the twelfth of the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach 'in any manner' the opinion that had just been condemned – of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun – it occurred to me to re-peruse my printed Dialogue, which for three years I had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen from my pen anything from which a reader, or the authorities, might infer not only some taint of disobedience on my part, but also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had contravened the orders of the Holy Church.
Being, by the kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about my servant, I succeeded in procuring a copy of my book, and, having procured it, I applied myself with the utmost diligence to its perusal and to a most minute consideration thereof. And, as owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to me set forth in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments brought on the false side, and which it was my intention to confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel conviction by their cogency than to be easy of solution.
Two arguments there are in particular – the one taken from the solar spots, the other from the ebb and flow of the tide – which, in truth, come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of force and power than ought to have been imparted to them by one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as an excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form and should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent – not contenting myself, I say, with this excuse, I resort to that of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard to his own sub
tleties and in showing himself more skilful than the generality of men in devising, even in favour of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments. With all this, although with Cicero 'avidior six gloriae quam sat est', if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make an apparent show of that force of which they are really and essentially devoid. My error, then, has been – and I confess it – one of vainglorious ambition and of pure ignorance and inadvertence.
This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this particular and which suggested itself to me during the reperusal of my book." 34
When he had finished this statement, the hearing was closed; but Galileo, after being dismissed, returned and volunteered the following supplementary statement:
"And in confirmation of my assertion that I have not held and do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of the motion of the Earth and stability of the Sun – if there shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a clearer demonstration thereof, I am ready to do so; and there is a most favourable opportunity for this, seeing that in the work already published the interlocutors agree to meet again after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of Nature not connected with the matter discoursed of at their meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or two other 'days', I promise to resume the arguments already brought in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual manner as by the blessing of God may be supplied to me. I pray, therefore, this holy Tribunal to aid me in this good resolution and to enable me to put it in effect." 35