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.[214] 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.”[215] 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.”