When Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer of 1630, in order to submit his “Dialogues” to the Roman censorship, an introduction was sketched for him, which he was to complete at Florence, and on his intended return to Rome in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript before the Master of the Palace for final revision.[249] From the good understanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and Galileo, and from the contents of the introduction, we may conclude with certainty that the sketch was made with Galileo’s concurrence, or even that the main idea of it was his own. For on close examination we find that the idea on which the whole introduction turns—namely, that it was by no means ignorance of the scientific arguments in favour of the Copernican system which led to the verdict of 1616—is precisely the same as that stated by Galileo in his reply to Ingoli in 1624.[250] As we are aware, since the plague prevented Galileo from returning to Florence or sending the whole MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to the chief censor, who kept them for months, and did not return them to the Inquisitor at Florence till 19th July. From Riccardi’s letter we learn two facts: firstly, that he had only concerned himself with the introduction, leaving the conclusion to the author with the vague remark we have quoted; and secondly, that Galileo’s preface must have undergone considerable alterations by the chief censor, as he gave him leave to alter the style but not the sense. There can be no more doubt that the Pope had some hand in the final composition of the preface than that it was not penned by himself. Riccardi appeals in both his _ex officio_ letters to the Inquisitor of 24th May and 19th July, to the “views” and commands of his Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst, the Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo’s affairs he had always and in everything acted in concert with the papal secretary, Mgr. Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly to special commands of Urban’s.[251] Riccardi and Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion with the loss of their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the subject that, “evidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet afforded by the fact of the witnesses being compelled to silence or suffering punishment.”[252]