Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia: From Authentic SourcesGebler, Karl von
Religion
Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia: From Authentic Sources
Gebler, Karl von
Astronomers -- Italy -- Biography; Catholic Church. Curia romana; Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642; Religion and science -- History
At this period, as his letters show, Galileo was very hopeful. On 19th
February he wrote to Cioli, that to all appearance the threatened storm
had passed, so that he did not allow his courage to sink as if shipwreck
were inevitable, and there were no hope of reaching the haven; and the
more so as, obedient to his instructor, in the midst of stormy billows he—
“Was taking his course with modest sail set.”[336]
This instructor was Niccolini, who strongly advised Galileo “to be always
ready to obey and to submit to whatever was ordered, for this was the
only way to allay the irritation of one who was so incensed, and who
treated this affair as a personal one.”[337] It is clear that by this
personal persecutor no other than Urban VIII. can be intended.
The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo’s of
25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special
attention. It is as follows:—
“We” (Niccolini and Galileo) “hear at last that the many and
serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have
been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty
in getting rid when the grounds of my defence have been heard,
which are meanwhile being gradually brought, in the best way
that circumstances allow, to the knowledge of some of the
higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen freely
to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So
that in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for.”[338]
A despatch of Niccolini’s to Cioli of two days later explains the nature
of this chief accusation:—
“Although I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo’s
affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can
learn the main difficulty consists in this—that these gentlemen
maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to discuss the
question nor to converse about it. He says, on the contrary,
that those were not the terms of the injunction, which were
that _that doctrine was not to be held nor defended_. He
considers that he has the means of justifying himself, because
it does not at all appear from his book that he does hold
or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as a settled
question, as he merely adduces the reasons _hinc hinde_. The
other points appear to be of less importance and easier to get
over.”[339]
It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is evident from
Niccolini’s report above—from the first decidedly denies ever having
received an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory _in any way_;
all that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is,
_all that he knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and
with the decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616_. Accordingly he
does not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of the authorities,
and thinks that he can prove it even from the book itself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account