[232] Op. vi. p. 375. In the first edition of the “Dialogues,” this permission to print is to be seen at the beginning of the book. They are also reproduced in the Latin translation of the work (Strasburg, 1635, in 4to). [233] Op. ix. pp. 205, 206. [234] See Caterina Niccolini’s letter to Galileo. (Op. ix. p. 209.) [235] Op. vi. p. 375. [236] In the history of these negotiations we have to a great extent followed Galileo’s narrative. (Op. vi. pp. 374-377.) Besides this, we have made use of two authentic documents, the memorial of the preliminary commission, before mentioned, to the Pope (Vat. MS. fol. 387 ro.-389 vo.), and the protocol of the trial of Galileo, 12th April, 1633 (Vat. MS. 413 ro.-419 ro.) [237] Compare the letter of Geri Bocchineri, private secretary at the Court of Tuscany, to Galileo (Op. ix. pp. 225, 226), and the letter of Cioli to Niccolini of 8th March, in which the latter is charged, in the name of the Grand Duke, to support Galileo’s cause to the utmost with the Master of the Palace. (Wolynski, “La Diplomazia Toscana,” etc., p. 39.) [238] Op. vi. pp. 377, 378. [239] Op. ix. pp. 242, 243. [240] The Roman censorship only granted licences to works published at Rome itself. [241] See this letter from Riccardi to Niccolini. (Op. ix. pp. 243, 244.) [242] Op. iv. pp. 382-284. [243] See Niccolini to Galileo, 25th May, 1631. (Wolynski, “Lettere inedite,” etc., p. 83.) [244] ... “Si che non mai si conceda la verita assoluta ma solamente la hipotetica, e senza la Scrittura, a questa opinione ...” [245] Vat. MS. fol. 390 ro. [246] Ibid. fol. 390 vo. [247] Letter of 19th July, 1631. (Op. ix. p. 246.) [248] See this important letter of Riccardi’s to the Inquisitor at Florence. (Vat. MS. fol. 393 ro.) [249] See points 1 and 3 of the memorial which was handed to the Pope at the first examination of Galileo by the preliminary commission. (Vat. MS. fol. 388.) [250] Comp. p. 120. [251] Marini, p. 127. Pieralisi tries to convince the reader that Ciampoli acted quite despotically in the matter; and says that when Riccardi refers to “the Pope,” it was not Maffeo Barberini, but Mgr. Ciampoli, “Giovanni Ciampoli non Maffeo Barberini era il Papa”! p. 113, a statement which, considering Urban’s despotic character and the absence of historical proof, appears very arbitrary. [252] _Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik._ 9th Series, Part 3, p. 184. [253] Marini, pp. 116, 117; Op. Suppl. pp. 324, 325. [254] Op. vi. p. 389. [255] Ibid. p. 390. [256] Ibid. [257] Op. ix. p. 271. [258] Ibid. p. 253. [259] Op. ix. pp. 270-272. [260] Op. Suppl. p. 319. [261] Comp. Nelli, vol. i. pp. 504, 505; Op. vi. p. 104, note 2; ix. pp. 163-165, 192; Suppl. p. 234. [262] Comp. on this subject the chapters on “Die Gesellschaft Jesu” in “Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart,” by Fr. v. Hellwald, Augsburg, 1874, pp. 691-966.