The Sleepwalkers (289 page)

Of the two most recent serious works
on Galileo, Stillman Drake maintains that it was Orsini's urging the
Pope to rule in favour of Galileo's views that resulted in their
prohibition (op. cit., p. 152 n), whereas Santillana opines that the
Orsini story was deliberately "leaked" by the Inquisition
to the Tuscan Ambassador to deceive him, "whereas the decision
had already been taken in secret session many days before. In this
way the informers were shielded; things were made to look as though
only Galileo's impatience and indiscretion had goaded the
long-suffering authorities to action; and with Guiccardini's
co-operation the best way had been found to discredit Galileo with
the Grand Duke" (op. cit., p. 120). But the reference to
"shielding informers" makes no sense in the context, and
the intention to discredit Galileo with the Grand Duke is hardly
compatible with the fact that a week after issuing the decree, Pope
Paul V received Galileo in gracious audience, and Bellarmine issued a
certificate of honour to him. The showdown provoked by Galileo had
become unavoidable; once it was over, soothing honours were paid to
the Grand Duke's Mathematician.

42

Transl.
Santillana, p. 121.

43

Ibid.,
p. 123.

44

To
Picchena
,
6.3.
1616,
quoted
by
Drake,
p.
218
f.

45

Cath.
Ency.
,
Article
on
"Galileo".

45
^a

Santillana,
op. cit., p. 90 n.

46

Ibid.,
p. 88.

47

Burtt,
op. cit., p. 25.

48

Santillana,
op. cit., p. 124.

49>

To
Picchena
,
6.3.
1616.

50

Ut
omnino
absfineat
...
docere
aut
defendere
seu
de
ea
tractare
(
L'Epinois,
Les
Pièces
du
Procès
de
Galilée,
Rome,
Paris,
1877,
p.
40).

51

Non
si
possa
difendere,
ne
tenere
(ibid.,
pp.
72,
75).

52

Quovis
modo teheat, doceat, aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis. (Ibid., p. 40
f.)

52
^a

The
latest
contribution
to
the
controversy
is
Santillana's
The
Crime
of
Galileo
,
which
I
have
quoted
frequently
and
to
which
my
indebtedness
is
evident.
It
is
all
the
more
regrettable
that
on
this
crucial
issue
he
omits
to
mention
some
relevant
facts,
which
to
a
large
extent
vitiates
his
conclusions
on
the
Galileo
trial.
On
p.
128
he
says
about
the
controversial
minute
of
26
February
that
"it
was
a
very
Catholic
historian,
but
a
distinguished
one,
Professor
Franz
Reusch,
who
in
the
1870's
drew
attention"
to
certain
suspicions
concerning
the
form
in
which
the
minute
of
26
February
was
written.
On
p.
131,
n.,
he
repeats:
"We
have
said
earlier,
and
we
must
emphasise
it
here,
that
the
first
Catholic
historian,
to
our
knowledge,
to
have
found
that
there
is
something
strange
about
the
document
is
Professor
Reusch."
Actually,
the
first
suspicion
on
the
document
was
cast
not
by
Reusch,
but
by
Emil
Wohlwill
in
Der
Inquisitionsprocess
des
Galileo
Galilei
,
published
in
1870.
This
could
be
regarded
as
a
minor
lapsus
(though
the
whole
Galileo
controversy
echoes
with
the
name
of
Wohlwill,
who
started
this
particular
hare);
but
since
Santillana
professes
such
respect
for
Reusch
it
is
incomprehensible
why
he
omits
to
say
that
it
was
in
fact
Reusch
who,
notwithstanding
his
initial
suspicions
about
the
document,
adduced
some
important
arguments
in
favour
of
its
authenticity.
The
principal
argument
of
Wohlwill
and
his
followers
(
Gebler,
Cantor,
Scartazzini,
and
others)
against
the
authenticity
of
the
minute
had
turned
on
three
words:
"
successive
ac
incontinenti
".
The
minute
said
that
after
Bellarmine
had
admonished
Galileo
to
abandon
his
Copernican
opinions,
successive
ac
incontinenti
the
Commissary
of
the
Inquisition
"commanded
and
enjoined"
on
Galileo
the
absolute
injunction.
But,
the
argument
runs,
the
Holy
Office
had
decreed
that
the
absolute
injunction
should
only
be
served
in
case
of
Galileo's
refusal
to
submit
,
and
the
words
successive
ac
incontinenti
indicate
that
the
injunction
was
served
immediately
after
the
admonition
without
giving
Galileo
an
opportunity
to
refuse;
in
other
words,
that
the
procedure
described
by
the
minute
of
26
February
contradicted
the
procedure
ordered
by
the
decree
of
the
previous
day.

Against
this
argument
Reusch
proved
that
the
words
"
succussive
ac
incontinenti
"
meant
in
the
Vatican
usage
of
the
time
not
"immediately
afterwards"
or
"without
pause,"
but
simply
"in
the
sequel"
or
"later
on".
^*
The
passage
is
impossible
to
miss
as
it
is
specially
marked
in
the
list
of
contents
of
Reusch's
book
(p.
ix)
and
it
once
and
for
all
settled
this
particular
argument.
H.
Grisar,
a
Jesuit,
dotted
the
i's
by
proving
that
the
expression
in
question
was
even
used
to
refer
to
events
several
days
apart.
^†
Yet
Santillana
(p.
26),
ignoring
all
this
(in
the
same
chapter
in
which
he
twice
quotes
Reusch),
translates
the
words
"
successive
ac
incontinenti
"
by
"immediately
thereafter".