The Sleepwalkers (290 page)

The
auxiliary
arguments
about
the
form
of
the
minute,
the
absence
of
the
notary's
signature,
etc.,
which
have
also
been
exhaustively
dealt
with
by
Reusch
and
others,
are
listed
by
Santillana
as
if
he
were
unaware
of
the
long
and
complicated
controversy
on
the
subject.
He
fails
to
mention
that
the
minute
of
the
meeting
of
25
February
and
the
minute
of
the
procedure
of
26
February
were
written
by
the
hand
of
the
same
notary.
Not
the
least
omission
is
Santillana's
failure
to
point
out
that
the
terms
of
the
injunction

____________________

^*
F.
H.
Reusch,
Der
Process
Galilei's
und
die
Jesuiten,
Bonn,
1879,
p.
136
f.

^†
H.
S.
J
Grisar,
Galileistudien,
Regensburg,
New
York
und
Cincinnati,
1882,
pp.
50-51.

as
served
according
to
the
minute
of
A
February,
were
actually
less
harsh
than
those
foreseen
in
the
meeting
of
25
February.
On
15
February,
the
Holy
Office
had
ordered
that
in
case
of
Galileo's
refusal
to
obey
he
should
be
commanded
"to
abstain
altogether
from
teaching
or
defending
this
opinion
and
doctrine
and
even
from
discussing
it."
But
the
injunction
according
to
the
minute
of
26
February,
only
forbade
him
to
"hold,
teach
or
defend
in
any
way
whatsoever
verbally
or
in
writing"
the
Copernican
doctrine;
the
words
"and
even
from
discussing
it"
are
omitted
in
the
minute
of
26
February.
If
that
minute
had
been
a
fabrication
aimed
at
framing
Galileo,
why
did
the
fabricator
omit
precisely
those
words
which
would
have
provided
a
cast-iron
reason
for
convicting
him?
It
was
this
last
point
which
convinced
Reusch
that
the
charge
of
a
fabrication
was
logically
untenable
(op.
cit.,
pp.
144-5).

What
are
we
to
conclude?
(a)
The
possibility
of
a
technical
forgery
has
been
eliminated
by
careful
analysis
of
the
paper
and
ink
(cf.
Gebler,
op.
cit.,
pp.
90,
334seq.).
(b)
The
possibility
of
a
mala
fide
fabrication
which
the
notary
wrote
down
on
the
instructions
of
some
high-placed
enemy
or
enemies
of
Galileo
in
the
Holy
Office
is
logically
untenable
on
the
grounds
just
explained,
and
a
number
of
other
reasons.
(c)
Yet
certain
discrepancies
between
the
minutes
of
the
decision
of
25
February,
the
procedure
on
26
February,
and
Bellarmine's
certificate
remain.
The
fact
that
the
notary
did
not
record
Galileo's
refusal
to
acquiesce
in
Bellarmine's
admonition
is
one;
but
the
shortness
and
summary
nature
of
the
minute
(twenty
lines
in
all
in
L'Epionois'
Pièces
du
Procès)
might
explain
this;
besides,
Galileo
may
not
have
formally
refused
to
obey,
but
merely
argued,
as
was
his
wont.
The
watering
down
of
the
text
of
the
injunction,
and
the
face-saving
testimonial
which
Bellarmine
gave
Galileo
at
his
request
might
perhaps
be
explained,
again
with
Reusch,
by
Bellarmine's
diplomacy,
who,
on
the
one
hand,
wanted
to
put
an
end
to
the
Galilean
agitation
and,
on
the
other
hand,
wished
to
spare
his
and
Duke
Cosmo's
feelings.
This
at
least
seems
to
be
the
most
plausible
assumption,
particularly
if
we
remember
Bellarmine's
letter
to
Foscarini
in
which
he
praised
Galileo
for
acting
"prudently"
by
treating
Copernicus
merely
as
a
working
hypothesis,
when
Bellarmine
knew
the
opposite
to
be
the
case.
But
certainty
will
only
become
possible
when
the
complete
Vatican
file
is
at
last
made
accessible
to
scholars.

Part
V
Chapter
II.
THE
TRIAL
OF
GALILEO

1

Santillana,
op. cit., p. 136.

2

Dialogue
on
the
Great
World
Systems
,
p.
425
seq
.

3

Apart
from
gravity,
of
course,
which
does
not
enter
Galileo's
picture.

4

Second
letter
to
Mark
Welser
,
transl.
Drake,
p.
118
f.

5

Transl.
Drake, p. 266.

6

Ibid.,
p. 272.

7

Ibid.,
p. 276 f.

8

Santillana,
p. 233.

9

Ibid.,
p. 162 f.

10

Gebler,
op. cit., p. 115.

10a

Some
parts
of
the
Dialogue
were
actually
written
as
far
back
as
1610.

11