satanic opinions, deceptive magic, insanity and awful lies.169
Those who appreciated Galileo’s revival of ancient ideas were
distressed by the Inquisition. In March 1633 Lucas Holste complained to his French friend NicolasClaude Fabri de Peiresc about the ignorance of cardinals at the Index, and he became so annoyed
by what they said that he decided not to attend their meetings
anymore.170 Holste wrote to his friend:
It would take me a long time to review the cause of the
hatred against the fine old man [Galileo]. Surely nobody
saw without indignation that the men chosen to judge
about Galilei’s book and about the entire Pythagorean or
Copernican proposition are plainly dissonant, while it is
principal y about the authority of the Church, which wil
suffer vehemently from a less correct judgment. I earnestly
advise them to realize that the first authors were great mathematicians, and who were more excellent than others in investigating the truth; and those who in our century have
brought their doctrine back into the light, to their credit
their erudition has approached that of the ancients.171
Holste’s advice to the clergymen raises the question: who were these
‘first authors’? Since he had just mentioned Pythagorean knowledge
and ‘the ancients’, it seems that Holste referred to ancient philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Democritus. It also seems that the cardinals did not view such men as ‘mathematicians’, which moved
Holste to describe them thus. Still, despite Holste’s tolerance for
eccentric ideas, he like others lacked the courage to endanger himself
by openly supporting someone who seemed guilty of heresy.
On 12 April 1633 the Inquisitors first interrogated Galileo. I
need not summarize his depositions since they have been widely
published. Aside from discussing the publication of his Dialogue,
he described at length his impressions about the events of 1616.
However, I want to note a trace of important topics left unspoken.
197
burned alive
Galileo said that there was something from 1616 that he preferred
not to voice, except to whisper it to the highest authority. He told
the Inquisitors:
one morning the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine ordered that
I be summoned, and he told me a certain particular that I
want to say to the ear of His Holiness prior to anyone else;
but the conclusion was that he told me that the opinion
of Copernicus could not be held or defended, for being
contrary to Holy Scripture.172
But the Pope would not meet with Galileo, so we don’t know what
unspeakable thing Bellarmine voiced in 1616, and why Galileo did
not say it in 1633.
To defend him, Campanella hoped to be appointed to the committee that would evaluate Galileo’s case. But no. Riccardi explained to Niccolini it was impossible to appoint Campanella, because
Campanella had ‘composed a somewhat similar work, which was
prohibited, and cannot defend him while being himself guilty’.173
Stil , Riccardi ‘felt obligated’ to defend Galileo himself. So instead of
Campanella he recommended a Jesuit (namely Melchior Inchofer)
‘who is his [Riccardi’s] confidant, and guarantees that he proceeds
with proper intentions’, along with the Pope’s theologian, Agostino
Oreggi, who ‘truly had good will’.174
The special committee, however, concluded that Galileo had
defended the censured opinions in his Dialogue. The case fell to
the Inquisition. In April 1633 three consultants analysed Galileo’s
book: Agostino Oreggi, Melchior Inchofer and Zaccaria Pasqualigo.
They had to determine whether Galileo held, defended or taught
that Earth moves and not the Sun. Oreggi concluded that Galileo
indeed held and defended those censured views. Pasqualigo, a young
professor of theology, reported likewise that Galileo transgressed
the injunction against him because his book did ‘teach and defend’
it, and therefore also Galileo ‘is strongly suspected of holding such
an opinion’.175
Finally, the longest reports against Galileo were submitted by
the Jesuit theologian Melchior Inchofer, who was Riccardi’s close
friend.176 Inchofer analysed Galileo’s Dialogue and reported to the Inquisition: ‘I am of the opinion not only that Galileo teaches and
198
The Enemies of Galileo
defends the view of Pythagoras and Copernicus but also . . . that he
is vehemently suspected of firmly adhering to it, and indeed holds
it. ’177 Inchofer complained not only about many arguments ‘ad nauseam’ that Galileo wrote in favour of such opinions, but about how Galileo argued: with arrogance, insolence and combative bitterness.
Inchofer listed many instances where Galileo argued in an absolute, nonhypothetical and nonmathematical way about Earth’s motion and the Sun’s immobility. Since we are focused also on other
Pythagorean beliefs, we may note that Inchofer mentioned another
objectionable belief sometimes attributed to the Pythagoreans: the
eternity of the world. This was one of the heretical propositions
that Inquisitors brought up against Bruno. Inchofer didn’t mention
Bruno and he didn’t say that Galileo made such a claim. Inchofer
used it as an example of a belief to avoid: ‘Philosophers also inquire
whether the world could have existed from eternity; yet no Christian
says that it has existed from eternity.’178 Inchofer also complained that Galileo ‘declares war on everybody and regards as dwarfs all
who are not Pythagorean or Copernican’.179
I wonder whether members of the Inquisition were aware of the
heretical connotations of the term ‘Pythagorean’. It is particularly
striking that Lucas Holste authored an expansive work on Porphyry
and Pythagorean ideas under the sponsorship of Cardinal Barberini.
I have found no comparable book published by anyone anywhere
in the preceding decades. It seems impossible to imagine that the
consultants and Inquisitors, though having expertise on theology
and heresies, were nonetheless indifferent to Pythagorean heresies
about whether souls preexist bodies, transmigration, pagan gods,
other worlds, the soul of the world or its eternity. Still, the available
evidence does not show that all the consultants and Inquisitors were
overtly moved by such concerns in 1633. However, the strongest critic
among them – Melchior Inchofer – certainly was, as we will see.
It is also noteworthy that one Inquisitor from the previous
investigative proceedings against Galileo, in 1616, was present in
Galileo’s trial in 1633: Bishop Felice Centino, known as Cardinal
d’Ascoli.180 Historian Annibale Fantoli argues that it is conceivable that d’Ascoli played a significant role in the final opposition to Galileo.181
During the trial Cardinal Barberini commanded considerable power among the Inquisitors, yet he expressed some sympathy 199
burned alive
for Galileo.182 Contrary to writers who construe Barberini as one of Galileo’s allies, however, I view him as duplicitous. Recall how
annoyed he was in 1630 when he inferred that Galileo argued that
Earth is a star. And in 1633 he told Niccolini that the matter was ‘very delicate, because it could intro
duce some fantastical dogma into
the world’. Barberini did not sign the final condemnation, so some
writers speculate that this shows some disapproval. However, apparently he could not sign it because he was meeting with the Pope that day. Moreover, Barberini’s name was included among the authors
of that final condemnation against Galileo. Barberini and Urban
felt some sympathy for Galileo, but their allegiance to Catholic
dogma was far greater than any sympathy for an irreverent friend.
Remember that in the times of Bruno and Campanella, Inquisitors
could be courteous, kind, patient, sympathetic and accommodating – while at the same time they enabled obstinate suspects to be brutally tortured and burned alive.
Likewise, I view Father Riccardi as duplicitous. It was his
sacred obligation to defend scriptures. He chose his Jesuit confidant Inchofer because of his ‘proper intentions’, although earlier, in mid1632, Riccardi had anticipated that ‘the Jesuits will persecute
him [Galileo] most acrimoniously. ’183
In May or June the Inquisitors submitted a final report to the
Pope. It reviewed the accusations and proceedings against Galileo
from 1615 to 1633. It included not just the accusations about Galileo’s
belief in Earth’s motion, but also the most spurious early accusations: that he said God is an accident, God laughs and cries, and his denial of the miracles of the Saints. 184 Similarly, at the end of Bruno’s trial, the Inquisitors cited some of the earliest and spurious accusations against him: that Bruno allegedly had doubted transubstantiation and Mary’s virginity – whereas actually Bruno
wrote no such things, he denied such accusations, and therefore such
accusations were not the focus of the proceedings.
On 21 June 1633 the Inquisitors ordered Galileo one last time to
admit whether he had ever believed that the Earth moves around
the Sun. Galileo cautiously denied it, saying that before 1616 he
merely thought the theory was ‘disputable’. Unconvinced, the
Inquisitors insisted that he ‘tell the truth, as otherwise one would
have recourse to torture’. 185 Galileo denied it again – he lied –
endangering himself.
200
The Enemies of Galileo
To condemn Galileo, the Inquisition took him to the Church of Santa Maria
Sopra Minerva, between the Pantheon ‘Rotunde’ and the Jesuit Church
of St Ignatius.
The next day, old Galileo was humiliated by being forced to
wear sackcloth, the penitential garb of guilt, and publicly taken
to the Dominican convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, in the
centre of Rome, to face the cardinals and other members of the
Inquisition.186 They declared Galileo guilty of ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’, a grave and punishable offence. 187 It is noteworthy that the first cardinal to sign Galileo’s condemnation was Cardinal
d’Ascoli, the one who had been present in the proceedings of 1616
and the only one who heard any comments by Sfondrato, Taverna,
Borghese and Bellarmine – who had all judged both Galileo and
Bruno. They knew that Bruno’s belief in the moving Earth pertained directly to his heresies about the many worlds and the soul of the world. Yet no such issues show up in the extant trial transcripts
of 1633.
At this point, if Galileo had refused to abjure the ‘suspicion of
heresy’ then it would become a proven heresy, and ‘the inevitable
penalty in this case was to be burned at the stake. ’188 To avoid being burned alive, the Inquisitors now compel ed Galileo to kneel and
recant his claims.
He then said, ‘with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure,
curse and detest the abovementioned errors and heresies, and in
general each and every other error, heresy and sect contrary to the
Holy Church.’ I suspect that Galileo was renouncing not just all
sects in general, but one in particular: the Pythagorean sect. In late
201
burned alive
Inside the Church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, where Galileo was
condemned for ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’ in 1633.
1631 the Catholic theologian Froidmont had accused Galileo of
being a member of this awful pagan sect.
Galileo was condemned to imprisonment for a period to be
specified. He was required to repeat the seven penitential psalms
once a week for three years. His sentence was commuted to live
permanently under house arrest.189
Froidmont soon heard about Galileo’s trial and humiliation.
He immediately drafted a pamphlet to celebrate the victory of
the Catholic faith and of his AntiAristarchus of 1631. Echoing the
ancient account by Plutarch about the pagan Pythagorean temple
of the central fire, Froidmont titled his new pamphlet Vesta, or
AntiAristarchus Vindicated. 190 It was approved for publication in September 1633 and published in early 1634. Froidmont proudly
declared, ‘this year in Rome the Most Eminent Cardinals have
judged and condemned the errors of Pythagoras and Copernicus,
and all the subjects [members] of the Apostolic See are barred
from this doctrine.’ And in the margin of one page, he succinctly
summed up Galileo’s final judgement: ‘Galileo was forced to abjure
his Pythagoreanism. ’191
202
The Enemies of Galileo
Inchofer Against the New Pythagoreans
Historians have puzzled over the motivations of the individuals
who led the case for Galileo’s conviction. The most damning testimony against Galileo was provided by Melchior Inchofer. But why?
Riccardi and Francesco Barberini had been friendly towards Galileo.
Why did they choose Inchofer?
As early as 1623 Inchofer had been in contact with Francesco
Barberini, requesting a copy of a letter that allegedly had been written by the Virgin Mary. 192 Historian Thomas Cerbu reports that members of Barberini’s entourage were interested in the letter as
early as 1622. In 1629 Inchofer published a book arguing that the
letter was genuine, but an archbishop disagreed and so Inchofer was
summoned by the Inquisition. Inchofer, however, quickly convinced
them that his book could be readily modified. He then argued that
the letter ‘seemed to be’ authored by the Virgin Mary. Most importantly, Inchofer obtained the privilege of having his revised book published in 1631 by Ludovico Grignani, the printer who ‘specialized
in works by authors attached to the Barberini papal court’.193 Also, since one of Barberini’s attendants had published a work on the
letter, Cerbu remarks that it is plausible that ‘Francesco Barberini
both sanctioned and funded’ the publication of Inchofer’s book.194
Inchofer became friends with the Vatican librarian, who explained
that Inchofer ‘ingratiated himself with many Cardinals of the Holy
Congregation of the Index’.195
Cerbu conjectures that Riccardi and Barberini chose Inchofer to
analyse Galileo’s Dialogue ‘to displace the scrutiny of Galileo away
from scientific controversy’. 196 Presumably, since Inchofer would focus on theology instead of astronomy, then his criticisms would
not be as severe, since Galileo did not discuss theology openly in
his Dialogue. If that were expected to soften the evaluation, then it
would be surprising to receive Inchofer’s utterly negative assessment.
Inc
hofer himself elaborated his concerns in a book he drafted
during the trial and promptly published.197 In 2006 Richard J.
Blackwell fairly noted that Inchofer’s lengthy tract had been ‘largely
ignored by Galileo scholars’, so he published an English translation
and analysis. Inchofer analysed the theological case against heliocentrism. Blackwell characterized its importance: ‘This tract was written while the trial was being conducted, and thus in a special
203
burned alive
way it gives a direct insight into at least one participant’s view of
the religious rationale behind the trial.’198 No other publications by Inquisitors or consultants are as extensive and explanatory about
their concerns. Instead of focusing on scientific issues, the theological case against the heliocentric theory turned out to be very strong.
In the summer of 1633 Inchofer published A Summary Treatise
concerning the Motion or Rest of the Earth and the Sun, in which it is
briefly shown What Is, and What Is Not, to be Held as Certain according to the Teachings of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. It justified the Catholic opposition to the heliocentric theory, ‘to rally
everyone as soldiers of religion’. Among various objections, Inchofer
complained ‘since the Pythagoreans have gradually come to oppose
the faith, it must be shown that the truth is found in the scriptures,
and as our major authors knew, is opposed to them’.
The new Pythagorean sect argued that parts of the Bible were
literally false, though lacking any authority to do so, which was
intolerable to the clergymen. Inchofer required that ‘the Copernican
theory and its related Pythagorean philosophy should not be taught
at all. ’199
Inchofer enumerated seven arguments that had been proposed
to supposedly show that the Bible is consonant with the claims
that Earth moves, not the Sun. I summarize all seven arguments,
to note Inchofer’s worries about incorrect interpretations of biblical
passages.
Seven Arguments Criticized by Melchior Inchofer
First Argument
The passages of scripture on the stability or fixity of the
Earth refer actually ‘to the situation and ordering in which
the Earth remains in stable and perpetual motion’.
Burned Alive: Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition Page 27