GALILEO. 67 



was his friend and admirer and at his request gave this certificate. 

 Bellarmine died in 1621 and could not be called as a witness in 1632. 

 When Galileo was called upon to defend himself for teaching the 

 Copernican doctrine in his Dialogues, which had given great offense, 

 he produced this certificate and called attention to its wording, which 

 differs materially from that of the protocol of February 26, being 

 much less stringent in form. In essence it is the same; to teach a 

 doctrine as true is to ' defend ' it. Cardinal Bellarmine did not have 

 the protocol before him in writing the informal certificate. The pro- 

 hibition of the latter is, however, precise and absolute; the doctrine 

 ' can not be defended/ that is, taught in any way as if it were true. 

 It can not even be ' held,' silently. It represented the attitude of 

 the cardinal's mind precisely; the church would not suffer if its terms 

 were obeyed. In reading Galileo's defense of 1632-3, we shall see 

 the use he made of the discrepancy between these two documents, 

 one formal and of record (February 26), the other friendly and in- 

 formal (May 26). 



It is the theory of Gebler in his careful history, ' Galileo Galilei 

 and the Eoman Curia,' that the genuine document of February 26 is 

 not a true record of the facts. He admits that it was written in its 

 proper place by the notary. He finds an ' obvious contradiction ' 

 between a formal command ' not in any way to hold or defend,' which 

 are the words of the process of 1633, and the prohibition of Bellar- 

 mine's certificate 'not to defend or hold.' After an examination 

 of all the documents it is impossible, I think, to take Gebler's view. 

 It is necessary to admit the words of the genuine documents to mean 

 precisely what they say. 



Gebler lays down three facts as indisputable: ' (I.) Galileo did 

 not receive any prohibition except the cardinal's admonition not 

 to defend or hold the Copernican doctrine; (II.) Entire silence on 

 the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him; (III.) The second 

 part of the note in the Vatican MS. of February 26, 1616, is therefore 

 untrue.' My own conclusions are entirely different as to all three 

 prohibitions. The Cardinal's admonitions are, in effect, absolutely the 

 same as those of the formal prohibition; silence was enjoined, and 

 more than this Galileo was forbidden to hold certain opinions even 

 mentally and silently. If not, what does Bellarmine mean by the word 

 e hold ' ? Is it, I ask, credible that an authority that forbids a man to 

 hold an opinion, even silently, would permit him to teach it ? To ask 

 the question is to answer it. When Galileo taught the opinion he dis- 

 obeyed the orders of a Church whose authority he fully admitted dur- 

 ing the whole of his life. 



Within the assigned limits of this paper the matter can not be 

 discussed at length. Two points may be touched upon however. 



