GALILEO. 355 



renewed old friendships; he had formed new ones; he was esteemed 

 and regarded by the Pope and the most influential of the Cardinals. 

 His enemies in Florence were utterly silenced. His accuser, Caccini, 

 had made the humblest apologies. The Grand Duke and most of the 

 court were his admiring friends. He had every freedom for research 

 if only he would leave the interpretation of scripture to theological 

 experts. ' Write freely, but keep outside the sacristy ' his friends 

 advised. Why did he remain in Eome ? To convert the Congregation 

 of the Index to Copernicanism ? This would have been a triumph for 

 science, and a personal triumph as well. The Eoman Curia had abso- 

 lutely no interest in science as such. They were determined that re- 

 ligion should not suffer. Galileo's brilliant lectures were not conceived 

 in the spirit that convinces. He silenced opposition by sarcasm. A 

 second crisis in Galileo's affairs dates from this period (February, 

 March, 1615). 



Before this date momentous action had been taken by the Inquisi- 

 tion. On February 19 the Qualificators of the Holy Office had been 

 summoned to give their opinion on two propositions based on Galileo's 

 treatise on the Solar Spots: 



I. That the sun is the center of the world and immovable from its 

 place. 



II. That the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, 

 but moves, and also with a diurnal motion. 



The Qualificators were to give their opinion as theological and 

 philosophical experts, and gave it four days afterwards. The astrono- 

 mer Eiccioli declares that the opinions of astronomical experts were 

 also obtained and that the judgment of the Holy Office was based upon 

 them (Delambre: Histoire de VAstronomie Moderne, i., 680). There 

 is no reason to doubt the assertion. It is exceedingly important as 

 showing that the Inquisition took the best expert advice known to them 

 before action. This significant fact is not mentioned in any of the 

 Warfare-of-Science books, nor even by so careful an historian as Geb- 

 ler.* 



The scientific value of the expert astronomical opinion was, of 

 course, exactly nil. It was given, probably, by Aristotelians, person- 

 ally inimical to Galileo, and fully committed to the Ptolemaic system. 

 It was, equally of course, adverse to Galileo. They may well have 



* Gebler records, however the action of Cardinal Gaetano who, in 1616, 

 applied to Thomas Campanella, a learned Dominican and a friend of Galileo's, 

 for an opinion upon the relation of the Copernican theory of Holy Scripture. 

 Campanella's ' Apology ' for Galileo was all in his favor and reconciled, in form 

 at least, Copernican science with the Bible. It was overweighed by other 

 reports. It is worth recording that Campanella was not permitted to publish 

 this ' Apology ' in Italy and was obliged to disavow an edition which appeared 

 at Frankfort. 



