262 



NATURE 



[-July 17, 1879 



however, that nineteenth, not seventeenth, century Jesuits 

 are the main objects of the writer's animadversion. 

 Certain Fathers of that Order have recently made elabo- 

 rate attempts to whitewash and even decorate the In- 

 quisition at the expense of its illustrioi's victim, and it is 

 to these that their well-known " Old Catholic " opponent 

 now calls hostile attention. The a. tack on these writers, 

 however, occupies only a comparatively small portion of 

 the work, and will be best noticed further on. Its bulk is 

 made up of a laboriously complete collection of historical 

 matter bearing on Galileo's trial, and of detailed disquisi- 

 tions on every question of importance flowing from that 

 perennial source of interminable controversy. Prof 

 Reusch claims for his book that it should be regarded not 

 as " merely an improved and enlarged edition of that of 

 v. Gebler," but also as containing a detailed examination 

 of a question which the young Austrian writer was " not 

 theologian enough thoroughly to discuss," viz., "What 

 do we learn from the condemnation of the Copernican 

 doctrine in 1616, and from the sentence on Galileo in 

 1633, in reference to the authority claimed at Rome for 

 the decision of theological and quasi-theological contro- 

 versies?" It will thus be seen that the author's main 

 object is practically an anti-infallibilist polemic, into the 

 merits of which it would be improper to enter here. In 

 the few criticisms now to be made on his work I shall 

 limit myself strictly to its historical and literary side. 



The volume before us — a closely-printed quarto of 482 

 pages — is assuredly entitled to be called an "enlarged" 

 edition of v. Gebler's work, but its author's claim to have 

 also "improved" on the labours of his predecessor seems, 

 in one important respect, open to serious question. Von 

 Gebler, it will be remembered, while conceding the 

 genuineness of a particular document, stoutly maintained 

 to the last that its contents were essentially false. Reusch 

 argues that the document is genuine, and z'/j contents true. 

 His view on this crucial question is therefore opposed to 

 that of the writer whose work he is " improving," and its 

 substitution for the position deliberately reaffirmed by v. 

 Gebler cannot be recognised as a process of " improve- 

 ment " until the formidable series of arguments in sup- 

 port of that position constructed by Wohlwill and 

 Gherardi, and very fully set out in the pages of v. Gebler 

 himself, have been essentially invalidated. Into the de- 

 tails of our author's elaborate attempt to supply such an 

 invalidation space forbids me to enter. I can only express 

 my personal opinion that it is based on unsupported con- 

 jectures more inherently improbable than the closely con- 

 catenated inferences which he labours to overthrow. In 

 spite, moreover, of his zealous and conscientious efforts in 

 the collection of illustrative materials from eveiy possible 

 quarter, the result is marked by a diffuscness and a want 

 of orderly arrangement which are only too likely to 

 exhaust an ordinary reader's whole stock of patience long 

 before he reaches the conclusions to which this formidably 

 extensive pile is ^designed to lead up. Prof. Reusch's 

 reasoning itself is somewhat ponderous, and shows but 

 little trace of the eager perspicuity which lends such co- 

 ercive force to the arguments of his chief opponent, 

 Wohlwill. 



The most telling part of his book undoubtedly is his 

 attack on the modern Jesuit commentators already referred 

 to, in which our author's hearty detestation of crooked 



literary practices comes out with refreshing vigour of ex- 

 pression. He points with indignation to their systematic 

 efforts to aggravate the dark spots in Galileo's private 

 life, the weak points of his character, and other like 

 matters of httle or no bearing on the main issue ; he re- 

 prehends their attempts to minimise or explain away the 

 harsh dealings of the Holy Office with its illustrious 

 prisoner ; he condemns their inveterate habit of backing 

 up untenable positions by misleading citations and even 

 downright garbling. As an instance of the astounding 

 length to which these advocates are prepared to go in 

 the defence of their thesis he quotes the statement of 

 Grisar to the effect that Galileo's judges " could not have 

 had the faintest suspicion " that he would be unable to 

 give a conscientious assent to their decision. When the 

 same writer goes on to justify this assertion on the ground 

 of the humiliating expressions of self-abnegation used by 

 the unhappy prisoner during his examination under the 

 paralysing influence of fear, it is certainly, as Reusch him- 

 self remarks, "difficult, even for a Jesuit, to write any- 

 thing more Jesuitical." 



It is much to be regretted that in anything coming from 

 the pen of one who has done such good service to the 

 cause of Galileo literature as has M. Henri de I'Epinois, 

 arguments should be found presenting even a superficial 

 resemblance to those so justly denounced by Prof. Reusch. 

 Certainly, however, his latest popularly written little ac- 

 count of Galileo's trial contains statements and inferences 

 of a kind to make one hope that they may have been 

 admitted into its pages on trust from other writers with- 

 out passing the author's personal scrutiny. I must justify 

 this remark by reference to particular instances. 



One of the strongest pieces of evidence on the side of 

 Wohlwill and his school is a certificate written by Car- 

 dinal Dellarmine in 1616, stating that only the declaration 

 of the Index Congregation with regard to the Copernican 

 doctrine had been communicated to Galileo. The whole 

 force of the document depends on the word only. M. 

 de I'Epinois, in giving an account of the hostile argument 

 founded on this document (p. 227), summarises its con- 

 tents so as to omit this pivot-word altogether. 



On the following page, Bellarminc's having used words 

 which by implication excluded the delivery of a stringent 

 personal injunction to Galileo is toned down into his 

 having "said nothing about" this injunction. 



On p. 229 the fact of an unsuccessful search having 

 been made in the Vatican archives for a particular m.issing 

 document is described as resting only on vague report 

 {dit on), whereas since the appearance of v. Gebler's 

 edition of the trial- record in 1877, we know that the fact 

 was officially vouched for by the Cardinal Secretary of 

 State himself. 



In endeavouring to prove (p. 250) that the Commissary 

 of the Inquisition did actually deliver his injunction in 

 1616, M. de I'Epinois says that it never occurred to 

 Galileo to deny the fact in the course of the proceedings 

 of 1633. He lays stress on the admission of the accused 

 that Dominican monks were present during the interview 

 with Bellarmine, one of whom may have been the Com- 

 missary, but omits to mention Galileo's affirmation that 

 they said nothing to him, and that he did not know who 

 they were. He emphasises the fact that the written 

 defence of the accused admitted the reception of an order 



