$$ isi, 132] Galileos Trial 169 



inducements), from these reasons that Piety, Religion, the 

 Knowledge of the Divine Omnipotency, and a consciousness 

 of the incapacity of man's understanding dictate unto us." * 



132. Naturally Galilei's many enemies were not long in 

 penetrating these thin disguises, and the immense success 

 of the book only intensified the opposition which it exciied ; 

 the Pope appears to have been persuaded that Simplicio 

 the butt of the whole dialogue was intended for himself, 

 a supposed insult which bitterly wounded his vanity ; and 

 it was soon evident that the publication of the book could 

 not be allowed to pass without notice. In June 1632 a 

 special commission was appointed to inquire into the 

 matter an unusual procedure, probably meant as a mark 

 of consideration for Galilei and two months later the 

 further issue of copies of the book was prohibited, and in 

 September a papal mandate was issued requiring Galilei 

 to appear personally before the Inquisition. He was evi- 

 dently frightened by the summons, and tried to avoid com- 

 pliance through the good offices of the Tuscan court and 

 by pleading his age and infirmities, but after considerable 

 delay, at the end of which the Pope issued instructions to 

 bring him if necessary by force and in chains, he had 

 to submit, and set off for Rome early in 1633. Here he 

 was treated with unusual consideration, for whereas in 

 general even the most eminent offenders under trial by the 

 Inquisition were confined in its prisons, he was allowed to 

 live with his friend Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador, 

 throughout the trial, with the exception of a period of 

 about three weeks, which he spent within the buildings 

 of the Inquisition, in comfortable rooms belonging to one of 

 the officials, with permission to correspond with his friends, 

 to take exercise in the garden, and other privileges. At 

 his first hearing before the Inquisition, his reply to the 

 charge of having violated the decree of 1616 ( 126) was 

 that he had not understood that the decree or the admoni- 

 tion given to him forbade the teaching of the Coppernican 

 theory as a mere " hypothesis," and that his book had not 

 upheld the doctrine in any other way. Between his first 

 and second hearing the Commission, which had been 



* From the translation by Salusbury, in Vol. I. of his Mathematical 

 Collections, 



