Chapter XIII

THE INDEX OF ALEXANDER VII AND THE CONDEMNATION
OF GALILEO--ROME, 1664

In 1664, was published at Rome the _Index Prohibitorius_ of Alexander VII. In the accompanying Bull, the Pope says that since the publication of the Index of Clement VIII, a number of books had been prohibited by his successors and by the Congregation of the Index, but no authoritative schedule of the same had been issued which presented in one comprehensive list the titles of the books and the names of their authors. He had, therefore, caused a new Index to be compiled which contained all the titles from the lists of Trent and of Clement, together with all the further prohibitions, and in which, for convenience of reference, the three classes of the Trent Index had been put together, which enabled the titles to be presented in one alphabeted list. The division into three classes of the books condemned had in any case been open to the objection that it had “tended to give the impression that the books of Class I were more pernicious than those of Classes II and III and their reading more reprehensible; while as a fact there were in the third class not a few works much wickeder than any in the other classes.”

In addition to the titles of the prohibited books, this Index presents the complete series of the decrees since that of the Trent Index, under which the prohibitions were ordered. “The several regulations, condemnations, and prohibitions,” continues the rescript, “presented in this Index, we do hereby, under the Apostolic authority, confirm and approve as in force at this time and as binding on all the members of the Church; and we order that all universities, their associations, and individuals shall give obedience to the same without exception or reservation.” Then follow the specifications of penalties, seventeen in all, and instructions to bishops and inquisitors for the publication of the regulations and enforcement of the penalties.

In 1665, the Secretary of the Index Congregation, Vincentius Fanus, published an edition of Alexander’s Index, with the omission of the Clementine lists and of the series of decrees.

In 1667, was published, either at Lyons or Geneva, a reprint of the text as revised by Fanus, but with the addition of the Clementine lists and of the series of decrees. The latter are brought down to 1667. Fanus says of his edition that it is more comprehensive and more correct than that of 1664. It is not clear, however, from what sources his additional titles are taken. The division into three classes is abandoned; but he points out that there is no difficulty in identifying to which class an entry belongs. The name of an author, for instance, not followed by any book-title indicates Class I; the title of a book without name of author indicates Class III; while the author’s name connected with title stands for Class II, which constitutes the bulk of the Index. Fanus has some idea of bibliographical method. He makes cross-references for authors who in previous Indexes are presented sometimes under a forename and sometimes under a surname, the latter being frequently of course derived from the place of residence. The Index contains an “Address to the Reader” by Fr. Hyacinthus Libellus, Fanus’s predecessor. In this address, the Secretary takes the ground that all other Indexes are to be considered as “private” (_i. e._ unofficial).

The first list in the series covers 160 pages. The second list presents exclusively books the title of which is followed by the name of the author. The third list is confined to books the title of which follows the name of the author. Then follows an appendix covering titles from 1661 to 1664, and this is followed by the text of the Tridentine Index, to which is prefixed an _Admonition_ by Libellus giving the origin and the history of that Index. Libellus affirms that the deputation of the Index, originally instituted by Pius IV, was matured into a formal congregation by Pius V.

The concluding division is entitled: _Index Decretorum_. This is said to present _Omnia Decreta quae vel a Magistro Sac. Palatiti, cum ratione Officii siu, tum Jussu Sac. Congregationis, vel ab ipsis Sacris Congregationibus Indicis, et S. Officii emanuerunt_.

This Index of 1664 is noteworthy as containing the formal condemnation of the works of Copernicus and Galileo, and of all other writings which affirmed the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun. The proceedings against Galileo and the Copernican doctrine had been instituted in 1616 under Paul V. The final condemnation of Galileo was given in 1633, under Urban VIII.

=The Condemnation of Galileo, and of the Copernican Theory of the Solar System.=--The fourteenth and twentyeighth of the decrees summarised in the Index of 1664 present the record of the condemnation of Galileo. The records of the long series of the proceedings, upon which the final condemnation of Galileo was based, constitute a considerable mass of literature. It is necessary here to make reference only to the more essential conclusions arrived at by the Church authorities.

In March, 1616, the Congregation of the Index, under the instructions of Pope Paul V., had rendered a decree to the effect that “the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.” The same decree condemned all writings of Copernicus and all writings which affirmed the motion of the earth. These condemnations were inscribed upon the Index and in connection with this Index was issued the usual papal Bull giving to its monitions the most solemn papal sanction. “To teach or even to read the works denounced or the passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation in the next.”[194]

The abjuration of Galileo bears date July 22, 1633. The decree of the same date, which sentences the philosopher to imprisonment and other penance, sets forth that the ground of the charge against him was his statement that the sun was the centre of the system and was immovable, and that the earth, revolving around the sun and also around its own axis, was movable. The decree sets forth further that, in 1616, the offender had been admonished by Cardinal Bellarmin, and that in the same year the Congregation of the Index issued a decree condemning the doctrine; notwithstanding this condemnation, Galileo had again offended by repeating the same erroneous theories in a volume entitled _Dialogo_.

This volume, issued in 1632, was a treatise presented in the form of a dialogue, exhibiting the arguments for and against the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The publication was the result of discussions which had extended through eight years, and was finally permitted only on the condition that the volume should contain a preface, for the wording of which Ricciardi, master of the sacred palace, was responsible, but which bore the signature of Galileo, and in which the Copernican theory was described as a mere play of the imagination and as not in fact opposed to the Ptolemaic doctrine. The book secured at once a large circulation and a widespread influence. The preface was disregarded or was laughed at, while the reasonings in the dialogue were accepted by many as practically conclusive of the Copernican doctrine. These reasonings were considered by the new Pope, Urban VIII, as bringing him into ridicule and, under the Pope’s instructions, Galileo and his books were placed in the hands of the Inquisition. It was later contended by certain Catholic writers that Galileo was condemned not for his opinions or theories, but for having claimed to found these theories on Scripture. Sir Robert Inglis is quoted by Mendham as having maintained this view as late as 1824.[195] This contention appears however to be fairly met by the fact that the Roman Index of 1704 contains an explicit condemnation of “all works maintaining the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”

The decree numbered thirty-eight and issued August 23, 1634, specifies, with other condemned books, _Dialogo di Galileo Galilei_. Decree number fourteen connects with the condemned Copernican doctrine the name not of Galileo but of Foscarini. It adds, however, the general sentence: _Aliosque omnes libros pariter idem docentes_.

The names of both Foscarini and Galileo appear in the body of the Index, the first under _Lettera_, the second under _Dialogo_. In the Roman Index of 1704 (first edition), the following entry stands in its alphabetic place: _Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem Terrae et immobilitatem solis_. In all later editions of the Index this entry was, however, omitted.[196]

Sundry theologians of the Inquisition were instructed to examine two propositions which had been extracted from Galileo’s letters on the solar system. Their decision was rendered as follows:

“The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not
revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology,
and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture”;
and “the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre
but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and
from a theological point of view, at least, opposed to the true
faith.”[197]

The ground on which had been based the contention of the defenders of the Church that Galileo had made the Scriptures responsible for his new theory of the solar system, was a suggestion contained in letters written by the astronomer to his friend Castelli and to the Grand Duchess Christine, to the effect that his discoveries might be reconciled with Scripture.

The result of the long contest is now, of course, fully on record. The examinations and discussions had extended over a period of sixteen years. Galileo had for a large portion of that time been kept in prison under the direct control of the Roman Inquisition. It appears from the records, which have been summarised by Andrew White and others, that by the express order of Pope Urban he was menaced from time to time with torture, although it is probable that physical torture was never actually administered. The old man was finally (in 1633) forced to pronounce publicly and on his knees a recantation worded as follows:

“I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and
on my knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes
the Holy Gospel, which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse,
and detest the error and the heresy of the movement of the
earth.”[198]

The Inquisitors were ordered not to permit the publication of any further editions of Galileo’s works or of any writings upholding his theories. On the other hand, “theologians were urged, now that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler were silenced, to reply to them with tongue and pen.” Europe was flooded with these theological refutations of the Copernican system.[199]

The authority of the Index of the Congregation and of the Papacy back of the Index remained committed to the position taken by Pope Urban and his advisers until the time of Benedict XIV. In 1757, under instructions given by Benedict, the Congregation of the Index removed the old-time restrictions on writings advocating the Copernican system. As late, however, as 1765, Lalande, the great French astronomer, attempted without success to secure from the authorities at Rome the removal from the Index of the works of Galileo.

Artaud, writing in the Dublin _Review_ in September, 1865, in defence of the record of the Church, states that Galileo’s _Dialogue_ was published complete in Padua in 1714, “with the usual approbations.” In the same article, it is stated that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees were repealed by Pius VII in full Consistory.[200] The historian Cantu, however, who is described as an authority favourable to the Church, speaks of the work of Copernicus as remaining on the Index as late as 1835.[201] Cantu’s authority is supported by Reusch.[202]

In 1820, Canon Settele, professor of astronomy at Rome, had ready for publication an elementary textbook which was based upon the Copernican system. The master of the sacred palace, Anfossi, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Settele would reshape it and would refer to the Copernican theory as merely an hypothesis. The professor appealed to Pope Pius VII by whom the matter was referred to the Congregation of the Inquisition. The issue aroused considerable discussion but finally, on the eleventh of September, 1822, the cardinals of the Inquisition agreed upon the concession that “the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is hereafter permitted at Rome.”[203]

The decree was ratified by Pius VII and, after a delay of two years, the professor was permitted to place his book in the hands of the printers. It may, I judge, be inferred that until the publication of this volume, late in 1822, the pupils in the orthodox Catholic schools had not been permitted the use of any textbooks on astronomy, the conclusions of which were in accord with the Copernican system. It was not until 1835, thirteen years after the decision of the cardinals, that an edition of the Index appeared in which was omitted all condemnation of works defending the double motion of the earth.

The divines in the Protestant Church were no more favourable than were the Catholic theologians to the Copernican theory of the universe. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Protestant teachers alike placed themselves on record as in opposition to the teachings of Copernicus and of Galileo. The great preacher in London, Dr. South, denounced as irreligious the report of the Royal Society in which the Copernican doctrine had been accepted. As late as 1724, Professor John Hutchinson of Cambridge, in a treatise entitled the _Principia of Moses_, undertook to build up from the text of the Bible a complete physical system of the universe. In this treatise, the Newtonian and Copernican theories were condemned as atheistic. In 1722, Thomas Burnett, in the sixth edition of his _Sacred Theory of the Earth_, argues for the scriptural doctrine of the earth’s stability. In Holland, the Calvinistic Church was from the outset strenuously opposed to the whole new system. The opposition of the Lutherans was continued until a very late date. In 1873, was issued by the Lutheran publishing house of St. Louis a work entitled _Astronomische Unterredung_, in which was again maintained the theory that the earth is a fixed body and the centre of the universe.

These utterances from the Protestants present sufficient evidence that the old theologies as they were then interpreted could not easily be reconciled with the now accepted views of the constitution of the universe. It does not appear, however, that in any one of the Protestant realms the opposition of the divines to the new astronomy was associated with any persecution either of authors or instructors. The Church of Rome must assume the responsibility for having continued during a series of years, which ended only with the lifetime of its victim, the persecution of a great scientist whose only crime was his exceptional capacity for scientific investigation and his desire to present simply and effectively what he believed to be the truth. In 1852, two hundred and twenty years after the condemnation of Galileo, which had been brought about largely through the influence of the Jesuits, the astronomer Secchi, himself a Jesuit, presented, in one of the churches at Rome, the experiment of Foucault with the pendulum, making clear to the human eye the movement of the earth about its own axis.[204]

Another noteworthy title in the Index of 1664 is that of the _Lettres Provinciales_ of Pascal. Mendham finds ground for surprise that an author who could maintain so emphatically certain of the most exacting pretensions of the Church of Rome should have been thought deserving of condemnation. In the seventeenth of the _Lettres Provinciales_, Pascal writes:

“_Grâce à Dieu, je n’ai d’attache sur la terre qu’à la seule
Église Catholique, Apostolique, Romaine, dans laquelle je
veux vivre et mourir, et dans la communion avec le Pape, son
souverain chef, hors de laquelle je suis très persuadé qu’il n’y
a point de salut._”