Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia / From Authentic Sources

by Karl von Gebler

These writers assert, on the one hand, that the expression “examen rigorosum,” in the vocabulary of the Inquisition could mean nothing but torture; and on the other, they take the expression that Galileo had “answered as a good Catholic” under examen rigorosum, to mean that they had extorted from him a confession as to his intention, and conclude that torture had been resorted to. But on closer scrutiny of the wording of the passage, the meaning appears to be exactly the contrary; for the sentence in parenthesis says plainly that Galileo had “answered as a good Catholic” “without prejudice” to his previous depositions or the conclusions which his judges had previously arrived at as to his intention, and which Galileo persistently denied. His Catholic answer consisted in his repeated assurance that he did not hold the opinion of Copernicus, and had not held it after the command to renounce it had been intimated to him. The Inquisition could but call this a Catholic answer, as Galileo thereby entirely renounced the condemned doctrine.[440]

We turn now to the other assertion of these writers, that “examen rigorosum” means torture. This is in a general sense correct, if by torture the actual application of it is not intended. But they take the passage in the sentence for decisive evidence that torture was actually carried out, in which they are mistaken, as the following passage from the “Sacro Arsenale” undoubtedly proves: “If the culprit who was merely taken to the torture chamber, and there undressed, or also bound, without however being lifted up, confessed, it was said that he had confessed under torture and under examen rigorosum.”[441] The last expression then by no means always implies the actual application of torture. Dr. Wohlwill knows this passage, and the sentence therefore only proves to him that Galileo was taken into the torture chamber; what took place there, whether the old man was actually tortured, or whether they contented themselves with urging him to speak the truth, and threatening him with the instruments they were showing him (a degree of torture called territio realis), appears shrouded in mystery to Dr. Wohlwill. In spite of his acquaintance with the literature of the Inquisition, he has fallen into a mistake. He thinks that the territio realis was the first degree of torture.[442] But this was not the case. Limborch’s work, “Historia Inquisitionis,” with which Wohwill does not seem to be acquainted, contains definite information on the point. He says that there were five grades of torture, which followed in regular order, and quotes the following passage verbatim from Julius Clarus: “Know then that there are five degrees of torture: First, the threat of the rack; second, being taken into the torture chamber; third, being undressed and bound; fourth, being laid upon the rack; fifth, turning the rack.”[443] The territio realis was therefore by no means the first degree of torture; the first was the threat of torture, still outside the torture chamber in the ordinary court, called territio verbalis,[444] which proceeding we find in the examination of Galileo on 21st June. The expression “examen rigorosum” in the sentence, appears therefore, taking it to indicate torture in a general sense, fully justified by historical facts.

It would be more difficult to prove that “examen rigorosum” in the sentence meant actual torture, or territio realis. According to the rules of the Holy Office, a number of strict regulations were prescribed for the procedure, which began with taking the accused into the torture chamber, and the neglect of any one of them made the whole examination null and void. The most important were as follows: First, a short final examination had to take place outside the torture chamber, at which the accused was told that he had better confess, or recourse will be had to torture. (This took place precisely according to the rules of the Holy Office at Galileo’s trial at the examination on 21st June.) If the accused persisted, and if in a special Congregation for this case the necessity of recourse to torture had previously been agreed upon[445] (this must have taken place in the Congregation of 16th June), the judge had to order the removal of the accused, to the torture chamber by a special formal decree, as follows:—“Tunc D.D. sedentes ... visa pertinacia et obstinatione ipsius constitati, visoque et mature considerato toto tenore processus ... decreverunt, ipsum constituum esse torquendum tormento funis pro veritate habendo.... Et ideo mandaverunt ipsum constitutum duci ad locum tormentorum.”[446]

Second, a notary of the Inquisition had to be present in the torture chamber, and the judges had to see “that he noted down not only all the answers of the accused, but all his expressions and movements, every word that he uttered on the rack, even every sigh, cry, and groan.”[447]

Third, within twenty-four hours after his release from the torture chamber, the accused had to ratify all his utterances under the torments of the rack, or under threat of them, in the usual court. Otherwise the whole proceeding was null and void.[448]

Of all these documents, which must have existed if actual torture had been employed, or even if Galileo had been taken into the torture chamber, there is not a trace in the Acts of the trial in the Vatican. Dr. Wohlwill[449] and Dr. Scartazzini[450] assert, with more boldness than evidence, that most of these documents did exist, but that afterwards, and in the present century, as the whole of the documents have been tampered with for a special purpose, these compromising papers have been withdrawn! The Vatican MS. contains one document which, one would think, is indisputable evidence that only the territio verbalis was employed against Galileo. We allude to the Protocol of the last examination of 21st June. Up to the final answer of the accused the questions of the Inquisitor agree verbatim with the formula of examination which the “Sacro Arsenale” gives for questioning as to the Intention;[451] but when, if it was intended to proceed to torture or even to take Galileo into the torture chamber, the decree about it should follow, we find instead the concluding sentence: “Et cum nihil aliud posset haberi in executionem decreti habita eius subscriptione remissus fuit ad locum suum.” This is, up to the words “in executionem decreti,” the usual concluding sentence of the last examination when it ended without torture.[452] These exceptional words refer to the decree of 16th June, 1633, which minutely described the judicial proceedings to be taken against Galileo, and by which certainly the threat of torture, but by no means actual recourse to it, was ordained by the Pope and the Sacred Congregation.[453]

The concluding sentence of the last examination of Galileo being on the one hand in exact agreement with the decree of 16th June, and on the other being a precise and definite statement, is a strong proof of the correctness of the opinion long defended by calm and impartial historians, like Albèri, Reumont, Biot, Cantor, Bouix, Troussart, Reusch, and even the passionate opponent of Rome, Prof. Chasles, that Galileo’s feeble frame was never subjected to the horrors of torture. Wohlwill also acknowledges the force of this concluding sentence—if it be genuine. He thinks these words are a falsification in the present century, while originally Galileo’s last answer was followed by the necessary decree for proceeding to torture, and then by the protocol about the proceedings in the torture chamber. Dr. Scartazzini goes even further than Wohlwill, and maintains that not only the concluding sentence, but the whole protocol of the examination of 21st June, as now found in the Vatican MS., is a later falsified insertion. We shall see why he thinks so by and by.

We may remark in passing, from our own experience, that it is always venturesome to affirm that there are falsifications in a MS. without even having seen it, to say nothing of having examined it. Thus, for instance, a glance at the original shows on material grounds that there can be no suspicion of falsification or later insertion in the protocol of 21st June. Both pages on which it is written, fols. 452, 453, are second pages to fols. 413 and 414, on which the protocol of Galileo’s trial of 12th April begins. A later insertion is therefore an impossibility. Besides, the protocol of 21st June ends in the middle of fol. 435 ro, and, after a space of scarcely two fingers’ breadth follows an annotation of 30th June, 1633, in exactly the same handwriting as the annotations of 16th June, 1633, 23rd September, 9th and 30th December, 1632. This really seems to render the bold conjecture of falsification wholly untenable.

The unquestioned genuineness of Galileo’s signature, which concludes this as well as all the other protocols, is also a guarantee of its authenticity. Dr. Scartazzini has taken advantage of our information that this signature, unlike all Galileo’s others, is in a very trembling hand, to assert that it is not genuine. We are of opinion that a forger would have taken every pains to make the signature as much like the others as possible, and certainly would not have written in remarkably trembling characters. No; this signature, which is unmistakably like the rest, reflects his fearful agitation, and is by no means a forgery of the nineteenth century.