As to the addition of the further documents, it may be observed that after the papers were put together the collection ended with six second pages, of which four, 448, 449, 450, 451, belonged to the opinion of Pasqualigus; and two, 452, 453, to the protocol of the examination of Galileo of 12th April, 1633. The annotation about the decree of 16th June, 1633, was written on the reverse side of the last second page, 451, forming part of the above-named document, and the three previous pages were left blank. The protocol on the Constitute of Galileo of 21st June was written on the blank sheets of 12th April. On the remaining space (half of 453 and the reverse side) two notes were made—the first about the mandate of 30th June, to send the sentence and recantation to all Inquisitors, etc., and the permit to Galileo to go to Siena; the second note reports that Firenzuola issued the order to Galileo on 2nd July. The rest of the documents which the Vatican MS. now contains must have been added as they came in, or when there were several to be added. The paging was, of course, continuously carried out.
The last document but one of the collection is a short historical summary of the process. Berti says that this must have been drawn up at least a year after its conclusion,[637] but Pieralisi[638] has pointed out that he should have said, at least a century. The origin of it is plain: when the inquiry of Fra Paolo Antonio Ambr*** of 8th June, 1734, came in as to the erection of a monument in Santa Croce, this résumé was drawn up to put the cardinals, who might not know much about it, in possession of the chief facts of Galileo’s trial. In the Vatican MS. the sheet of paper containing the résumé is stitched to the letter of Fra. Ambr*** and the decision of the cardinals written on the fourth page. If any doubts remain that this summary was written in 1734, they will disappear on comparing it with the extracts, published by Gherardi, of the protocol of the sitting of 16th June of that year. In this we find, within parentheses, the most important part of the summary, followed by the decision of the cardinals, in almost verbatim translation from Italian into Latin. The date and purpose of the summary are therefore made clear.
III.
ESTIMATE OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.
We now proceed to the examination of the documents contained in this famous volume. They differ in historical value, for they are not all as Professor Berti says,[639] original documents, but often copies, and more or less cursory annotations. Those only can be considered original documents which have autograph signatures; as all the letters in the MS. with one exception,[640] the protocol of the examination of Caccini, and the protocols of the examinations of Galileo; those of the depositions of Ximenes and Attavanti are copies sent by the Inquisitor at Florence to the Holy Office, and there is therefore no question of their authenticity. The rest of the MS. consists mainly of annotations on the decrees relating to the trial, decrees and mandates of the Pope and Holy Congregation, or notices of their execution. But the original Acts corresponding with these annotations are not comprised in the Vatican MS. Moreover, a careful examination of the Vatican Acts with Gherardi’s Documents shows, that especially after the conclusion of the trial till Galileo’s death, many papal decrees were issued of which there is no mention in the Vatican MS. So far as this, therefore, it must be looked upon as an incomplete source. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that the Acts of the trial itself lie before us altogether.
Dr. Emil Wohlwill, of Hamburg, has recently expressed the suspicion that a short time before the MS. was removed from the Archives of the Holy Office to France, the Acts of the trial underwent alterations with a special purpose, in the expectation that the Archives would be robbed, and that after the return of the volume in 1846, through Mgr. Marino Marini, Prefect of the Papal Archives, these alterations were completed![641] Wohlwill takes all the preliminary report—the origin of which is clear, and in accordance with the rules of the Inquisition—for a forgery intended to influence “readers outside the Vatican.” He also thinks that the opinion of the qualifier of the Holy Office at the head of the Acts is a later addition. The object of this no one can make out, and Dr. Wohlwill himself can give no satisfactory reason for it. As he had only Epinois’s first edition of the Vatican MS. (1867), and Berti’s imperfect publication in his hands, he often draws incorrect conclusions. It is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Wohlwill’s bold conjectures turn out to be phantoms on an actual examination of the papers, and this will certainly be confirmed by Epinois, Berti, Pieralisi, and all who have seen them. This is not the place to refute Wohlwill’s suspicions, as we have done so elsewhere.[642] It only remains for us to give the material evidence which indisputably proves that the annotation of 26th February neither is nor can be a later falsification.
As is well known, before we had inspected these documents we had fully adopted the suspicion, expressed by Dr. Wohlwill in Germany, and Professor Gherardi in Italy, that the “document” of 26th February, 1616, was of a later origin, in order to afford a pretext, according to the ideas of the time, for bringing the inconvenient author of the “Dialogues on the Two Systems” to trial for disobedience to an order of the Sacred Congregation, though the work seemed to be protected by the ecclesiastical imprimatur. We confess that we went to Rome with but little hope of finding external evidence for or against the genuineness of the document. It had been long in Professor Berti’s hands, and he had defended it with learned dialectics, while the controversy would have been closed by adducing material evidence. It seemed to us, therefore, sufficient inducement to undertake a journey to Rome, if it should enable us to confirm, on external grounds, that the document was not a falsification, even though its genuineness might not be capable of demonstration.
Contrary to all our expectations, after a repeated, careful, and we may say, entirely objective examination, we must pronounce that the suspicion of a later origin is not tenable.