a circle, which is not found on any of the paper of later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the notes of 25th and 26th February.

As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had to be given up, there was still one suspicion left that the two notes had been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there are so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But this hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in the same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be found in any document of the later trial.

In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to maintain that the note of 26th February is a later falsification. Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured, and Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the "falsifiers" went to work. In the Revista Europea, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877, Dr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it is entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is that the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th February was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding the edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini quotes only the second paging, which was done after the assumed forgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according to the pleasurenot of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632 there was a regular numbering from 949–992, originating in 1616, and no transposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini's plan, without entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm of impossibilities.

But firmly as it is now established that the document of

Ꮓ

26th February, 1616, is not a later forgery, it is equally certain that the proceedings did not take place in the rigid manner described in that annotation. In the course of this work we have become acquainted with the various reasons which conclusively prove that the annotation contains a downright untruth, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. To all these reasons one more may now be added. Had the course of events been that recorded in the annotation, so important an act would have been made into a protocol, and would have been signed by Galileo, the notary, and witnesses. Only a document of this kind would have afforded conclusive evidence on another trial. We learn from another document of the trial that such a proceeding was a part of the precautionary measures of the Inquisition, in order that the accused might not be able to deny what had happened. When on 1st October, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisitor at Florence, who issued the command to him to present himself at Rome in the course of the month, Galileo had to state in writing that he had received the order and would obey it; no sooner had he left the room than it was entered by a notary and witnesses who had been concealed in an adjoining apartment, and affirmed under Galileo's signature that they had been present when he "promised, wrote, and signed the above."1

If these measures were so strictly observed in the case of this much less important act, we may be tolerably certain that they would not have been omitted in the far more important one of 1616, if the stringent command had really been issued to Galileo by the Commissary-General in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, before notary and witnesses, to maintain henceforth absolute silence, in speaking and writing, about the Copernican system. Such a document would have furnished the Holy Office with legal grounds for bringing Galileo to trial in case of his breaking his word, and for punishing his dis1 Vat. MS. fol. 398 ro.

obedience; in short, for subjecting him to the consequences of this categorical injunction.

Did such a protocol ever exist? As we doubted the fact of the stringent intimation, we did not believe that such a document ever had existed. Nevertheless, when at Rome, we eagerly sought to discover whether, contrary to all expectation, this most important document was extant, or to learn anything about it. It might perhaps be in the Archives of the Holy Inquisition, in which, in 1848, Professor Gherardi had found such valuable notes about the trial of Galileo. We therefore addressed a memorial to the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, in which we made a concise statement of the present state of the researches relating to Galileo's trial, remarking that though the suspicion of a falsification was not tenable, the correctness of the note of 26th February seemed doubtful, and could only be acknowledged as trustworthy it either the original protocol, or some confirmatory notice, were discovered in the Archives of the Inquisition. In the course of four weeks we received the following reply

"Illmo Signore,

In sequito della richiesta fattasi da V. S. Illma di avere dei documenti relativi a Galileo, mi recai a premura di commetterne le opportune indagini. Praticatesi le più diligenti ricerche, vengo informato non esistere affatto negli Archivi i documenti che si desideravano.

Nel portare ciò a sua notizia, ho il piacere di dichiararle i sensi della mia distinta stima

Di V. S. Illma,

Affmo per servirla,

"Roma 20 Luglio, 1877.

GIOVANNI CARD. SIMEONI."

By this decisive information it is established that now, at any rate, no other document is extant relating to the proceedings of 26th February, 1616, than the well-known annotation. Was this also the case in 1632, when Galileo was arraigned for disobedience and signally punished? The history of the trial, the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of the Interrogator towards Galileo, are strongly in favour of an affirmative

answer. From his first examination to his defence, Galileo persistently denies having received any other command than the warning of Cardinal Bellarmine, neither to hold nor defend the Copernican doctrine, while the Interrogator maintains that a command was issued to him before a notary and witnesses "not in any way to hold, teach, or defend that doctrine." The contradiction is obvious. In confirmation of his deposition, Galileo brings an autograph certificate from Cardinal Bellarmine which fully agrees with it. One would then have expected to see the Interrogator spare no pains to convict Galileo on this turning-point of the trial. The production of a legal protocol about the proceeding of 26th February would have cleared up the whole affair and annihilated Galileo's defence. But as it was not produced, and the Interrogator, singularly enough, omits all further inquiry into Galileo's ignorance of the absolute prohibition, and simply takes it for granted, we may conclude that in 1633 no other document existed about the Act of 26th February than this note without signature. It must therefore be admitted by the historical critic that one of the heaviest charges against Galileo was raised on a paper of absolutely no legal value, and that sentence for "disobedience" was passed entirely on the evidence of this worthless document.

IV.

GHERARDI'S COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS.

IN the course of this work we have always acknowledged the authenticity of the documents first published by Gherardi in his "Il Processo Galileo: Riveduto Sopra documenti di nuove fonte," in the Rivista Europea, vol. iii., 1870, and our story has in many cases been based on them. It behoves us, therefore, to give the reasons which place their authenticity beyond question. These are to be found, first, in the origin of the collection; secondly, by comparing the documents with others universally acknowledged to be authentic.

On the first point we refer to the professor's account prefixed to the documents. In December, 1848, he came to Rome, and was at first, though only for a short time, deputy to the parliament summoned by Pius IX., then held, in quick succession, the offices of member of the assembly for framing a constitution, Secretary of State, and finally Minister of Instruction to the Revolutionary Government. These offices greatly facilitated Gherardi's historical researches, and he pursued them with ardour even amidst the turmoil of revolution. His attention was specially directed to the discovery of the original documents of Galileo's trial. Even in December, 1848, he found opportunity to make a search in the Archives of the Palace of the Inquisition, which was carefully guarded by the soldiers and agents of the Provisional Government to save these historical treasures from the fury of the mob. Gherardi had hoped to get a sight of the complete collection of the Acts, which had two years before been brought back from Paris. But this hope was not fulfilled, for as we know, during the Revolution, these documents were