personal one."[1] It is clear that by this personal persecutor no other than Urban VIII. can be intended.
The same cheerful confidence is expressed in a letter of Galileo's of 25th February to Geri Bocchineri. One passage in it deserves special attention. It is as follows:—
"We" (Niccolini and Galileo) "hear at last that the many and serious accusations are reduced to one, and that the rest have been allowed to drop. Of this one I shall have no difficulty in getting rid when the grounds of my defence have been heard, which are meanwhile being gradually brought, in the best way that circumstances allow, to the knowledge of some of the higher officials, for these are not at liberty to listen freely to intercession, and still less to open their lips in reply. So that in the end a favourable issue may be hoped for."[2]
A despatch of Niccolini's to Cioli of two days later explains the nature of this chief accusation:—
"Although I am unable to say precisely what stage Galileo's affair has reached, or what may happen next, as far as I can learn the main difficulty consists in this—that these gentlemen maintain that in 1616 he was ordered neither to discuss the question nor to converse about it. He says, on the contrary, that those were not the terms of the injunction, which were that that doctrine was not to be held nor defended. He considers that he has the means of justifying himself, because it does not at all appear from his book that he does hold or defend the doctrine, nor that he regards it as a settled question, as he merely adduces the reasons hinc hinde. The other points appear to be of less importance and easier to get over."[3]
It is in the highest degree significant that Galileo—as is evident from Niccolini's report above—from the first decidedly denies ever having received an injunction not to discuss the Copernican theory in any way; all that he knows is that it is not to be held nor defended; that is, all that he knows fully agrees with the note of 25th February, 1616; and with the decree of the Congregation of 5th March, 1616. Accordingly he does not consider that he has gone beyond the orders of
