the comparison to other popes numbered V help much!
Bzowski does say two things of great interest. First, no one was harder than Paul on heretical books—as Bzowski should have known since his own continuation of Cardinal Baronio’s history of the church had encountered difficulties with the Inquisition. Second, the pope never did anything without carefully taking advice. Other commentators agree in making caution Paul’s defining characteristic. That makes sense for a lawyer, but it happens not to be true. Paul was perfectly prepared to shoot from the hip, whether by airily ordering an entire new street to be built because his carriage had been forced to take a small detour or—much more important—without consulting anyone at all, slapping the interdict on Venice in 1606 that just about wrecked the papacy.122 He acted in much the same hasty fashion in Galileo’s case. He is alleged never to have taken any step without calculating its political impact, especially when it came to the grand duke, to whom he owed a big leg up into the papal chair. His handling of Galileo’s case raises doubts about this claim, too. He was not a man to be pushed around.
Florence Gets a New Inquisitor
Despite Paul’s prodding, the investigation into Galileo in Florence was not making much headway. Its inquisitor, Cornelio Priatoni, reported on 11 May that he could not question Ximenes since he was still in Milan, and Priatoni thought it best not to talk to anyone else first.123 Since the inquisitor in Milan reported soon after that Ximenes had returned to Florence, one or the other inquisitor may have been passing the buck.124 Priatoni never did manage to interview Ximenes. (Meanwhile the inquisitor of the frontier post at Belluno was asked to look for the “Letter to Castelli” on a rumor that its dean had a copy of one of Galileo’s writings, which one not specified. The Inquisition could be both incredibly thorough and incredibly sloppy.)125 Priatoni found himself in an almost impossible situation.126 Immediately after Caccini’s lecture, he tried to resign. Rome refused to let him step down until the middle of 1615 on the face-saving pretext of ill health.
Lelio Marzari, the inquisitor of Pisa, wound up replacing Priatoni.127 Marzari’s arrival at this precise moment cannot be coincidence. Priatoni’s foot-dragging may well have been meant to help Galileo, who was probably being leaked information about the progress of his case.128 Marzari’s arrival therefore looked doubly menacing. Galileo ignored the signals and wrote a more inflammatory letter than the one to Castelli. This time he addressed himself directly to the grand duke’s mother, Grand Duchess Christina.129 His central point was that scientists should not start their investigations from the Bible. Whether he meant this as a defense of separate spheres for science and religion or to save the Bible from possible attack by less devout scientists—or a number of other possibilities—the danger arose in his liberal citation of scripture to support his argument, as well as trotting out an arsenal of citations from the fathers of the church. Not that Galileo had suddenly developed expertise in patristics. Instead, he probably got the whole set of texts from the Bible commentary of Spanish Jesuit Benito Pereyra that an unknown monk, probably a Barnabite (possibly Pomponio Tartaglia, who knew Castelli in Pisa), had sent him.130
On new orders from Rome, Marzari rummaged around in the files and found the earlier instructions to Priatoni and, on 13 November, finally interviewed Ximenes, who had probably returned to Florence no later than early July.131 Ximenes had recently arrived there from Portugal, perhaps following his brother, a canon of its cathedral.132 He would sing the mass in 1629 in Rome for the canonization of the Florentine saint Andrea Corsini.133 Conveniently enough, the Florentine inquisition sat in Ximenes’s own convent of Santa Maria Novella, so he need not leave the building. Marzari asked questions, and the Florentine inquisition’s chancellor took down the answers. As always happened, the first question to Ximenes was whether he knew the cause of his summons.134 No, Ximenes said, possibly a little disingenuously since the next question was whether he knew Galileo. Marzari did not waste time getting to the point. No, answered Ximenes again, nor could I recognize him, but I do hear rumors that he thinks the earth moves and “the heaven” stands still, and such belief is “diametrically opposed to true theology and philosophy.” Why? prodded Marzari. A. I heard some of his students say that “the heaven” does not move, that God is an accident and has no substance, that everything is a quantity made of a vacuum, that God laughs and cries. But I do not know whether this is just their opinion or whether Galileo believes all this, too. Q. Did you hear anyone say Galileo thought miracles were not really miracles, pressed Marzari. No, responded Ximenes. Q. From whom did you hear these things? A. From Giannozzo Attavanti, parish priest of Castel-fiorentino, in the presence of Ridolfi, a knight of St. Stephen (the noble order founded by Cosimo I).135 It happened in my room last year, many times, but I cannot give the month, much less the day, and in addition to Ridolfi there were sometimes friars in attendance—but Ximenes could not remember who. Ximenes’s testimony was becoming dangerously vague, and it got worse. Marzari: can you conjecture whether Attavanti was speaking as if he believed these things? Ximenes: I do not think so; he was putting an argument and referred all to the Church’s judgment. Q. What else do you know about him? A. He has no training in theology or philosophy and does not have a degree, but he has some experience with both and was probably expressing Galileo’s views rather than his own. The question arose while we were discussing cases of conscience (in other words, while Ximenes was training Attavanti how to hear confessions). Some of Caccini’s readings came up, especially about Joshua and the sun.136 I reprimanded Attavanti harshly, Ximenes asserted piously. Then came the standard closing question about whether he was an enemy of either Galileo or Attavanti. Ximenes repeated that he could not pick Galileo out of a lineup if he had to and at worst was Attavanti’s friend. Ximenes was sworn to silence and signed his deposition, and the interview ended.
The next day Marzari deposed Attavanti.137 He was described as “a noble Florentine, thirty-three years old” and in minor orders (very minor; he had no more than the tonsure, the initial sign of clerical status).138 After the usual opening question, Marzari asked whether Attavanti had studied “letters” in Florence. Yes, under two Dominicans whom Attavanti named, then two more teachers (possibly also Dominicans), as well as with Ximenes who taught him cases of conscience. Q. Did you study with Galileo? A. No, I discussed philosophy with him as I do with all learned men. Then Marzari made a huge blunder, just what we would expect given his checkered career. He asked a leading question. If there was one rule on which the Roman Inquisition constantly harped, it was under no circumstances, ever, ever, feed the witness his lines.139 In his day the Inquisition had not quite figured out that learning on the job without much (or any) supervision was not the best imaginable way to prepare inquisitors. Only later did it begin circulating once a year copies of its general decrees and bringing inquisitors to Rome for short, total immersion courses during which they sat in on parts of the Congregation’s sessions.140 So Marzari did his best. Did you ever hear Galileo say anything “repugnant” to scripture or the faith? No, I did not, huffed Attavanti. I only heard him say, following Copernicus, that the earth moved, as he wrote in his Sunspot Letters, to which I refer you. Marzari kept on leading Attavanti. Did Galileo ever interpret scripture, “maybe badly?” A. He interpreted Joshua, but Attavanti ignored the rest of the question. Then Marzari turned to the more solid evidence Ximenes had given. Attavanti gave a much more precise answer about his discussions with his former teacher than Ximenes had, volunteering the circumstances including Caccini’s presence (his cell was next door), while insisting that the whole thing was a disputation that Caccini might have misunderstood. That was probably what happened on another occasion when Caccini had interrupted to condemn heliocentrism as heretical. About miracles, Attavanti knew nothing and about God’s nature only what Aquinas taught. Marzari’s next question went over the same ground, asking about the circumstances under which Attavanti had gained his information. Attavanti could not resist pointing out that he had already testified to them. What is your opinion about Galileo, asked Marzari? I think him a very good Catholic, otherwise he would not be in the grand duke’s service, rejoindered Attavanti. Then Marzari asked another odd question, about Attavanti’s “enmity” not with Galileo but with Caccini. Attavanti contradicted himself by saying he did not even know Caccini’s
