Wohlwill has clearly shown the discrepancies between this document and that of 26th February; he has pointed out that even if, as Martin thinks, “the secrets of the Inquisition had to be kept at any price, even at the expense of truth,”[148] it would not have put forth so downright a lie in _optima forma_ as the cardinal’s testimony contained, if the assumed prohibition had really been given to Galileo by the Commissary-General of the Inquisition. This prohibition might easily have been passed over in silence, while the calumnious reports might have been refuted. But the cardinal was not content with that, and stated expressly that Galileo had “only” been personally informed of the decree of the Congregation of the Index about the Copernican system. While this attestation of Bellarmine’s glaringly contradicts the second part of the note of 26th February, it not only entirely accords with the papal ordinance of the 25th, but also with Bellarmine’s report of the proceedings of 26th February in the private sitting of the Congregation of 3rd March. This proves that the cardinal certified nothing more nor less than what had actually taken place. It leads therefore to the following conclusions:—
1. Galileo did not receive any prohibition, except the cardinal’s admonition not to defend nor hold the Copernican doctrine.
2. Entire silence on the subject was therefore not enjoined upon him.
3. The second part of the note in the Vatican MS. of 26th February, 1616, is therefore untrue.
These three facts are indisputable, and the subsequent course of historical events will confirm them step by step, while it can by no means be made to tally with the assumed strict injunction of the Commissary-General. Next however, the question immediately arises, Through whose means did the falsehood get into the acts of the trial, and was it _bona_ or _mala fide_? Historical research can only partially answer this question. All these notifications were entered by a notary of the Inquisition, and probably that of 26th February, 1616, also. Did he, perhaps merely from officious zeal, enter a note of an official proceeding as having actually taken place, which undoubtedly was to have taken place under certain circumstances, but in their absence did not occur, or even were not to be permitted at all in consequence of papal instructions? Or was the notary simply the tool of a power which had long been inimical to Galileo, and which, incensed at the failure for the time of its schemes against him, sought to forge secret fetters for future use by the entry of the fictitious note? We have no certain knowledge of the motives and influences which gave rise to the falsification; as however we can scarcely believe in the officious zeal of, or independent falsification by, the notary himself, the conjecture gains in probability that we are concerned with a lying, perfidious trick of Galileo’s enemies,[149] which, as we shall see later on, signally fulfilled its purpose.