Page:Galileo (1918).djvu/52

46 page, but was relieved to find that what had been taken for a skit on the Papal arms was only the printer's device, appearing on all books issued by his firm.

Scheiner, who had in 1630 published a fierce attack on Galileo in his "Rosa Ursina," found his arguments roughly handled in the new work, and took a leading part in the agitation against its author. It was next objected that the preface was in different type, though this was naturally due to the long delay in returning it from Rome; so that the printer had begun on the work itself without waiting for the preface. It was also alleged that the Pope's mighty arguments against Copernicus, which Galileo had undertaken to insert, had been omitted. This was not even true, for the Pope's argument about Omnipotence was duly inserted at the end of the book, and being professedly directed against Copernicus was put into the mouth of Simplicio as a matter of course. It was then admitted that this was the case, but the suggestion was made that Galileo had deliberately insulted the Pope by putting his argument in the mouth of Simplicio, and that Galileo wished to imply that the Pope was a "simpleton". Although Simplicio distinctly states that he had the argument from a "very eminent and learned personage," and although the name of Simplicio was chosen for quite other reasons than that suggested, this ingenious innuendo succeeded to all appearance. Unlikely as it may sound, the Pope was so enraged that he lent a ready ear to further insinuations that the dogmas of the Catholic Faith were in danger from the Copernican doctrines, and that Galileo had obtained the Imprimatur by false pretences. It is certain that Galileo himself attributed his subsequent troubles to the idea thus cunningly suggested that he had been making game of the Pope. It is also clear that, something must have