Hence, Botta, no friend to the Papal See, attributes its dissolution to the discord among its members, and to the elevation of Leopold. But he expressly observes that it was not molested by the Court of Rome, under Alexander. The suppression then is all a fable, as is its alleged motive. So far from any hatred existing in Rome to the memory of Galileo, we should rather say that it was held in veneration. In the first edition of Borelli's great posthumous work, De Motu Animalium, now before us, printed at Rome in 1680, with all the usual approbations of the ecclesiastical authorities, we find the learned editor, Father Charles a Jesu, General of the order of the Scuole pie, boasts of one of his body as having been "Galilei clarissimi viri auditor:" an expression which does not betray feelings at all akin to hatred or hostility.

So much, then, for the barter of a Cardinal's hat against the suppression of a scientific society. Next comes the more odious charge of Borelli's beggary, and Oliva's broken bones. It does not require great sagacity to ask the question, what on earth could have taken these two men to Rome, if such a lot awaited them? Supposing their Academy to have been suppressed by an act of papal bigotry, can we imagine them, if sane, to have thrown themselves personally within the reach of the hatred that had shown itself so implacable in their regard as disciples of Galileo? For it is not even pretended that, like their master, they were summoned to Rome, or commanded even to quit Florence. The truth is, that the whole is a fiction, like the torture of that illustrious man. A brief account of their history will fully explain the matter.

Borelli, after having studied mathematics in Rome, under Father Castelli, taught the sciences at Messina, whence he was invited by the Grand Duke into Tuscany in 1656. Two years later he travelled to Rome for the purpose of studying Arabic, as he wished to translate, from that language, the books lost in Greek of Apollonius's Conic Sections. For this end he took lessons from Abraham Echellensis, a learned Syrian, author of several valuable works. In March 1667, while Alexander VII yet sat, and consequently before there was the least idea of Leopold's elevation to the purple, much less of any conditions to be made upon the occasion, Borelli requested leave to quit Tuscany, and return to Messina. (Lett. ined. i. 133. Targ. i. 215.) Redi, in one of his letters, tells us that the Prince was exceedingly displeased at his departure; and Fabroni has given a letter from the Duke to his brother, in which he complains of Borelli's conduct, and says that the fickleness of his disposition, and the restlessness of his brain, and not his health, were the

motives of his departure. (i. 135.) Marini has recorded a gross insult which Borelli and Oliva received from some drunken guards at the palace, which may have contributed to their wish to quit. (Nelli, Saggio Letterario, p. 116.) At Messina, Borelli lived in some splendour, till 1674, when he thought proper to take an active part in the insurrection that happened there. He saved himself from justice by flight, and arrived at Rome in great distress. The patronage and liberality of Christina, Queen of Sweden, enabled him to pursue his studies, till her circumstances became embarrassed, and at the same time a worthless servant robbed him of all he possessed. In all this there is no sign of any papal persecution, nor would it be easy for the most ingenious tracer of cause and effect to establish a connexion between his sufferings, and hatred on the part of Rome to the scholars of Galileo. But even at this period, Borelli was not reduced to the necessity of seeking alms. He accepted the invitation of the Fathers of the Scuole pie to live in their house and teach mathematics. Here he gave himself up to a life of edifying devotion, charming every one by his cheerfulness and amenity, till his death, which happened in the last hour of the year 1679. His work De Motu Animalium appeared the next year, through the bounty of Queen Christina.

Such is the simple narrative of Borelli's history; Oliva's presents a sadder picture of human frailty and misery. When young, theological secretary to Cardinal Barberini, from whose house he was expelled; next a captain of freebooters in Calabria, he came from prison to teach medicine at Pisa. In 1667 he quitted Tuscany with an indifferent reputation for morals, as Targioni observes, (i. 227) and came to Rome, where, instead of being seized by the Inquisition and stretched on the rack, he was engaged to attend, in quality of physician, Don Tommaso Rospigliosi, nephew of Clement IX. (Grandi, Risposta apolog. p. 176.) Tiraboschi informs us that he had easy access to several pontiffs: (Storia Letter. ed. Rom. viii., p. 210) and, according to Targioni, he held a situation in the palace. During all this time we have no traces of any animosity against him for having been a member of the Cimento, or a disciple of Galileo. After the death of Innocent XI, he was discovered to be deeply concerned in a society of a highly immoral character, and was imprisoned. While led to examination a second time, he slipped from his guards, threw himself headlong from an open window, and died in three hours. Romolini speaks severely of the evil life and death of Oliva, and quotes Marini to the same effect, and for the narrative we have given. (Ragionamento sulla Satira, in Mencini's Satire, p. 84.) As to any torture, it is a

pure invention of the recreant Italian whose essay we are examining.

Two charges yet remain, and we will handle them more lightly. And first, what truth is there in the story of Galileo's manuscripts being destroyed? It had indeed been asserted, long ago, that on the death of Father Renieri, who possessed Galileo's papers, his study was visited, and all his papers, as well as that philosopher's, seized; and the writer gives it as a report, that this was done by the inquisitor. (Lett. ined. i. 74.) But then all this must have happened, if it ever did, in 1648, nearly ten years before the foundation of the Academy, and consequently can have nothing to do with any papal stipulations about its suppression. The account, moreover, must be inaccurate, as Renieri's own papers served Targioni for his history, consequently cannot have been destroyed; and it is certain that he did not possess all Galileo's. Some of these are said to have been burnt by his nephew, in a fit of scrupulous alarm about his uncle's orthodoxy. But the essayist informs us that other writings of the Florentine philosopher were "turned to the vilest purposes." We suppose he alludes to the following circumstance: Many of Galileo's manuscripts were placed in the hands of Viviani, who had undertaken a magnificent edition of his works, and was much encouraged in the project by Cardinal Leopold. (Grandi, p. 66.) Upon his death they came into the possession of the Abate Panzanini, and, upon the decease of the latter in 1737, were so far neglected, that a servant visited them from time to time, and carried away many of them

"In vicum vendentem thus et odores,

Et piper, et quidquid chartis amicitur ineptis."

A certain Cioci, celebrated for his savoury wares, having been favoured among others with a parcel, and having used some for wrapping up his sausages, which enjoyed a great reputation, the discovery was made, and the remnant reserved from destruction. (Targioni, i. 124.) This, unfortunately, has been the fate of too many valuable papers. Within these two years, we have heard that the Barberini library at Rome has been plundered precisely in the same manner of important documents, which were discovered by the very same means. We ourselves are sufferers in a similar way; as are several of our friends, whose fires have been kindled for successive months with old records, carefully laid up, but considered, by the sagacity of servants, as put by for their especial use, in the process of domestic calefaction. Prejudice must have run high in our author's mind, to make him connect this sacrilegious larceny, perpetrated by a

valet and a cheesemonger, seventy years after the dissolution of the Academy, with this dissolution, and lay it, moreover, to the score of Popes, long before gathered to their fathers. The papers belonging to the Academy remained safe in possession of the Segni family, having been left them by the Senator Alexander Segni, first Secretary of the Academy.

Secondly, as to the destruction of the philosophical apparatus, we beg to observe that it is as true as the remainder of the narrative. It would, indeed, have been matter of small surprise if even all the instruments had been dispersed, and gradually lost or destroyed, after the society which used them had been dissolved. But this was not the case. The collection remained where Cardinal Leopold had always kept it, till Florence became subject to the Emperor. It was then deposited in the house of the imperial machinist Vayringe; after whose death, a part was sent to Vienna by order of Francis I, the greater part were placed in two rooms adjoining the library of the Pitti Palace, where Targioni saw them. Some also were preserved, in his time, in the mathematical room, as it was called, of the Ducal Gallery. But what makes this accusation still more intolerable is, that in 1829, the Cavalier Antinori, director of the Museum, discovered a chest in which were several instruments, and among them a number of thermometers with a scale of 500, which form the subject of the accuser's essay. (Antologia di Firenze, Oct. 1830, p. 141.) There is no more truth, therefore, in the broken instruments than in Oliva's broken bones; the whole account is a disgraceful perversion of facts, for the purpose of holding up Rome to execration, as the persecutor of scientific studies.

We have had sufficient experience of the frauds published in our own country, for the same purpose, not to have used our humble endeavours to prevent this being added to the stock in trade of our controversial travellers. It would make a pretty appendix to Galileo's history. We doubt not but it would be greatly relished in Exeter Hall, where every atrocity is fondly credited which can inspire a nursery horror of the Pope. We verily believe that if the story were served up with additional contemporary relish-as for example, that the present Pope had renewed the war against science, and had sent forth an army of Jesuits through his dominions, with orders to spike every telescope, and to dismantle every voltaic battery, the whole, tail and all, would be swallowed by the gaping mouths of the audience in that precious conventicle.

some

We mentioned, at the beginning of this article, the Roman academy of the Lincei, as devoted to the same purposes as the Cimento; in fact, it was its model, and hardly deserves less fame. Yet it has been comparatively overlooked. On the pre

sent occasion, however, it is forcibly recalled to our minds, not merely by the resemblance we pointed out between it and its more celebrated successor, but still more by its giving a proof that the Holy See felt no jealousy of such institutions. For, when we see an academy consisting of a few philosophers, united under the patronage of a prince, for the ardent pursuit of the same studies as the Florentine, counting, which the other never did, Galileo himself among its members, yet not only unmolested, but patronized by the Pope and his family, we can hardly conceive it possible that Rome should ever have felt a hatred against science which could go so far to display itself.

But, to our minds, there is a deeper interest attached to the brief annals of this Roman academy. They are interwoven with the amiable, virtuous, and heroic character of its youthful founder, so as to possess all the stirring interest of a romance. They display, beyond almost anything else we ever read, the purity of purpose, the chastity of mind, the nobleness of soul, which a devotedness to the study of nature, when sanctified by religion, can bestow. They exhibit all the meek courage of the martyrs, in the humbler, but dearer, sphere of domestic persecution. We repeat it, the history of this academy, with its Prince Federico Česi for the hero, would present ample materials for a romance, full of incident and spirit, and rich in the

most varied characters.

Federico Cesi, son of the Duke of Acquasparta, was born in 1585. In 1603, when eighteen years of age, he laid the foundation of his Academy, being already in correspondence with some of the first philosophers of the age. His first companion in his plan was Francesco Stelluti, who possessed an equal ardour for science, morals equally pure, and a piety equally fervent. Having heard of John Eckius, or Reckius, a Hollander practising medicine in the little town of Scandriglia, in Sabina, a man deeply versed in every branch of philosophy, they invited him to settle in Rome, attached to the Cesi family. Finding the want of order and system in their studies, they arranged the plan of an academy, and, to complete it, added to their number Anastasio de Filiis, a young nobleman of Terni, who had a particular turn for mechanics; and, being a relation of the family, lived in their house. On the 17th of August, 1603, the Academy was inaugurated by its young Prince, as he was henceforth called. Its meetings were to be quite private; and their researches were to embrace every branch of natural and moral philosophy. By the 22d of October they had finished the construction of a great planisphere, on which were drawn the ancient and modern systems of astronomy. They met three times a week, and had five lectures at each meeting; and the subjects

VOL. III.NO. V.

M