Abstract
The first part of this book has elaborated a critical interpretation of Galileo’s work as a defense of the Copernican system. The Galilean defense was obviously multifaceted insofar as it involved questions of observational and theoretical astronomy, of hermeneutical and meta-hermeneutical theology, of general-qualitative and quantitative-mathematical physics, and of philosophical methodology and epistemology. More importantly, Galileo’s defense was reasoned, critical, open-minded, fair-minded, and rational-minded; that is, it was focused on the critical examination of the arguments for and against Copernicus, guided by the concern to be aware of the opposite arguments, to appreciate them in their strength, but also to expose their flaws, and thus to select the conclusion justified by the better arguments. These features are reflected in the fact that before I gave an account of Galileo’s replies (Chapters 3-6), I gave a lengthy account (Chapters 1-2) of the anti-Copernican objections and the traditional world view on which they were based. Equally important, I have tried to show that the Galilean defense of Copernicus was largely cogent, effective, or insightful, although I have not equated this essential correctness with complete or perfect rightness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Needless to say, while this qualification is crucial for the account in this chapter, the same does not apply for the accounts in my other chapters, especially Chapters 3-6 and 8-12. Those other chapters are intended to discuss all necessary complications and controversial issues; and as some of my notes indicate, my views there sometimes go deeper or farther than theirs, and sometimes are inconsistent with theirs (Beltrán Marí 2006; Beretta 1998, etc.; Camerota 2004; Fantoli 2003a,b; Speller 2008); and in cases of conflict I would uphold my own account against theirs.
- 2.
Favaro 16: 605-606, Finocchiaro (1989, 47-48).
- 3.
- 4.
Cf. the discussions in Chapters 4 and 9 of this book.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
See, for example, Favaro (5: 291-295, 297-305), Finocchiaro (1989, 58-67).
- 9.
The confidentiality rule was well but not perfectly kept, and it was subject to abuse and arbitrariness, as one may gather from Beltrán Marí (2006, 41-45).
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Favaro 5: 377-395, Finocchiaro (1989, 119-133).
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
There seems to be no direct documentary evidence that the History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots was examined. The indirect evidence for this is a note on the back of one of the folios containing Attavanti’s deposition; the note is dated 25 November 1615 and says simply: “those letters of Galileo, published in Rome under the title Sunspots Letters, should be looked at” (Favaro 19: 320; Pagano 1984, 98).
- 17.
- 18.
Of course, in earlier times, there were serious attempts to justify even this conclusion. One of the most notable such justifications was written during Galileo’s trial in 1632-1633, and published a few months after his condemnation. Entitled Tractatus syllepticus (or Summary Treatise), it was authored by Jesuit Melchior Inchofer. To get an idea of the care devoted to such an effort, it should be noted that the consultants distinguished between the heliostatic heliocentric thesis and the geokinetic thesis and judged the former “formally heretical” and the latter “at least erroneous in the faith.” Inchofer tried to justify this differential assessment. For details, see Blackwell (2006, 45-63, 105-206).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
On the other hand, in issuing the decree, the Index was in part following the orders of the Inquisition, and indeed of the pope himself as chairman of the Inquisition. In fact, it was at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February 1616 that the pope ruled that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture; ordered Bellarmine to warn Galileo; and directed the Index to decide the details of the prohibition of Copernican books (which it did at its meeting of March 1). See the documents in Favaro (19: 278, 321), Pagano (1984, 100-101, 222-223), Finocchiaro (1989, 147), Mayaud (1997, 37-41), and cf. the accounts in Beretta (2001b, 306 n. 21), Fantoli (2003b,183-187, 453-458), Beltrán Marí (2006, 321-323), Speller (2008, 79-84).
- 26.
Favaro 12: 247-249, Finocchiaro (1989, 151-153).
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
L. Ludovisi to Galileo, 22 November 1622, in Favaro 13: 100-101; cf. Beltrán Marí (2006, 381-387).
- 31.
With the revealing title of “Adulatio Perniciosa.” Cf. Favaro 13: 48-49, Pieralisi (1875, 22-25).
- 32.
Favaro 13: 175, 182-185.
- 33.
For more details about this argument, see Favaro 7: 488-489, Galilei (1967, 464; 1997, 306-308; 2008, 269-271). Cf. Beltrán Marí (2006, 412-437), Besomi and Helbing (1998, 2: 899-902), Bianchi (2000; 2001), Camerota (2004, 406-417), Finocchiaro (1980, 8-12; 1985; 1997a, 306-308), Favaro 7: 565-566, Morin (1631, 31-32), Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1981, 99-107), Speller (2008, 143-160, 375-396), Wisan 1984, and Section 2.2 of this book. Urban may have had in mind the objection that God could have created a world in which the evidence suggested a moving earth despite its being motionless. There is no doubt that the exact content, structure, origin, and consequences of Urban’s argument remain an open question that deserves further exploration, although a significant contribution has now been made by Speller (2008). It should also be mentioned that if Urban’s argument did indeed include the objection just mentioned, this would lend support to Morpurgo-Tagliabue’s thesis that Descartes’s “methodic doubt is nothing but the generalization of the argument of Urban VIII” (1981, 115) and that his “Discourse on Method … is essentially an answer to the argument of Urban VIII” (1981, 104). This would also accord very well with the account of Descartes’s development and thought advanced by Gaukroger (1995, 11-12, 292), for whom Cartesian metaphysics was a response to the methodological crisis in physics produced by the condemnation of Galileo.
- 34.
Favaro 6: 509-561, Finocchiaro (1989, 154-197). Cf. Section 4.3 of this book.
- 35.
The actual title was much longer; see, for example, Finocchiaro (1980, 12-18).
- 36.
I realize, of course, that my interpretation here goes against the prevailing view that Galileo regarded the tidal argument as conclusive; that he therefore wanted to advertise this in the book’s title; and that the Church did not want to endorse this argument. For an exposition of this view, see Shea (1972, 172-189); for some criticism, see Finocchiaro (1980, 16-18, 76-78). Cf. also Drake (1986b), MacLachlan (1990), Pitt (1992, 78-109), and Chapters 3 and 9 of this book.
- 37.
- 38.
This only became clear and explicit much later, in the 1870s, when the trial proceedings were opened to a few scholars and were published in their entirety. Cf. Finocchiaro (2005b, 241-258) and Section 8.12 of this book.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
I do not mean to imply that all of the complaints had been voiced before the pope took this step, but only that some of them emerged before; in particular, I am not sure there is any way of dating exactly what I have called “the most serious complaint,” involving the special injunction. However, it is certain that the ban on sales preceded the report of the special commission (Favaro 20: 571-572, 14: 391-393, 14: 397-398), and it seems to me that the first written mention of the special injunction does not occur till September (Favaro 14: 391-393, 397-398).
- 42.
- 43.
Niccolini to Cioli, 18 September 1632, in Favaro 14: 391-393, and in Finocchiaro (1989, 234-237).
- 44.
For an elaboration of this conjecture, see Beltrán Marí (2006, 496-528).
- 45.
For an elaboration of this conjecture, see Speller (2008, especially 143-160, 375-396).
- 46.
Favaro 19: 330-336, Pagano (1984, 113-123).
- 47.
Favaro 15: 27, 29; 19: 520.
- 48.
Not Villa Medici; for a clarification of the difference, see Shea and Artigas (2003, 30, 74, 106-107, 134-135, 179-180, 195).
- 49.
- 50.
Favaro 15: 86-87, 94-95, 109-110.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
Speller (2008, 285-298) deserves credit for having pointed out this twofold aspect of the report.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
The discrepancy between the out-of-court agreement and the actual outcome has been the subject of considerable reflection and divergent interpretations. Some view it as an actual betrayal by the officials involved; others as the result of the fact that they were split and the more rigorous faction prevailed; and still others as a planned deception that corresponded to inquisitorial practices and rules. See Beltrán Marí (2006, 559-594), Blackwell (2006, 13-26), Fantoli (2003a, 198-203; 2003b, 322-323), Speller (2008, 255-314).
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
For example, a standard Inquisition manual of the time stated that “heretics are those who say, teach, preach, or write things against the Holy Scripture; against the articles of the Holy Faith; … against the decrees of the Sacred Councils and the determinations made by the Supreme Pontiffs; … those who reject the Holy Faith and become Moslems, Jews, or members of other sects, and who praise their practices and live in accordance with them …” (Masini 1621, 16-17). The same manual stated that “suspected heretics are those who occasionally utter propositions that offend the listeners … those who keep, write, read, or give others to read books forbidden in the Index and in other particular Decrees; … those who receive the holy orders even though they have a wife, or who take another wife even though they are already married; … those who listen, even once, to sermons by heretics …” (Masini 1621, 17-18).
- 65.
Masini (1621, 188) states that, in practice, “strong” suspicion of heresy was rarely charged, but was equated to “vehement” suspicion.
- 66.
Insufficient attention has been paid to the double character of the alleged heresy attributed to Galileo, and to the probabilistic character of the proscribed methodological hermeneutical principle. However, Speller (2008, 250, 332-334) has shown some appreciation. For more details, see also the Introduction and Chapters 9 and 12 of this book.
- 67.
Favaro 15:165, 19: 284. See Shea and Artigas (2003, 30, 74, 106-107, 134-135, 179-180, 195), to understand that this residence was at Villa Medici, and not at Palazzo Firenze.
- 68.
Favaro (15: 168, 170-171; 19: 284, 362, 363); cf. Finocchiaro (2005b, 56-57).
References
Baldini U, Coyne GV (eds) (1984) The Louvain lectures (Lectiones Lovanienses) of Bellarmine and the autograph copy of his 1616 Declaration to Galileo. Specola Vaticana, Vatican City
Baldini U, Spruit L (2001) Nuovi documenti galileiani degli archivi del Sant’Ufficio e dell’Indice. Rivista di Storia della filosofia 56:661-699
Beltrán Marí A (2006). Talento y poder: historia de las relaciones entre Galileo y la Iglesia católica. Laetoli, Pamplona
Beretta F (1998) Galilée devant le tribumal de l’Inquisition. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Theology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Beretta F (2001a) Urbain VIII Barberini protagoniste de la condamnation de Galilée. In Montesinos and Solís 2001:549-574
Beretta F (2001b) ‘Omnibus christianae, catholicae philosophiae amantibus, D.D’ Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 48:301-325
Beretta F (2003b) Une deuxième abjuration de Galilée, ou l’inaltérable hiérarchie des disciplines. Bruniana & Campanelliana 9:9-43
Beretta F (2005b) Galileo, Urban VIII, and the prosecution of natural philosophers. In McMullin 2005a:234-261
Besomi O, Helbing M (eds) (1998) Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e copernicano. 2 vols. Critical edition and commentary. Antenore, Padua
Biagioli M (1993) Galileo Courtier. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Bianchi L (2000) Interventi divini, miracoli e ipotesi soprannaturali nel ‘Dialogo’ di Galileo. In Canziani et al. 2000:239-251
Bianchi L (2001) Agostino Oreggi, qualificatore del Dialogo, e i limiti della conoscenza scientifica. In Montesinos and Solís 2001:575-586
Blackwell RJ (1991) Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Blackwell RJ (ed and trans) (2006) Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Camerota M (2004) Galileo Galilei e la cultura scientifica nell’età della Controriforma. Salerno, Rome
Drake S (1986b) Reexamining Galileo’s Dialogue. In Wallace 1986, 155-175
Fabroni A (ed) (1773-1775). Lettere inedite di uomini illustri. 2 vols. Florence
Fantoli A (2003a) Il caso Galileo. Rizzoli, Milan
Fantoli A (2003b) Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church. 3rd edn. Coyne GV (Trans.). Vatican Observatory Publications, Vatican City
Finocchiaro MA (1980) Galileo and the art of reasoning: rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Reidel, Dordrecht
Finocchiaro MA (1985) Wisan on Galileo and the art of reasoning. Ann Sci 42:613-616
Finocchiaro MA (2002) Philosophy versus religion and science versus religion: the trials of Bruno and Galileo. In Gatti 2002:51-96
Finocchiaro MA (2005b) Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. University of California Press, Berkeley
Finocchiaro MA (2009a) Myth 8: that Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating Copernicanism. In Numbers 2009:68-78, 249-252
Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1989) The Galileo affair: a documentary history. University of California Press, Berkeley
Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1997a) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. University of California Press, Berkeley
Foscarini PA (1615a) Lettera sopra l’opinione de’ pittagorici e del Copernico della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole e del nuovo pittagorico sistema del mondo. Naples
Galilei G (1967) Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. Drake S (trans and ed) 2nd revised edn. University of California Press, Berkeley
Galilei G (1997) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Finocchiaro MA (trans and ed). University of California Press, Berkeley
Galilei G (2008) The essential Galileo. Finocchiaro MA (ed and trans). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA
Gaukroger S (1995) Descartes. Clarendon, Oxford
Giacchi O (1942) Considerazioni giuridiche sui due processi contro Galileo. In Nel terzo centenario della morte di Galileo Galilei, 383-406
MacLachlan JH (1990) Drake against the philosophers. In Levere and Shea 1990:123-144
Masini E (1621) Sacro arsenale overo prattica dell’officio della Santa Inquisizione. Genoa
Mayaud P-N (1997) La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition. Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome
McMullin E (2005b). The Church’s ban on Copernicanism, 1616. In McMullin 2005a:150-190
Mercati A (ed) (1942) Il sommario del processo di Giordano Bruno. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City
Mereu I (1979) Storia dell’intolleranza in Europa. Mondadori, Milan
Miller DM (2008) The Thirty Years War and the Galileo affair. Hist Sci 46:49-74
Morin JB (1631) Famosi et antiqui problematis de Telluris motu vel quiete, hactenus optata solutio. Paris
Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1981). I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Armando, Rome
Pagano SM (ed) (1984) I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City
Pieralisi S (1875) Urbano VIII e Galileo Galilei. Rome
Pitt J (1992) Galileo, human knowledge, and the book of nature. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Ranke L (1841) The Ecclesiastical and political history of the Popes of Rome. 2 vols. Austin S (trans). Philadelphia
Redondi P (1983) Galileo eretico. Einaudi, Turin
Redondi P (1987) Galileo Heretic. Rosenthal R (trans). Princeton University Press, Princeton
Shea WR (1972) Galileo’s intellectual revolution. Science History Publications, New York
Shea WR, Artigas M (2003) Galileo in Rome. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Soccorsi F (1947) Il processo di Galileo. Edizioni La Civiltà Cattolica, Rome
Speller J (2008) Galileo’s inquisition trial revisited. Peter Lang, Frankfurt
Wisan WL (1984) On the art of reasoning. Ann Sci 41:483-487
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Finocchiaro, M.A. (2010). The Trial of Galileo, 1613–1633. In: Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 280. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3200-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3201-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)