The Galileo Affair: Two Decisions

An abbreviated version of this essay appeared as The Galileo Affair in the series of Faraday Papers from the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund's College, Cambridge. In the present more detailed study, the focus is on the two decisions on the part of the Church authorities that would define the affair for posterity. Other features of the intricate Galileo narrative are treated here in summary outline only. I am grateful to Annibale Fantoli and Michael Shank for their helpful advice on some points of detail.

Blackwell R. J. , Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame, 1989), 12.

Clavius C. , Commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco (Paris, 1570), 247–8. See Lerner M.-P. , “The heliocentric ‘heresy’”, in McMullin E. (ed.), The Church and Galileo (Notre Dame, 2005), 11–37, pp. 18–19.

Serarius N. , Josue (Mainz, 1610), ii, 238.

Fantoli A. , Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, 3rd edn (Rome, 2003), chap. 2.

McMullin E. , “Galileo's theological venture”, in McMullin , op. cit. (ref. 3), 88–116, pp. 99–102.

Ibid., 105–11.

Galileo later forwarded a “true” copy in which several potentially troublesome turns of phrase in the first copy did not appear. Whether these were maliciously inserted by Galileo's critic in the first copy or prudently deleted by Galileo in the second cannot be determined. It is interesting that when the Holy Office first requested an assessment of the letter from one of its consultors, his reaction was to find it theologically acceptable, except for those same phrases. ( Favaro A. (ed.), Opere di Galileo Galilei (Florence, 1890–1909; reprint 1968; hereafter Opere), xix, 305; Finocchiaro M. , The Galileo Affair (Berkeley, 1989; hereafter GA), 136.) Contrast this with the later verdict that led to the Index decree of 1616.

Early in his career, when teaching cosmology at the University of Louvain, Bellarmine had, on occasion, relied rather on biblical descriptions of the cosmos, literally understood, than on those generally accepted at the time on Aristotle's authority ( Baldini U. Coyne G. V. (eds. and transls.), The Louvain lectures of Bellarmine (Vatican City, 1984)). It was antecedently unlikely, then, that he would look kindly on the setting aside of the literal interpretation of other passages bearing on the cosmos on the much lesser authority of Copernicus and Galileo. Bellarmine does not take sufficient account of this possibility.

Opere , xii, 172; GA, 68.

Opere , xii, 171; GA, 67. Galileo knew, of course, that “saving” the observed planetary motions was insufficient to prove the Copernican case; that was why (like Kepler earlier) he was trying to devise “physical” arguments, one based on the phenomenon of the tides, for example. Bellarmine does not appear to take account of this possibility either.

Ecclesiastes, I, 5.

Urged by Shea W. R. , and Artigas M. , Galileo in Rome: The rise and fall of a troublesome genius (Oxford, 2003).

Opere , xix, 321; GA, 146.

The reason for the difference was presumably that the biblical passages on the motion of the Sun, particularly the one where, in response to Joshua's request (Joshua, X, 12–14), God is said to still the Sun's motion temporarily to allow the Israelites extra time to annihilate their enemies, were more explicit than those mentioning the immobility of the Earth.

Opere , xix, 323; GA, 149.

A short list of “corrections” compiled by Francesco Ingoli was approved in 1620 (Opere, xix, 400–1) but a “corrected' edition of the book never appeared. Instead, owners of the original edition were allowed to insert the changes into their copy directly.

Opere , xv, 11; Fantoli, op. cit. (ref. 5), 454.

Opere , xix, 321–2; GA, 147–8.

Opere , xix, 348; GA, 153.

Opere , xix, 321–2; GA, 147–8. It is not the original notarized document, with the requisite signatures. Abbreviated records of this sort (imbreviatura) were, however, common in the Holy Office files. See Beretta F. , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (Fribourg, 1998), 170; Fantoli A. , “The disputed injunction and its role in Galileo's trial”, in McMullin, op. cit. (ref. 3), 117–49, pp. 121–2.

For example, Wohlwill E. , Der Inquisitionsprozess des Galileo Galilei (Berlin, 1870), 5–15.

For example, Shea Artigas , op. cit. (ref. 13), 83.

For example, de Santillana G. , The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955), 266.

For example, Morpurgo-Tagliabue G. , I processi di Galileo e l'epistemologia (Milan, 1963), 18–20; Fantoli , “The disputed injunction” (ref. 21), 124–6.

McMullin E. , “The Church's ban on Copernicanism”, in McMullin , op. cit. (ref. 3), 150–190, pp. 177–82.

Pedersen O. , Galileo and the Council of Trent (Vatican City, 1983), 15–16.

If the assessment in natural philosophy of the Copernican proposal at that time had amounted to the weaker one: “not demonstrated but possibly demonstrable”, the theologians might have contented themselves with a simple theological warning, one open, technically speaking, to later amendment, unlike the actual decree which was categorical as it stood. That it was intended to be definitive on the authority's part seems quite clear, although this was questioned at a later time by some defenders of the Church's action in 1616. In the sentence later imposed on Galileo, the Copernican view is said to have been “declared and defined” in 1616 to be contrary to Scripture.

St Augustine, for example, cites it in his The literal meaning of Genesis and so does Aquinas in both his Commentary on Job and his Commentary on Matthew, each of these cited by Galileo in Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina; see McMullin , “Galileo's theological venture” (ref. 6), 94.

Calvin John , Commentary on Genesis, transl. by King John (Grand Rapids, 1948), I, 6. Calvin goes on: “He who would learn astronomy … let him go elsewhere”.

Ibid., I, 16.

An example of this can be found in Cardinal Paul Poupard's report to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 at the termination of the Galileo Commission established by Pope John Paul II (“Galileo: Report on Papal Commission findings”, Origins , xxii (1992), 374–5). The report goes on to claim that after the discovery of the aberration of light due to the Earth's motion (James Bradley, 1729), permission was given by the Holy Office for the publication of Galileo's complete works. However, this edition was required to retain the announcement of the condemnation of the Copernican doctrine. Galileo's Dialogue remained on the Index of prohibited books until 1835. See Fantoli A. , Galileo and the Catholic Church: A critique of the “Closure” of the Galileo Commission's work (Vatican Observatory Publications, 2002), 9–12.

Opere , xii, 172; GA, 68. They fail to add, however, that Bellarmine went on to argue, as we have seen, that the possibility of such an outcome could be discounted. See McMullin , “The Church's ban on Copernicanism” (ref. 26), 178–81.

The efforts of Pietro Redondi to make this the real, though carefully concealed, issue in the later trial of Galileo have not convinced many. See his Galileo heretic (Princeton, 1987). For a critique, see Westfall R. S. , Essays on the trial of Galileo (Rome, 1989), 84–99, and a bibliography of the issue in Fantoli, op. cit. (ref. 5), 491–2.

As he put it in a letter to Elio Diodati in 1629; Opere , xiv, 49; Fantoli , op. cit. (ref. 5), 241.

According to his later angry complaint to Niccolini after the book had appeared; see below. Opere , xiv, 384; GA, 230. Agostino Oreggi, a theologian close to Urban, in his De Deo Uno (1629) wrote that at some time even before he became Pope, Urban had already let Galileo know of this objection to the Copernican claim.

See Grant E. , God and reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1996), chaps. 5 and 6; also McMullin , “The voluntarist objection” in “The Church's ban on Copernicanism” (ref. 26), 161–4.

By keeping the Earth at rest, the Tychonic system avoided an important objection raised against its Copernican rival: A yearly motion of the Earth around the Sun ought to yield a parallax against the background of the stars — But none could be observed. Galileo proposed that this could be due to their immense distance, but this was not verified until two centuries later (Friedrich Bessel, 1838).

See McMullin E. (ed.), Galileo: Man of science (New York, 1967), “Introduction”, 3–51, p. 40.

Opere, xix, 325.

Redondi , op. cit. (ref. 34), 227–32.

Opere , xiv, 384; GA, 230.

Would the Pope not have known already about such an injunction from 1616 when, as a cardinal, he took part in the discussion of the Copernican issue; known too about Bellarmine's ordering Galileo to abandon Copernicanism? He was not a member of the Holy Office at that time, however, only of the Congregation of the Index. And the proceedings of the Holy Office were held under the strictest secrecy. In the circumstances, it seems quite possible that although he would surely have known that Galileo had been censured in some way, he could have been unaware of the details. See Fantoli , “The disputed injunction” (ref. 21), 142.

So much for the legend, dating back to Voltaire, of Galileo's “having groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition”. See Finocchiaro M. , Retrying Galileo 1633–1992 (Berkeley, 2005), 115–19.

Though we know a surprising amount about this episode, thanks to the meticulous documentary rules of the Holy Office, it is important (as Fantoli emphasizes in his exhaustive account of the trial) to keep in mind how much we do not know and thus how guarded our conclusions have to be on some important issues. It does explain the proliferation of contrasting accounts of the trial since the major documents were made public more than a century ago.

Opere , xix, 341; GA, 261–2.

Opere , xv, 106–7; GA, 276–7.

This last phrase is ambiguous. It sounds like the house arrest that was, in fact, finally decided on. Fantoli argues, however, that this would preempt further discussion as to the charge on the part of the Holy Office and proposes instead that it merely means that Galileo should in the interim be allowed to return to the embassy which had up till then served as his “prison”. Fantoli, op. cit. (ref. 5), 316.

Opere , xix, 349; GA, 263.

As he made clear in a subsequent interview with Niccolini, Opere, xv, 110.

Opere , xix, 293–7; GA, 281–6.

Fantoli , op. cit. (ref. 5), 323–6.

Opere, xix, 283.

The enigmatic phrase: “et si sustinuerit” comes next. It would ordinarily mean: “and if he should persist (hold out)” which would imply that the abjuration and its aftermath were conditional on his continuing to refuse to confess. But it seems quite unlikely that at this point, if he did not refuse, the charge of suspicion of heresy and the punishment attached to it would be called off. Yet the alternative translations offered seem laboured.

Overriding Maculano's offer has, understandably, elicited negative commentary over the years. Urban, if challenged on that score, might perhaps have responded that he had not authorized Maculano to make it. Regarding the consequences for Galileo, since he had not admitted the intention to defend the Copernican view, it does not seem that the “confession”, such as it was, contributed to the case against him.

The phrase “the above-mentioned heresies” in both the sentence and the abjuration was a standard one in the ending of inquisitorial sentences and did not, of itself, specify the precise level of the charge against the doctrine in question.

Opere , xv, 15, 160; GA, 359.

Better-informed Catholic astronomers of that day, like Christoph Scheiner (though no friend of Galileo's) and, later, G. B. Riccioli, were more careful in describing the verdict. But an alarmed Descartes initially took the determination to be one of heresy. Finocchiaro, op. cit. (ref. 44), 46–47.

Opere, xix, 362. There is pretty general agreement that the threat was no more than a legal formality in Galileo's case, given his age and illness; see D'Addio M. , The Galileo Case: Trial/science/truth (Rome and Leominster, 2004), 198–9.

In the trial sentence, Galileo is said to have responded “in a Catholic manner” to this interrogation, meaning only that he had shown himself prepared to submit to the verdict.

Of course, he asserted much more, much that was impossible to take seriously, as for example, in this last interrogation that subsequent to the edict of 1616 he had held, and still held, Ptolemy's view as “true and undoubted”.

The significance of the fact that only seven of the ten cardinals were present and signed the Sentence has been variously interpreted. It was not unusual for that number to be absent but it is also possible that it indicated a measure of dissent within the tribunal.

Opere , xix, 405; GA, 290. The phrase “declared and defined” showed that the 1616 declaration, “contrary to Scripture”, was at this point given decisive doctrinal force.

The importance of this was that Galileo had admitted receiving an admonition from Bellarmine (not from Segizzi) and the summary had made it seem as though Galileo had in this way admitted to receiving the disputed injunction itself.

In 1624, Cardinal Zollern informed Galileo that Urban had told him that the Church had not condemned the Copernican teaching as heretical but only as rash (Opere, xiii, 182).

Opere , xiv, 88; see Fantoli , op. cit. (ref. 5), 454. Campanella might, perhaps, have been inclined to exaggerate, given that he wanted Galileo's book to appear.

Opere , xiv, 384, 392; GA, 230, 236.

Fantoli , “The disputed injunction” (ref. 21), 143.

Miller D. M. , “The Thirty Years' War and the Galileo Affair”, History of science, xlvi (2008), 49–74, p. 50. Miller argues that the theological issues and other factors usually brought forward to explain the severity of Galileo's treatment are of themselves insufficient to explain the timing: It “can only be accounted for within the broader, dynamic, European context … the context of the Thirty Years' War” (p. 66, his emphasis).

Opere , xiv, 384; GA, 230.

Opere , xiv, 429; GA, 239.

Shank M. , “Setting the stage: Galileo in Tuscany, the Veneto, and Rome”, in McMullin op. cit. (ref. 3), 37–87, pp. 76–79.

It has to be said, however, that Urban himself had earlier indulged in this kind of curiosity on occasion: Commissioning horoscopes for himself and his extended family after his accession to the papal office, for example. But he also seems to have believed (with Campanella's encouragement) that astrological predictions, when threatening, could be warded off, and were thus not definitive (Ibid., 72–74).

Opere , xiv, 383; GA, 229.

Opere , xiv, 392; GA, 236.

Opere , xv, 56; GA, 245. And a few weeks later to Niccolini: The issue with Galileo is “very serious and of great consequence for religion”. Opere, xv, 85; GA, 249.

Speaking to Niccolini after Galileo's death, Opere , xviii, 379; Fantoli , op. cit. (ref. 5), 349–50.

The address prepared for the Pope's delivery on that occasion did not do justice to the Pope's evident desire to set the Galileo debate finally to rest. See Coyne G. V. , “The Church's most recent attempt to dispel the Galileo myth”, in McMullin , op. cit. (ref. 3), 340–59.

It is told in considerable detail in Finocchiaro, op. cit. (ref. 44).