The Thirty Years War and the Galileo Affair

For examples, see Langford Jerome J. , Galileo, science, and the Church, 3rd edn (Ann Arbor, 1992); De Santillana Giorgio , The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955); Koestler Arthur , The sleepwalkers (New York, 1968); and Drake Stillman , Galileo against the philosophers (Los Angeles, 1976). For historiography and criticism of these myths, see Segre Michael , “The never-ending Galileo story”, in The Cambridge companion to Galileo, ed. by MacHamer P. (Cambridge, 1998), 388–416; Feldhay Rivka , Galileo and the Church: Political inquisition or critical dialogue? (Cambridge, 1995), 1–9; Finocchiaro Maurice A. , “Galileo as a ‘bad theologian’: A formative myth about Galileo's trial”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxxiii (2002), 2002–91; Finocchiaro Maurice A. , Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 (Berkeley, 2005); and Finocchiaro Maurice A. , “Science, religion, and the historiography of the Galileo affair: On the undesirability of oversimplication”, Osiris, xvi (2001), 2001–32.

Redondi Pietro , Galileo heretic, transl. by Rosenthal R. (Princeton, 1987). This discussion will be limited to well-known monograph-length treatments of the Galileo Affair, but it could be widely extended.

Ibid., 259.

Feldhay , Galileo and the Church (ref. 1).

Ibid., 296.

Shea William R. Artigas Mariano , Galileo in Rome: The rise and fall of a troublesome genius (Oxford, 2003).

Biagioli Mario , Galileo, courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago, 1993).

Fantoli Annibale , Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, 3rd edn, transl. by Coyne George V. (Vatican, 2003).

Ibid., 249, 273.

One illustration of this failure to recognize the proximate causes of Galileo's trial is Biagioli's contention that the reasons for Galileo's “termination” are “unknown” (though patronage politics “set the stage”). Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 314. See, for another statement of this problem, Westfall Richard S. , “Patronage and the publication of the Dialogue“in his Essays on the trial of Galileo (Vatican, 1989).

Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 245–73. See also Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 227–32; Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 111, 136; Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 335; and Finocchiaro Maurice A. , The Galileo affair: A documentary history (Berkeley, 1989), 12–13.

Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 245, 272. See also Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 230. But Redondi gives equal weight to the war in his description of the response to the Assayer in 1624. Redondi , Galileo heretic, 134.

Redondi claims “it is hard to understand” why an extrajudicial settlement was impressed on Galileo. Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 259.

Galileo had long sought advancement amongst the princely courts of Italy, especially in Tuscany. The Sidereus nuncius brought about the successful conclusion of his campaign, though the entry into the Tuscan patronage system entailed abandoning the Venetian. The Medici, in turn, helped spread the fame of their new client and his discoveries. See Biagioli Mario , “Galileo the emblem maker”, Isis, lxxxi (1990), 230–58; Biagioli Mario , “Galileo's system of patronage”, History of science, xxviii (1990), 1990–62; and Westfall Richard S. , “Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 1985–30.

See Shank Michael H. , “Setting the stage: Galileo in Tuscany, the Veneto, and Rome”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin Ernan (Notre Dame, 2005), 57–87; Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 20; Biagioli , “Galileo's system of patronage” (ref. 14), 13; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 54–56.

Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 30–44; and Orbaan J. A. F. (ed.), Documenti sul barocco in Roma (Rome, 1920), 283–4. For a discussion of the Roman accademie and their liberal tendencies, see Rosa Mario , “The ‘World's Theater’: The court of Rome and politics in the first half of the seventeenth century”, in Court and politics in papal Rome, 1492–1700, ed. by Signorotto Gianvittorio Visceglia Maria Antonietta (Cambridge, 2002), 78–98; and Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 70ff.

Galileo had been denounced to the Venetian Inquisition in 1604 by a former scribe, Silvestro Pagnoni, but the Venetian authorities dismissed the charges as slander. In 1611, the Roman Inquisition sought out whether Galileo was named in connection with an earlier investigation of Cesare Cremonini, Galileo's former colleague (and intellectual adversary) at Padua. See Shank , “Setting the stage” (ref. 15); and Favaro Antonio (ed.), Le opere di Galileo Galilei (Florence, 1890–1908), xix, 275.

In Florence by the Dominican Friar Tommaso Caccini. Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xxix, 307–11. See also Bucciantini Massimo , Contro Galileo: Alle origini dell'affaire (Florence, 1995).

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 148–50.

Favaro , (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xii, 254, 257–9.

In fact, the Holy Office had examined the Sunspot letters in November 1615, but did not condemn it, since it did not address Scriptural interpretation. Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 170.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 150–1.

Ibid.

On the other hand, unbeknownst to Galileo, Tuscan officials were worried that his vocal support for a questionable doctrine might cause the Medici some embarrassment. See, for example, Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xii, 206–7, 242; and Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 47, 90.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 146.

Ibid., 148–50.

Fragnito Gigliola , “Introduction”, in Church, censorship and culture in early modern Italy, ed. by Fragnito Gigliola (Cambridge, 2001), 1–12, p. 4; Fragnito Gigliola , “The central and peripheral organization of censorship”, ibid., 13–49, pp. 16–20; McMullin Ernan , “The Church's ban on Copernicanism, 1616”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin (ref. 15), 150–90, p. 154; and Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 30.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 200–2.

In spite of the published corrections, De revolutionibus continued to appear on the Index until 1835.

Foscarini Antonio , Lettera sopra l'opinione de' Pittagorici, e del Copernico della mobilità della Terra, e stabilità del Sole, e del nuove Pittagorica systema del mondo, etc. (Naples, 1615).

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 148–50.

Ibid.

Note that, in Inquisition proceedings, adhering to a proposition that was “an object of debate between theologians” was not subject to punishment as heresy. Beretta Francesco , “Giordano Bruno e l'inquisizione romana: Considerazioni sul processo”, Bruniana e Campanelliana, vi (2001), 15–49, p. 18; and Beretta Francesco , “Le Congrégation de l'Inquisition et la censure au XVIIe siècle”, in Inquisition et pouvoir, ed. by Audisio Gabriel (Aix-en-Provence, 2004), 41–54.

Favaro , (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xv, 111.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 67. See also Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 136; and Finocchiaro , Galileo affair, 58–59.

Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 85–86; McMullin , “The Church's ban on Copernicanism, 1616” (ref. 27), 153–4; Beretta Francesco , “Urbain VIII Barberini protaganiste de la condamnation de Galilée”, in Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, ed. by Montesinos José Solís Carlos (La Orotava, 2001), 549–74; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 214.

See Beretta , “Urbain VIII Barberini protaganiste” (ref. 36); Beretta Francesco , “Galileo, Urban VIII, and the prosecution of natural philosophers”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin (ref. 15), 234–64; Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 290; Beretta Francesco , “Le Siège Apostolique et l'affaire Galilée: Relectures Romaines d'une condemnation célèbre”, Roma moderna e contemporanea, vii (1999), 1999–61, pp. 427–8; and D'Addio Mario , The Galileo case: Trial/science/truth, transl. by Williams Brian (Leominster, 2004), 42–51.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 147. See also Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xix, 321.

The distinction between the two messages concerned form, not content. If Galileo did not acquiesce to Bellarmine's “charitable admonition”, the same message was to be delivered as a “stern injunction” by Segizzi. See Fantoli Annibale , “The disputed injunction and its role in Galileo's trial”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin (ref. 15), 117–49, p. 123.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 153. See also Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xix, 348.

“… omnino relinquat, nec eam de caetero, quovis modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis….” Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 147, and Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xix, 321–2.

Here, it will be assumed that all of the documents relating to the episode are both authentic and faithful attempts to relate what actually occurred. For a defence of this contentious interpretation, see Fantoli , “The disputed injunction and its role in Galileo's trial” (ref. 39).

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 147.

Ibid., 148.

Galileo knew he had been denounced in connection with Copernicanism, but the details of the proceedings were kept secret. Thus, he might have been unaware that his case was separate from the investigation of Copernicanism in general. Nor could he have known the extent of the Pope's intervention unless Paul, Bellarmine, or Segizzi told him about it. If he was told, he did not report it to his patrons. Without this background, Bellarmine's admonishment likely seemed a friendly notice of the impending outcome of the general case, which Galileo had reason to believe included his own. Segizzi's injunction, meanwhile, probably came about in the midst of conversation, by his own report “immediately” after one of Bellarmine's comments, and Segizzi, the notary, and the witnesses were not properly introduced (since the first part of the conversation was informal). Segizzi's statement thus lacked any appearance, to Galileo at least, of an official dictum. See ibid., 258.

In the later trial, after record of Segizzi's injunction had been discovered in the Inquisition's files, Galileo's prosecutors emphasized his violation of the order and its implied prohibition on discussion, interpreting the text as conservatively as possible. Galileo, meanwhile, consistently recalled the weaker, more liberal sense of “abandon” elaborated in Bellarmine's certificate.

Bellarmine , at least, recognized that Galileo and Foscarini advocated the same position. Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 67.

See Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 250; and Westfall , “Patronage and the publication of the Dialogue” (ref. 10), 66.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 152.

Galileo was well aware of this implication and knew it would please his Florentine masters. The letter continues: “I have been glad to report this to Your Most Illustrious Lordship, thinking that you would be pleased with it, as also would their Most Serene Highnesses [the Grand Duke and Duchess], in view of their humaneness.” Ibid.

Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 93.

Ironically, Bellarmine may have left any mention of Segizzi's injunction out of his certificate precisely because it was officially part of an Inquisition proceeding, and therefore had to remain secret. Of course, it is not clear Galileo was ever aware of the official nature of the meeting.

The relationship between the Spanish and Austrian branches of the dynasty was complicated, and there is not enough space to explore it here. It suffices to say that, despite some recalcitrance by the Habsburg emperor, dynastic policy was controlled from Madrid. Thus, Habsburg action, at least in this context, can be treated as a single, concerted, ‘Spanish’ whole. See John Robert Evans Weston , The making of the Habsburg monarchy, 1550–1700 (Oxford, 1979); and Parker Geoffrey (ed.), The Thirty Years' War, 2nd edn (New York, 1997), 93–94.

E.g., the French Wars of Religion (1562–98), including the War of the Three Henries (1584–89), the assassination of Henri III (1589), the conversion of Henri IV to Catholicism (1593), the latter's forcible establishment of control (1589–98), and the establishment of toleration for Huguenots by the Edict of Nantes (1598).

There was always some resistance to Spanish control as the Pope and cardinals sought to retain some measure of independence. Nevertheless, the only notable interruption came in March 1605, when the temporary peace established in France by Henri IV (1598–1610) allowed the reorganization of the French ‘faction’ in the conclave by Cardinal François de Joyeuse. This resulted in the election of the ‘French Pope’, Leo XI. Leo, however, reigned for only 27 days and was succeeded by Paul V. See Cooper J. P. (ed.), The decline of Spain and the Thirty Years War (Cambridge, 1971), 263; Visceglia Maria Antonietta , “Factions in the Sacred College in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”, in Court and politics in papal Rome, 1492–1700, ed. by Signorotto Gianvittorio Visceglia Maria Antonietta (Cambridge, 2002), 99–131, pp. 121–5; Dandelet Thomas James , Spanish Rome, 1500–1700 (New Haven, 2001); and von Ranke Leopold , The Popes of Rome: Their ecclesiastical and political history during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, transl. by Austin Sarah (London, 1866).

The influence of the Spanish crown in the conclave was reinforced by its claim and exercise of jus exclusivae — The right to exclude papal candidates. Dandelet , Spanish Rome, 1500–1700 (ref. 55), 102; and Visceglia , “Factions in the Sacred College in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ref. 55), 122.

For example, during Paul's confrontation with Venice in 1606–7. Dandelet , Spanish Rome, 1500–1700 (ref. 55), 102–3.

Leman Auguste , Urbain VIII et la rivalté de la France et de la maison d'Autriche de 1631 à 1635 (Lille, 1920), 5.

King Henri IV was assassinated in 1610, and the regency of his queen, Marie de' Medici, faced a revolt of the nobles (1614–17) until the young Louis XIII seized power from his mother.

In Italy, the generally peaceful scene was marred only by an indecisive war of succession in Montferrat (1613–15) and the ‘Uzkok’ war (1615–18) waged by Venice against marauding Slavic refugees in Habsburg lands along the Adriatic. These were minor conflicts that did not draw major international participation.

Beretta Francesco , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (Fribourg, 1998), 29; and Ranke , Popes of Rome (ref. 55), ii, 335–64.

Incidents at Donauwörth (1607) and Cleves-Jülich (1614) did not lead to wider trouble. Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years' War (ref. 53), 21ff., 31–32.

Ibid., 31.

Ibid., chap. 1.

Ferdinand II succeeded Matthias on 20 March 1619.

For the events of the war, see Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years' War (ref. 53); Asch Ronald G. , The Thirty Years War: The Holy Roman Empire and Europe, 1618–48 (New York, 1997); and Wedgwood C. V. , The Thirty Years War (Garden City, NY, 1961).

Urban was elected on 6 August 1623, the same day as a major Catholic victory at Stadtlohn.

“Galileo to Cesi (9 October 1623)”, in Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xiii, 135. See also Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 317; and Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 73–88, 101.

Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 181.

Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 100; and Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 48–49.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 303.

In 1630, the Pope was also reported to remark, regarding the Index's suppression of Copernicanism, “It was never our intention, and if it had been up to us that decree would not have been issued”. Ibid., 304.

Ibid., 202–4. See also Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2); Artigas Mariano Martínez Rafael Shea William , “New light on the Galileo affair?”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin (ref. 15), 213–33; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 235–6. Galileo was informed of the Inquisition investigation, though not the charge of atomism, in 1625. Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 204–6.

The Treaty of Montpellier, 18 October 1622.

The efforts of the French ‘faction’ might have been aided by two bulls promulgated by Gregory XV. Aeterni patris filius (15 November 1621) and Decet Romanum pontificem (12 March 1622) changed the process of electing Popes, making it more difficult for foreign powers and their ‘factions’ to influence the outcome. This weakened the Spanish grip on conclave politics. Visceglia , “Factions in the sacred college in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (ref. 55), 105; Ranke , Popes of Rome (ref. 55), ii, 552–54; and von Pastor Ludwig , The history of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages, transl. by Graf E. (London, 1955), xxvii, 108–18, and xxviii, 1–25.

Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 1, 19; Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 229; and Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 13.

For example, in 1625, a friend of Galileo wrote to him that “His Holiness [Urban] is very disturbed by the mess of the war, so that one could not speak to him”. See Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 204.

The army was actually led by the Spanish Governor of Milan, but it acted in the name of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was titular overlord of Mantua. In 1629, Imperial troops also attacked the Duchy via the Valtelline. Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years' War (ref. 53), 95–98.

Wedgwood , The Thirty Years War (ref. 66), 239. See also Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 136.

Technically, Tuscany was part of the Holy Roman Empire, so the Medici owed fealty to the Habsburg Emperor. They also were historically faithful to the Spanish, who had helped establish their rule in the previous century. Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 6.

Urbino, a papal fiefdom, devolved to the Papacy when the ageing last della Rovere Duke retired. The Duchy could have gone to the Medici through the female line. See Pastor , History of the Popes (ref. 75), xxviii, 59.

In addition, Galileo had already lost his direct Medici patrons, Cosimo II and Antonio de Medici, who had both died in 1621. He was still a client of the court, of course, but he no longer had immediate links to the ruling family, which left him all the more dependent on Urban. Biagioli , “Galileo's system of patronage” (ref. 14), 16.

See Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xiv, 120, 167–8, 170.

Cesi Prince Frederico , the founder and patron of the Accademia dei Lincei, which was to publish the Dialogo, died 1 August 1630, leaving the Accademia without the necessary funds to continue operation.

Even though the outcome was positive, the arrangement of the imprimatur was, in fact, a complicated process that came under intense scrutiny during the later Inquisition proceeding. Indeed, some of the censors' hesitation may be attributable to the changing tide of war. For a detailed discussion of these events, see Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 123–55. See also Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11) 206–14; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 249.

Treaty of Bärwalde, 23 January 1631. Louis XIII was able to decisively re-enter European politics after he (and Richelieu) finally succeeded in permanently exiling the fractious Marie de' Medici after the journée des dupes (12 November 1630). Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), p. v.

20 May 1631.

Most importantly Brandenburg and Saxony.

The Swedish had improved and adapted Dutch battlefield tactics to make effective use of firearms, a decisive advantage. Childs John , Warfare in the seventeenth century (London, 2001); Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years' War (ref. 53), 183–6; and Wijn J. W. , “Military forces and warfare 1610–48”, in The decline of Spain and the Thirty Years War, ed. by Cooper J. P. (Cambridge, 1971), 202–25.

Mainz surrendered to the Swedish on 23 December 1631. On 27 December, the French army captured Moyenvic, in Lorraine. Thereafter, the Duke of Lorraine sought French protection and signed an agreement to forgo alliances with the Habsburg powers and remain faithful to French policy on 6 January 1632. The Electors of Treves and Cologne also threw themselves on the mercy of Louis for protection from the Swedish army. Treves signed a neutrality pact with Sweden and France 22 April. Leman, Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 86–97.

Munich was captured 17 May. Ibid., 98.

Ibid., 187–8.

Urban refused to grant audiences en masse, and met with each supplicant separately. The content of Spanish and Imperial demands were basically the same, though Spain placed more emphasis on action directed against France than the Empire, which merely wanted France to break with Sweden.

Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 121–4.

Ibid., 563–4.

The allegations of Urban's complicity with Protestants were made by the Emperor's special envoy, Cardinal Pázmány, (on 6 April) in a misguided attempt to excuse Borgia. The threat of removal was made privately when Urban banished one of Borgia's accomplices, Cardinal Ludovisi, from Rome. See Favaro Antonio , Amici e corrispondenti di Galileo, ed. by Galluzzi P. (Florence, 1983), i, 164–6; and Pastor , History of the Popes (ref. 75), xxviii, 288–9, 298. Many of the existing histories of the Galileo Affair mention this significant event, but they usually fail to relate Borgia's incredible insubordination to the aftermath of Breitenfeld. As a result, they do not convey the magnitude of the threat to the politically isolated Urban. Redondi, Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 229; Shea Artigas , Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 163; Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 335; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 272.

Indeed, Borgia's protest was ordered by Philip IV himself, though the cardinal's fiery, impolitic nature did not help matters. Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 78–79, 119.

Urban did allow citizens of the Papal States to enlist in the service of foreign Catholic princes. Ibid., 74.

Ibid., 75. Even this policy was offensive to the Habsburgs, since it favoured a French hegemony in Germany over their own.

Pastor , History of the Popes (ref. 75), xxviii, 285, 325; Dandelet , Spanish Rome, 1500–1700 (ref. 55), 192–3; and Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 335.

Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 126.

Galilei Galileo , Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, transl. by Drake Stillman (Berkeley, 1967), 464.

Galileo was fulfilling a demand of the censors by including the passage, and probably thought he was honouring his old friend by quoting him. Nevertheless, that the Pope's words are placed “in the mouth of a fool” was amongst the charges against Galileo. See Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 221.

Similarly, the intellectual differences between Dominicans and Jesuits, exploited by Galileo and his peers, dissolved in the face of the Protestant threat. The prospect of the military defeat of the Counter-Reformation forced Jesuits and Dominicans to fall back on strict orthodoxy and “to retreat from backing” Galileo. Feldhay, for her part, does not link the war to this retreat. See Feldhay , Galileo and the Church (ref. 1).

See Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 239.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 229.

Ibid., 232.

Ibid. The benefit of “temporizing” should not be underestimated. One can speculate that Galileo might not have been punished had he published two years later, in 1634, after the Protestants were routed at Nördlingen (5 and 6 September), thereby ending the crisis.

War also undermined the position of the officials who had approved the Dialogo, especially that of Giovanni Ciampoli, the Pope's secretary and member of the Accademia dei Lincei, who brokered Galileo's relations with Urban and helped arrange the book's imprimatur. Ciampoli had begun to form connections within the Spanish Party, and was duly banished from Rome. As a result, Galileo lost his ally closest to the Pope. Worse, it seems Urban linked Galileo to Ciampoli's “deceit”. Some studies of the Galileo Affair mention this episode, but few explain why the timing of Ciampoli's betrayal made it so significant and painful to Urban. See Pastor , History of the Popes (ref. 75), xxviii, 299ff; Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), chap. 8; Shea and Artigas, Galileo in Rome (ref. 6), 162; and Redondi, Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 261ff.

Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 259.

See Finocchiaro Maurice A. , “The methodological background to Galileo's trial”, in Reinterpreting Galileo, ed. by Wallace William A. (Washington, DC, 1986), 241–72.

Urban opened discussion of the alliance with Niccolini on 7 February. Leman , Urbain VIII (ref. 58), 184.

The Tuscans, Spanish, and Imperial representatives also suggested that the alliance should benefit Catholic (i.e., Habsburg) efforts in Germany and that Spain be allowed to levy taxes on ecclesiastical properties to raise funds. In other words, they tried to co-opt Urban's proposal by making the alliance conditional on the concessions demanded by the Habsburgs. Galileo could be used to both a carrot and a stick vis à vis the Grand Duke, but not in a way to cause a break. In any case, rumours that Urban was secretly arranging a separate alliance with France, Savoy, and Venice eventually scuttled the entire effort. Ibid., 184–90, 318–19.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 227.

Ibid., 234. Note that it was unusual for the accused to be told of the charges against him. In Inquisition proceedings, the suspect was supposed to figure out, on his own, why he was being tried and then confess. See Mereu Italo , Storia dell'intollerenza in Europa (Milan, 1995), 206; and Beretta , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (ref. 61), 185.

On 13 October 1632. “Infamy” was one of the punishments meted out for heresy. Conversely, the Inquisition was usually careful to protect the secrecy of its proceedings, including the identity of the accused. The summons to Rome, meanwhile, highlighted the perceived importance of the case. Galileo might have been tried in Florence. By superseding jurisdiction, Urban marked the case as significant. Informing the Tuscans of the charges, meanwhile, was part of the Pope's careful maintenance of diplomatic relations. Beretta , “Bruno e l'inquisizione” (ref. 33), 17, 38; Tedeschi John , “The organization and procedures of the Roman Inquisition: A sketch” in his The prosecution of heresy (Binghamton, 1991), 126–203, pp. 132–3; and Beretta , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (ref. 61), 34, 140.

Alidosi Mariano The situation almost certainly recalled the Venetian crisis of 1602–7, which similarly concerned the imposition of Papal authority in spiritual matters. Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 523 n. 18; Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 253, 254; and D'Addio , Galileo case (ref. 37), 103–4.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 250.

The Inquisition was remarkably careful to follow proper procedure, and the Holy Office in Rome regularly examined and corrected questionable actions by the provincial Inquisitors. The irregularity of Galileo's trial was extremely extraordinary. It rivalled the earlier (1624) sensational trial of Marco Antonio de Dominis. Tedeschi , “The organization and procedures of the Roman Inquisition” (ref. 116); Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 107–18; Tedeschi John , “The Roman Inquisition and witchcraft: An early seventeenth-century ‘instruction’ on correct trial procedure”, in The prosecution of heresy (ref. 116), 205–27; and Fantoli , Galileo (ref. 8), 537.

Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, who was elected to the post 22 December 1632.

See Marí Antonio Beltrán , “Tratos extrajudiciales, determinismo procesal y poder”, in Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, ed. by Montesinos José Solís Carlos (La Orotava, 2001), 463–90.

Presumably, the temperance of any insult to the Medici.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 227.

Urban issued his decision during the meeting of the Inquisition on 16 June 1633. Favaro (ed.), Opere (ref. 17), xix, 283, 289.

Some historians attribute Urban's changed attitude to his personal resentment of Galileo's (and Ciampoli's) “deceit” during the dealings to obtain the imprimatur for the Dialogo, especially after the discovery, in the Archives of the Holy Office, of the records of Bellarmine's and Segizzi's injunctions. However, this account suffers from the fact that the records were found sometime in February, and Urban continued to show a significant measure of benignity toward Galileo even thereafter. In particular, Urban was almost certainly involved in the plea bargain. See Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), 337; and D'Addio , Galileo case (ref. 37), 112.

The Inquisition proceedings continued, but Niccolini was able to negotiate Galileo's comfortable accommodations in Rome. At court, he found Urban “less irritated than usual” and some of the cardinals “very well disposed” toward Galileo. See Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 243, 246.

See Mereu , Storia dell'intollerenza (ref. 115), 215; Tedeschi , “The organization and procedures of the Roman Inquisition” (ref. 116), 142ff; and Beretta , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (ref. 61), 140.

Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 290.

Even the nature of Galileo's abjuration emphasized the political tenor of his trial. Public abjurations during the period were rare, especially for someone of Galileo's stature. Moreover, though many have noted that three Cardinal Inquisitors present in Rome (Francesco Barberini, Gasparo Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia) missed the 22 June meeting of the Holy Office and did not sign Galileo's sentence, it is significant that seven of ten were there. This rate of attendance was only equalled in a fifth of the Congregation's Wednesday gatherings (which took place without the Pope) in all of 1633, indicating the perceived importance of the meeting amongst the cardinals. The absence of Barberini and Borgia was probably due to Borgia's audience with the Pope the same day. In general, though, these two cardinals were the least likely to appear at a Wednesday meeting of the Inquisition. Zacchia was old and perhaps sick at the time, but, as the Pope's majordomo, his presence may also have been required elsewhere. Conversely, Niccolini noted that Barberini had, “deviating from habit”, attended an earlier Wednesday meeting in order to discuss the Galileo case. Beretta , Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition (ref. 61), 47; Beretta , “Urbain VIII Barberini protaganiste” (ref. 36), 572; Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “Les ‘fuit Congregatio Sancti Offici in… coram…’ de 1611 à 1642: 32 ans de vie de la Congrégation du Saint Office”, Archivum historiae Pontificae, xxx (1992), 231–89; and Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 243.

Niccolini noted that “sometimes this persecution seems very strange to him”. Finocchiaro , Galileo affair (ref. 11), 244.

See, for example, Biagioli , Galileo, courtier (ref. 7), chap. 8; Evans , The making of the Habsburg monarchy, 1550–1700 (ref. 53); Beretta , “Urbain VIII Barberini protaganiste” (ref. 36); Beretta, “Galileo, Urban VIII, and the prosecution of natural philosophers” (ref. 37); Michel-Pierre Lerner, ”La réception de la condamnation de Galilée en France au XVIIe siècle”, in Largo campo di filosofare, ed. by Montesinos Solís (ref. 121), 513–48; Shank , “Setting the stage” (ref. 15); Redondi , Galileo heretic (ref. 2), 71; McMullin Ernan , “Galileo's theological venture”, in The Church and Galileo, ed. by McMullin (ref. 15), 88–116; and Pera Marcello , “The God of.