Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/shpsa

The censoring of Galileo’s Sunspot Letters and the first phase of his trial

Thomas F. MayerDepartment of History, Augustana College, 639 38th St., Rock Island, IL 61201-2296, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 26 January 2011

Keywords:GalileoSunspot LettersRoman InquisitionBibleCensorshipHeliocentrism

0039-3681/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.027

E-mail address: thomasmayer@augustana.edu1 Abbreviations: ACDFSO, Archivum Congregationis D

Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Memorie della Classdei Lincei, 1995; EN, Antonio Favaro, ed., Le Opere di G

2 See most recently Bucciantini (2003, reprinted 2003 Incredibly enough, although Galileo’s case has been

Three recent books claiming to treat Galileo’s trial in faexcellent start in an imposing series of articles, but is stiof Galileo’s trial. For now, see Mayer (2010) on the tria

4 See especially Dame (1966), van Helden (1996).5 Biagioli (2006), Bredekamp (2007), Galilei & Schein6 Rossi (1978); Blackwell (1991), pp. 57–58, the only

scriptural than astronomical claims;’’ Stabile (1994), pcontroversy with Scheiner. He mentioned its censorshipthe question of the cost of publication and described fo(1977), chapter 3.

a b s t r a c t

Galileo’s Sunspot Letters, published in 1613, underwent extensive censorship before publication. It seemslikely that the Roman Inquisition had charge of the pre-publication review of Galileo’s work, rather thanthe usual organ, the Master of the Sacred Palace. A study of that process demonstrates that the issue towhich the censors objected was Galileo’s use of the bible, not his allegiance to Copernicus. In the course ofthe first phase of Galileo’s trial, orchestrated by one of the most powerful Cardinal Inquisitors, two prop-ositions allegedly drawn from the book were judged either ‘‘formally heretical’’ or ‘‘at least erroneous inthe faith.’’ These judgments might have come not from the published book but from the Inquisition’s cen-sorship of its drafts. They supported Galileo’s silencing in 1616.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

That Galileo believed Copernicus right is an utterly trivialclaim.1 When exactly he came to that position has engendered con-troversy, but it seems established that his conversion came as earlyas 1597.2 Equally indisputable is that his allegiance helped to entan-gle Galileo with the Roman Inquisition, but how and when are muchless clear. One reason is a large gap in the study of Galileo’s trou-bles.3 The role of his Sunspot Letters (Istoria e dimostrazioni intornoalle macchie solari [sic]), published in 1613, has been almost com-pletely overlooked. It is well-known that the book began Galileo’sdifficulties with the Jesuits, since he aimed it at earlier published re-ports of observations by their German confrere Christoph Scheiner,

ll rights reserved.

octrinae Fidei Sanctum Officium; CLe di Scienze morali, storiche et filologialileo Galilei, 20 volumes (Florence:7), p. 29.

done to death, his trial has neverct do not: Blackwell (2006), Spellerll a long way from a full-dress treatml’s pivotal moment.

er (2010).previous student to note that the cenp. 37–47. The great Galileo editorin one sentence and treated how it

ur copies of the book then in the Bi

leading to a truly nasty priority dispute.4 Sunspot Letters has beenthe subject of much attention recently for its illustrations, especiallyby Hans Bredekamp and Mario Biagioli; a new translation withextensive commentary by Albert Van Helden and Eileen Reeveshas just appeared.5 Although the censorship to which the bookwas subjected has also been studied briefly by Paolo Rossi in 1978and by Richard J. Blackwell in 1991, and at greater length by GiorgioStabile in 1994, the work’s genesis has not received much attentionand its role in his trial has been overlooked.6 Rossi, speaking of ‘‘i sig-nificativi interventi della censura’’ nevertheless discussed the alter-ation of only one passage on the corruptibility of the heavens in

, G. Gabrieli, ‘‘Il carteggio linceo della vecchia accademia di Federico Cesi: 1603–1630,’’che, ser. 6, vol. 7, fasc. 1–4 (1938), pp. 1–1446; reprinted Rome: Accademia NazionaleG. Barberà, 1933; reprint of 1890–1909 ed.).

been studied as such. The closest to such a study is a short article by Giacchi (1942).(2008); Hofstadter (2009), the last a trade publication. Francesco Beretta has made an

ent. See, for example, Beretta (1999, 2000, 2005). I hope to remedy the lack of a study

sors let stand at least one statement of Galileo’s Copernicanism and ‘‘focused more onAntonio Favaro limited his introduction mainly to the work’s printing and Galileo’scame to be written in a page. EN, 5, pp. 9–19, pp. 11 and 12. Favaro (1992) considered

blioteca nazionale centrale di Roma. Far the best study of the book’s argument is Shea

2 T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

light of Galileo’s attempt to use scripture to support his position.7

Stabile concluded that the book caused problems because of its de-fense of the Copernican thesis that the earth moved around thesun together with its appeal to scripture, but the first was farthe more important irritant.8 Maurice A. Finocchiaro and ErnanMcMullin, without reference to Sunspot Letters, go further and flatlyreject any suggestion that Galileo’s use of the bible caused hisproblems with the Roman authorities.9 McMullin says ‘‘[i]t hassometimes been suggested that Galileo’s supposed use of Scriptureto bolster his Copernican claims was what brought down the wrathof the Holy Office on his head. There is no evidence of this in therecord . . . [T]here is no hint of the charge that he was using Scriptureto support Copernicanism [emphasis in the original] . . . The furthercharge of his employing Scripture to makes his own case forCopernicanism is nowhere mentioned.’’10 This claim is strictly trueonly if ‘‘the record’’ does not include the censorship of SunspotLetters.

This comparative lack of attention to the book’s content is themore surprising in that 1) it is the only one of Galileo’s works, otherthan the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, to be named inhis sentence, 2) Galileo announced in it his explicit adherence toheliocentrism, and 3) it underwent extensive pre-publication cen-sorship. In this article I suggest that the Roman Inquisition cen-sored the book in advance of publication, and then examine therole it played in the first phase of Galileo’s trial. Against the re-ceived opinion, I shall argue that the book got him into troublenot for its Copernican allegiance, but almost exclusively for his ef-forts to interpret the bible.

1. Who censored Sunspot Letters?

At what date Galileo began to study sunspots is obscure. Fortu-nately, it is easy to be precise about when he began to write theLetters and indeed we can track the composition and printing ofthe book almost day by day. From very early on, Roman censorstook a hand. Although the role of the proto-modern scientific bodythe Lincean Academy in the revision of Galileo’s later Assayer hasbeen well studied, it has been insufficiently stressed in the caseof Sunspot Letters which the Academy used almost as a token ofadmission to its ranks.11 This oversight is serious, given that nearlyall the same issues arose in the earlier case (if Massimo Bucciantini iscorrect, including atomism) and Federico Cesi, founder of the Lin-cean Academy, and other Linceans offered Galileo the same adviceat least to try to meet the censors’ objections, much of which he tookonly with an ill grace and some of which he rejected, to his cost.12

The Augsburg patrician, banker, publisher, Lincean, ‘‘exceed-ingly good friend’’ of the Jesuits (and Inquisition informant) MarkWelser was behind Sunspot Letters.13 After publishing Scheiner’s ori-ginal three letters on the phenomenon, he asked Galileo’s opinion.He also innocently invited Galileo to get himself into trouble with

7 Rossi (1978), pp. 47–49.8 Stabile (1994), p. 46.9 Finocchiaro (2002), McMullin (2005).

10 McMullin (2005), pp. 111–112.11 Redondi (2004), p. 182; Redondi (1987), p. 145. For the emphasis the Linceans put on th

813–814.12 Bucciantini (2003, reprinted 2007), pp. 228–233.13 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1612, p. 112 and paraphrase of Giovanni Francesco Sagredo’s de14 EN, 5, p. 93.15 Or Bucci. EN, 11, no. 653. Cesi probably referred to his ‘‘Celiospicio.’’ See below.16 EN, 11, no. 683.17 EN, 11, no. 675; CL, no. 117; EN, 11, no. 676; CL, no. 118; cf. EN, 11, no. 665. This rem18 EN, 11, nos. 684, 690, 694 and 697.19 EN, 11, no. 682; CL, no. 121.20 EN, 11, no. 847; CL, no. 221.21 For the most recent discussion, see Brevaglieri (2009). I am grateful to Dr. Brevaglieri22 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1614, p. 531.

the very first line of his letter which would also be included inSunspot Letters, albeit with a significant alteration. Originally Welserquoted Matthew 11.12., ‘‘The kingdom of heaven has suffered vio-lence and the violent have carried it off by force’’ (Regnum caelorumvim patitur, et violenti rapiunt illud), not perhaps the most tactful wayto describe Galileo’s endeavors, even had Welser not been citingscripture.14 A month later Cesi forwarded Welser’s report of Schei-ner’s work, adding that he, Cesi, was defending Galileo’s telescopicobservations, ‘‘provoked [or urged] by my friend Signor [Antonio]Buzio.’’15 Buzio is the official who will issue the judgment supportingthe imprimatur, the permission to publish, for the Letters. Galileofirst wrote Welser on 4 May 1612; in his reply Welser praised Galileofor outdoing Scheiner and expressed interest in publishing his let-ter.16 Cesi and Galileo had other plans, at first intending to put Gali-leo’s short reply into a collection on scientific discoveries sponsoredby the Linceans.17 Galileo also circulated manuscript copies, includ-ing one to the Florentine cardinal most important to his story, Maf-feo Barberini, the future Urban VIII.18

By the 9th of June, Galileo had finished his second letter to Wel-ser which Cesi also offered to publish. Since Scheiner could not readItalian (the use of which for such serious purposes Galileo defendedin the Letters on the possibly specious grounds that Tuscan was themost perfect language), Galileo had asked some of his Paduan satel-lites to translate his work into Latin. Meanwhile, he would publishin Italian in Rome. The change in plan produced immediate conse-quences. Late in May Cesi raised the first alarm, telling Galileo that‘‘the revisers’’ had raised difficulties over another work the Linceansmeant to publish because it was ‘‘greatly contrary to Aristotle.’’19

Unfortunately, neither in this case nor that of Galileo’s book did(could?) Cesi identify these revisers nor for whom they were acting.

What appears to be the best evidence about the agency incharge comes from Welser’s agreement in February 1613 to thechange of his first letter’s opening in order not to annoy ‘‘the Mas-ter.’’20 Welser meant the Master of the Sacred Palace, who originallyhad sole authority to license books for publication in Rome and its‘‘district’’ but by now had been reduced to one of three separatebut overlapping organs controlling papal censorship. The other twowere the Congregations of the Index and of the Inquisition, the sec-ond far the most powerful of the three and in a position to overridethe others.21 Contemporaries knew this. As one instance, the authorof a book placed on the Index wrote the Inquisition asking to have itremoved.22 Commentators nonetheless seem to have been a littleconfused about the precise authority each had. One of the cleareststatements relied on recently to sort out their relations came fromthe famous canonist and cardinal Giovanni Battista de Luca in hisRelatio romanae curiae, first published in 1673. His discussion ofthe Master was apparently straightforward.

‘‘[T]he duty of this Master [of the Sacred Palace] principallyseems to consist in the revision of works or books to be printedin Rome and its district, since printing is prohibited without prior

e book, see its presentation to Francesco Barberini at the time of his induction. CL, pp.

scription of Welser in his letter of 2 June 1612 in EN, 11, no. 687.

ained Cesi’s plan as late as 7 July. EN, 11, no. 725; CL, no. 138.

for sending me a copy of her article.

T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10 3

license of the cardinal vicar or of his vicegerent, which is usuallyconceded under the condition of the revision and approval of thisMaster, who sometimes does the revision himself or through hissocius [lit. ‘‘companion,’’ i.e., official substitute] or sometimes andvery often in [the case of] law books or of other faculties of whichhe or his socius are not ‘professors,’ [he] commits [it] to some otherapproved ‘professor’ on whose report he [the Master] gives the li-cense.’’23 The same content occurs in Discursus XIX about the Index,where De Luca muddied the waters by using—for the only time—theterm ‘‘revisers’’ to refer to that congregation’s consultors or ex-perts.24 The date of De Luca’s text should also immediately inducecaution, coming more than fifty years after Galileo’s book. To furtherconfuse matters, the three bodies he discussed had many cross-linksbetween them, most importantly perhaps in the Master being exofficio a consultor or staff expert of the Inquisition and at least some-times ordered by the pope to act in concert with the Index, for exam-ple, in the tangled suspension of Copernicus.25 Even more significant,I have found a case in which the Master reported to the Inquisitionthe opinions of two of its own cardinals.26

Largely on the strength of De Luca’s text, it has been assumedthat 1) the Master and his staff had exclusive control of pre-publi-cation censorship of books to be published in Rome; 2) the signa-tory of the judgment immediately preceding the imprimatur wasalso the reviser; and 3) the date of his judgment represented onlythe beginning of the ‘‘crucial phase’’ in the process of revision lead-ing to the imprimatur.27 The first assumption is the best if stillthinly documented of the three. In addition to De Luca’s statementand Welser’s letter cited above, in 1628 the Lincean Johannes Faberreported to Cesi that he was negotiating about a revision with theMaster’s socio when he also added that ‘‘it is necessary to do whatthey [sic] want.’’28 Nevertheless, it may be that the Inquisition alsotook a hand. De Luca may not have mentioned its involvement, sincehe was never a member of that body in any capacity and thereforecould write about it only from the outside. Further, the Inquisition’spractice changed rapidly and might not have so much as resembledthat in Galileo’s day.

Perhaps because it seems only infrequently to have revisedbooks before publication, such action has been almost completelyoverlooked. The clearest case concerns two books by Galileo’sfriend and fellow suspect, the Paduan Aristotelian CesareCremonini. One of these, ‘‘De anima,’’ was suppressed before pub-

23 ‘‘Hodiernum autem munus huius Magistri, principaliter consistere videtur in revisionesit, sine praevia licentia Cardinalis Vicarii seu eius Vicesgerentis, quae concedi solet sub coneius socium hanc revisionem facit, et quandoque, ac frequentius, in libris legalibus vel aliaralicui probato professori, ad cuius relationem ipse licentiam impartitur . . . ’’ Discursus VIII ipassage, or at least to gloss it in ways its ipsissima verba do not support. Thus she arguescollaborators of the Master of the Sacred Palace, newly chosen for each work on account of tsocius could undertake a revision; she speaks of the revisers belonging to a ‘‘congregationbeing part of a corporate body; and they could ‘‘at times [be] laymen,’’ which may or may nthrough the lens of one of her article’s principle subjects, the activity as reviser of the Linceaeven more strongly speaking of ‘‘a long procedure [of pre-publication censorship], directlyspecifically to the case of Sunspot Letters.

24 The key phrase reads that the Master had authority ‘‘revidendi [books] per se ipsum vbooks,’’ later called ‘‘consultors and revisers [‘‘consultoribus et revisoribus’’].’’ De Luca (16

25 Mayaud (1997).26 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1609, p. 28.27 Brevaglieri (2009), pp. 141 and 143.28 Ibid., p. 142, citing CL, pp. 1163–1164 (Faber–Cesi, 25 April 1628) where the note says t

judgment.29 Spruit (2000), p. 200 for the Index’s note that the Inquisiton had banned ‘‘De anima’’ and

98–99, fo. 381r; ADCFSO, Decreta S.O. 1598, fo. 296v; Ibid., p. 194).30 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1631, fo. 174r and ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1632, fo. 30v, neither e31 See the orders in ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1616, pp. 93, 119, 245 and 283; all in Ibid., p. 200

same man then managing Galileo’s trial, Agostino Galamini.32 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1606–1607, fos. 18r, 34r and 37r.33 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1607, fos. 194v and 214v and 218v.34 ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1606–1607, fo. 368v, and nuncio in Venice–cardinal nephew, 11 A

Averoldi’s writings had already been confiscated in 1602. ACDFSO, Decreta S.O. 1602, fo. 235 For the most authoritative sketch, see Brevaglieri (2009), pp. 145–150.

lication by the Inquisition; it survives only in a manuscript nowBiblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberini latini 222. Despite the factthat Cremonini’s belief in the soul’s mortality had been underinvestigation since 1598, there is no sign of an examination ofthe book prior to its condemnation.29 At Cremonini’s death themanuscript was ordered investigated and censures were drawnup.30 The other case concerned his De coelo and an ‘‘apology’’ (cor-rection) of it demanded by the Inquisition. Cremonini proposed a dif-ferent apology, and when the Inquisition learned of it ordered itsreview while the book was being printed, just as happened toGalileo.31

I have found three other cases from Venice of similar censor-ship during the Interdict crisis. In early 1606 the Inquisition tookan interest in one sheet (folium) of the ‘‘Retractationes’’ by theobscure lawyer Jacopo Regii Todeschini where he dealt ‘‘de con-fiscandis bonis haereticorum.’’ Printing was suspended in Venicewhile corrections were made in Rome.32 I have not been able tofind that Todeschini’s book ever appeared. The same is apparentlytrue of Benedetto Benedetti’s manuscript assigned to Cardinal Ro-berto Bellarmino for censure in late summer 1607.33 At almostthe same time, the Inquisition intervened against Ippolito Aver-oldi’s ‘‘Controversia de Mahomette et Antichristo’’ in the sameway it had against Todeschini, suspending printing while the workunderwent review. In Averoldi’s case, the Inquisition went further,instituting process against him.34 These three cases came at anadmittedly particularly fraught and unusual moment, and all thisevidence concerns books to be published outside Rome. Neverthe-less, together with the treatment of Cremonini, this should be en-ough to support the possibility that the Inquisition intervenedmore regularly even in the Master’s domain, including in Galileo’scase.

As for the second and third assumptions, since imprimaturscustomarily had no date, it may be that they were coeval withthe judgment and revision therefore followed both. If so, that sup-ports the hypothesis that someone other than the Master couldhave charge of this second phase. The judgment signed by Cesi’sfriend Buzio or Bucci (� 1620), about whom we know compara-tively little beyond his self-identification as from Faenza and aholder of degrees in both philosophy and medicine, does not helpto clarify the situation.35 Its date supports part of assumption three,since it came a week before Cesi first mentioned objections to

operum seu librorum in urbe, ac districtu imprimendorum, cum impressio prohibitaditione revisionis, & approbationis huius Magistri, qui quandoque per se ipsum, vel perum facultatum, quarum ipse, eiusque socii non sint professores, revisionem committitn De Luca (1669–73), p. 53. Brevaglieri (2009), p. 143 seems to me to misinterpret this

that all—which De Luca did not say—the revisers, including in Galileo’s case, ‘‘wereheir expertise in the relevant area,’’ despite De Luca’s statement that the Master or his

,’’ which seems never to have been the case in the sense of their constituting or evenot be true, but De Luca does not say that. It may be that Brevaglieri read De Luca’s textn Johannes Faber. On p. 144 she puts the degree of the Master’s exclusive involvementcontrolled by the Master of the Sacred Palace and his closest collaborators,’’ referring

el per alios a se deputatos;’’ Index consultors had the job of ‘‘revising and examining69–73), p. 100.

he socio signed the ‘‘imprimatur’’ for Animalia Mexicana, almost certainly meaning the

the beginning of his investigation decreed 25 June 1598 (ADCFSO, Decreta S.O. 1597–

ntry in Ibid., the second misdated 7 instead of 17 March. The cardinal assigned the review was the

ugust 1607 in Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Seg. Stato, Venezia, 38, fos. 65v–66r. Some of77r–v.

4 T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

Galileo’s book. The rest of it raises problems for all three assump-tions. First, it announced that on the orders of the Master Buziohad examined the book and found no contravention of the Index’srules.36 This is an odd claim, since the Index acted only after publi-cation.37 Somewhat unusually for such a judgment, Buzio praised‘‘the rare learning and the new, marvellous and previously unknownand unheard of observations, laid out in very polished style’’ in thebook.38 If we take seriously Buzio’s claim about the Index, this mightsupport the possibility raised above that the revisers worked for theInquisition. 39 As we shall see, given the numerous objections theyraised, it is unlikely that Buzio could have been among them.Although I hesitate to use Galileo’s single case as the standard andthereby contribute to the distortion such an approach has intro-duced into nearly every other study of his trial, it looks as if theInquisition might revise a book fairly extensively, or more accuratelyover a fairly long period of time, before allowing its publication.

2. The Genesis of Sunspot Letters

By June 1612 observing sunspots had become one of the mostpopular outdoor recreations among the Roman intelligentsia. Gali-leo’s friend the painter Ludovico Cigoli, Giovanni Battista Agucchilater nuncio to Venice, and others reported regularly to Galileo.40

Agucchi is an especially interesting figure, since despite his strongsupport at this point, his last letter to Galileo dates only from July1613, twenty years before Agucchi died.41 It comes barely a monthlater than another in which Agucchi told Galileo he was certainlyright about sunspots. In the July letter, after again congratulatingGalileo on his victory, Agucchi added that he had never seriouslythought about Copernicus and had three reasons for hesitating in fol-lowing Galileo’s endorsement of his ideas, the first of which wastheir contradiction of scripture.42 What could have happened in thatshort interval to instill Agucchi’s caution? The trigger was the last ofthe Sunspot Letters which unlike the other two Agucchi had not readbefore it appeared in print. Agucchi objected to its explicit allegianceto Copernicus as well possibly as other dangerous ideas that he didnot mention. The wind had begun to shift.

None of the Sunspot Letters as printed include any reference toscripture. The reason was not that the revisers had deterred Gali-leo. Quite the contrary. Probably at the same time as publicationplans firmed up, Galileo wrote Cardinal Carlo Conti a lost letterwhich included a summary of at least the second Sunspot Letter.A great deal has been made of Conti’s reply of 7 July 1612.43 Onequestion about it has not received much attention: why ask Conti’sopinion?44 There is little solid evidence with which to answer. It

36 But see Ibid., pp. 145–147.37 Frajese (2006), Godman (2000), passim. Brevaglieri (2009), p. 145, notes the oddity of38 ‘‘[I]mmo raram doctrinam, novas, ac mirabiles observationes hucusque incognitas, ina39 Thus Redondi is probably correct in his off-hand claim that it was the ‘‘Holy Office’’ th40 EN, 11, nos. 717 and 718.41 See, e.g., EN, 11, no. 888, letter of 8 June 1613.42 EN, 11, no. 900. See Torrini (1993), pp. 26–27.43 EN, 11, no. 723. For comment, see, e.g., Ferrone (1984), p. 250.44 Ponzio (2005), p. 132, for example, calls Conti a ‘‘friend’’ whom Galileo met in Rome in45 See Cesi’s letter of 11 January 1613. EN, 11, no. 829; CL, no. 205.46 EN, 11, no. 758; CL, no. 158.47 EN, 11, no. 803; CL, no. 185.48 EN, 11, no. 829; CL, no. 205.49 Dizionario biografico degli italiani (1960-), 28, p. 378, which uses his correspondence wit

EN, 11, no. 510.50 For the importance of such ties to Galileo’s career see Biagioli (1993).51 Altobelli–Galileo, Ancona, 17 April 1610; EN, 10, no. 294. In the letter Altobelli called Co

p. 82; DBI, 28, p. 376 makes it appear that he was in residence only until 1597. For Altobelli,pp. 112–113 and 116 and Gatti (1994).

52 The text in EN, 10 does not include the PS, for which see Stano & Balsimelli (1943), pp.est in medio planetarum, cum Martis stella per reiteratas observationes et varias . . . achrocum Philosophis: sed est restituenda et innovanda iuxta formam huius hypothesis, qua certOppinio?’’

seems likely that Cesi suggested the approach, probably via thecardinal’s brother, the duke of Poli, and it may even be that Cesi’sfather put aside his animosity to his son long enough to help out.45

In the middle of August shortly after Galileo dispatched his secondletter to Welser, Cesi said he would show it to Conti ‘‘[from whom]I will hear which way he leans.’’46 In late November, Cesi appar-ently had Conti’s and his brother’s reactions before he sent the let-ter to the revisers, but perhaps not.47 In January 1613 Cesireported having spoken to Conti’s brother who was favorable aswell as having sent him the two letters thus far printed togetherwith the plates to show to his brother the cardinal for his reac-tions. Cesi had not been able to send the manuscript since therevisers and the printer still had it.48 He was obviously countingon Conti. Why? Conti had no theological credentials nor is thereany evidence of a lively intellectual life beyond a plaque in the Col-legio Romano praising his knowledge of Greek and Latin togetherwith his attendance at one meeting of a Roman academy.49 Of anoble Roman family, clients of the Farnese, he lacked ties to theMedici or Florence meaning Galileo was probably not drawn tohim nor he to Galileo by patronage ties.50 His biographies say hewas a member of many Roman congregations, but these certainlydid not include the Inquisition and probably not the Index. Themost likely reason for Cesi’s reliance on him is Conti’s patronageof Ilario Altobelli (1560–1637), a Conventual Franciscan, mathema-tician, and astronomer/astrologer who had probably known Galileofrom early in the century when Altobelli taught in Verona. Galileohad corresponded with him since 1604.51 As late as April 1610Altobelli remained in Conti’s service. Galileo had sent the cardinala copy of Sidereus Nuncius, which he had shown Altobelli. TheFranciscan then wrote Galileo to ask for lenses in order to makea telescope with which to see the things described in the book.Even better, he appended a long PS in Latin quoting Tycho againstAristotle.52 Appealing to Tycho as an authority would not havepleased Galileo who was not among the Dane’s admirers, but Alto-belli’s attack by proxy on Aristotle did. Altobelli noted (withoutclearly taking a stance) the implication of Tycho’s argument thatthe sun was ‘‘in medio planetarum’’ which appeared to be a wayto save the phenomena and certainly meant that ‘‘the philoso-phers’’ were wrong. Galileo scrawled in the margin ‘‘CoperniciOppinio [sic]?’’ Although he had qualified to recieve a copy of Side-rus Nuncius, Conti did not originally make the long list of influen-tial cardinals targeted to see manuscripts of Sunspot Letters, whichin addition to Barberini included Ottavio Bandini, later deputy sec-retary of the Inquisition, the Jesuit Bellarmino, perhaps the mostrespected theologian in Rome and an Inquisitor, Luigi Capponi (a

Buzio’s claim about the Index.uditasque facili, ac perpolito stilo explicatas continere invenerim.’’at prevented Galileo from claiming to have divine inspiration. Redondi (1998), p. 186.

1611. Poppi (1996–97), p. 132 does better, emphasizing Conti’s patronage of Altobelli.

h Galileo as evidence of his learning. For his attendance at Cardinal Deti’s academy, see

nti ‘‘mio signore.’’ Conti was bishop of Ancona from 1585 to his death. Gauchat (1935),see Stano & Balsimelli (1943), p. 85 for his time in Verona. For him as an astrologer, see

104–106 reprinted from Favaro (1883), 2, pp. 343–345, quotation on p. 105: ‘‘Sol nonnica sit deprehensa. Quare sphoera mundi non est ordinabilis ut hactenus Astronomiius, tutius et facilius salvantur phoenomena’’ with marginal note by Galileo ‘‘Copernici

T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10 5

socially acceptable but insignificant cardinal), a third FlorentineFrancesco Del Monte, perhaps Alessandro d’Este, Ferdinando Gon-zaga, and Clement VIII’s former cardinal nephew Pietro Aldobrandi-ni.53 Gonzaga, had he been in Rome, might have headed the list,since his mathematician was a Lincean and he himself a well-known cultural and scientific patron.54

However difficult it may be to see why Galileo had such highhopes for Conti, it is clear what he told Galileo. The cardinal’s mes-sage came down to two points, both of them hinging on scripture.First, Galileo could safely argue for the corruptibility of the heav-ens, since the Bible said as much and so did all the Fathers of theChurch. Second, Galileo moved in a dangerous direction when hetried to interpret the bible to fit his Copernican views. Somewhatmysteriously, Conti thought it permissible to speak of the earthtraversing a straight-line, but not of it moving in orbit. He citedan author who had tried to do the second forty years earlier (andGalileo duly used the citation later); the book had thus far escapedcensure, but not for much longer. It would be included in the de-cree against Copernicus. Conti ended his letter by sending Galileoa passage from ‘‘an [unidentified] uncommon [i.e., rare] book’’about sunspots.55 In a second overlooked letter in August, Contiagain praised Galileo’s sunspot observations, but warned him thathe would need a long series of such in order to prove his point.56

The cardinal asked Galileo to say more about why he was interestedin the disagreement between the bible and Aristotle because manypassages supported the corruptibility of the heavens and othersraised lots of opposition to Aristotle, for example, on the eternityof the universe. Conti, who died in December 1615 just as the firstphase of Galileo’s trial gained serious headway, continued to try tosupport Galileo through a literal reading of the biblical flood as proofof heliocentrism and emphasized how much he admired Galileo.57

It looked as if the Roman Jesuits were in Galileo’s corner, too.Cigoli assured Galileo at the end of July that Christoph Grienbergerthought him mainly right after reading both his and Scheiner’sbooks. Grienberger’s refusal to give a straight opinion led Cigolito intone ominously: ‘‘Enough: I see here [in Rome] an always sus-picious and unfree manner.’’58 Similar reports about Grienbergercame in throughout the publication of Sunspot Letters, one of whichconcluded that ‘‘as a son of [under] holy obedience, he dare not givehis opinion.’’59 A month later Cesi told Galileo that he was happywith the second letter which he promised to show those Galileohad named—alas, Cesi did not repeat the missing list. He did say thatin a public disputation at the Collegio Romano a Dominican had usedsunspots as proof of the sun’s central location and rotation in an at-tack on the Jesuits’ defense of Scheiner’s opinion that they were tinystars.60

53 EN, 11, nos. 807, 708, 709, 721, 722, 714, 711, 707 and 697.54 Chambers (1987), especially p. 128.55 The extract was likely to have come from Fabricius (1611).56 EN, 11, no. 743. It is thus likely that Conti’s advice entered into Galileo’s decision

epistemology, see Biagioli (2006), chapter 3, especially pp. 161 and 216.57 EN, 12, no. 994.58 EN, 11, no. 736; CL, no. 143.59 Johannes Faber–Galileo, 23 November 1612 in EN, 11, no. 799; snippet in CL, no. 184.60 EN, 11, no. 761; CL, no. 159.61 EN, 11, no. 772; CL, no. 164. He repeated his suggestion on 6 October. EN, 11, no. 77762 Biagioli (2006), p. 184. He also thinks (p. 195) that the transfer from Galileo’s drawing to

The printing of the plates was a different story. I have examined some thirty copies of the bis often offsetting between plates. Both indicate that the printing was done rapidly and sompoint.

63 EN, 11, no. 788; CL, no. 175.64 EN, 11, no. 790; CL, no. 176.65 EN, 11, no. 791.66 EN, 11, no. 792; CL, no. 178.67 Gabrieli (1989), pp. 522–523.68 The word sometimes also appears in the singular.69 For discussion of the changes to this passage see Rossi (1978), pp. 47–49.70 EN, 5, p. 138.

At the end of September 1612, Cesi began discussions about thebook’s title, at the same time as he first sent Galileo details of itsprinting and assured him that he, Cesi, would cover all costs. Theplates were all being done anew by the Alsatian engraver MatthiasGreuter, the quality of whose work can be judged from his brilliantarchitectural renderings of Roman buildings.61 As Mario Biagiolibrings out, the quality really was first-rate, aided by the large sizeof the plates, one per page.62 Cesi first suggested as title ‘‘Heliosco-pia,’’ and thought Galileo should dedicate the book to the grandduch-ess mother Christina; he had to change his mind after another bookwith a similar title was announced and proposed something in Italianincluding ‘‘Scoprimenti’’ [‘‘Discoveries’’] or ‘‘Contemplazioni solari’’[‘‘Solar contemplations or meditations’’], part of the first of whichGalileo eventually accepted.63 At the end of October Cesi fretted thatthe slowness of the printing would allow Scheiner, who had alreadypublished another book on sunspots, the Accuratior disquisitio, oncemore to beat Galileo into print. Cesi repeated his concern on 3November telling Galileo that although Scheiner was being robbedof credit for his discoveries, he still had the Jesuits’ support. Cesi ad-vised Galileo to return to the argument about the heavens’ corrupt-ibility in the third letter he was then writing.64 Cigoli, who wasbeing fed the texts by Cesi, too urged Galileo to get on with it.65

The next day, Galileo excused the delay in finishing the third letter,at the same time as he asked Cesi to hurry publication.66 That veryday Buzio issued his judgment on Sunspot Letters. On 9 Novemberthe Linceans formally endorsed Cesi’s decision to publish the book.67

3. The revisers object

And then the revisori68 got into the act. On 10 November Cesiwrote Galileo for the first time mentioning them saying they wantedchanges in the references at the end of the second letter to the incor-ruptibility of the heavens ‘‘that you say is ‘repugnant’ to holy scrip-ture’’.69 The censors had approved the rest but would by no meansallow that (non ci vogliono in modo alcuno). This passage gave Galileoa lot of trouble. The original (and shortest) version read

Now who will it be having seen, observed and considered thesethings who wishes to persist more in an opinion not only falsebut erroneous and repugnant to the undoubted truths of sacredletters? which tell us that the heavens and all the universe(mondo) cannot be generabili and corruptible, but created anddissolvable [changed by Galileo into ‘‘to be dissolved’’] and tran-sitory. See the divine goodness, which in order to draw us out ofsuch a great fallacy [or lie], inspires in someone the necessarymethods.70

to include a large number of plates in the book. For their connection to Galileo’s

; CL, no. 169.plate might have been almost mechanical, reducing the importance of Greuter’s skill.

ook and in no two of them are they in exactly the same position on the page and thereetimes sloppily. I am grateful to Richard Landon and Ed Potten for discussion of this

6 T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

After the censors objected, he tried again in a much longer auto-graph text:

Now who will it be having seen, observed and considered thesethings, who will not embrace (having laid aside all disturbancesthat some apparent physical reasons could bring up) the opin-ion so conformed to the undoubted truths of sacred letters,which in so many places very open and manifest tell us theunstable and fallen nature of celestial matter? not, however,meanwhile despoiling of their deserved praises those sublimeintellects which with subtle speculations knew how to makethe apparent discords of the physical discourses agree withsacred dogmas. Now there is good reason that, the supremetheological authority also removed [rimossa], they concede[cedino] to natural reasons of other most serious [gravissimi]authors and, more, to sense experience [sensate esperienze], towhich I do not doubt that Aristotle himself would have con-ceded, such that we would now see him not only to haveadmitted experience [l’esperienza] among the powerful meansto make conclusions about natural problems, but conceded itfirst place; whence if he argued the immutability of the heav-ens from there not being seen in them over time any sensible[i.e., perceptible] alteration, it is easily believable that whensense should have showed him what to us it makes manifest,he would have followed the contrary opinion, to which withsuch marvelous discoveries we have been called. See the divinegoodness, which in order to remove from the mind any ambi-guity, inspires someone, etc.71

Finally, Galileo drafted a revision almost identical to the printedtext, which reads:

Now, in order to collect some fruit from the unforeseeablemarvels that until this our day have been hidden, it will bewell in the future to turn and listen to those wise philoso-phers who judged about the celestial substance differentlythan Aristotle did, and from whom Aristotle himself wouldnot have distanced himself if he could have taken account ofthe present sense observations, since he not only admittedmanifest experiences among the most powerful means to con-clude about natural problems, but gave them first place.Whence if he argued the immutability of the heavens from[the fact] that no change was seen in them over the passageof time, it is readily believable that when sense had shownwhat it has made manifest to us, he would have followedthe contrary opinion, to which with such marvellous discover-ies we have been called.72

The last phrase as published retained the claim to inspiration, evenif it was no longer explicitly pegged to God.73 ‘‘See, by superiorpower [virtù], in order to remove every ambiguity, it was inspiredin someone [alcuno] the necessary methods, whence one under-

71 EN, 5, p. 138.72 EN, 5, pp. 139–140, my translation.73 Stabile (1994), pp. 44–46 stresses Galileo’s resistance to giving up on divine goodness a

censors finally let pass. Galileo repeated his claim in almost the same words in a letter to74 My translation from EN, 5, pp. 138–139.75 Only a summary survives, published in Scheiner (1630), pp. 777–782. Modern edition76 EN, 11, no. 795; CL, no. 181.77 From this passage it appears that Galileo had proposed to reuse the quotation at the78 17 November 1612. EN, 11, no. 797; CL, no. 182.79 EN, 5, p. 93. I am grateful to Massimo Firpo for the translation of da dovero.80 EN, 11, no. 803; CL, no. 185. The total number printed is uncertain. There were two

1613 says he intended to print 3000, but his account of costs makes it appear that the t219. Favaro (1992), p. 222, gives the number as 1400 of Galileo’s letters and 700 of Schcensus of copies.

stands that the generation of comets is in the celestial region.’’74

While Galileo omitted the bible and theology, once more thesubstance was scarcely altered and he rushed on to emphasize againthat Aristotle would certainly have changed his mind had he knownwhat Galileo’s contemporaries did. Galileo yielded ground to thecensors only grudgingly.

In the early stages of the revision, Cesi offered help with scrip-ture passages and patristic commentary which he had handysince he had already used them in his ‘‘Celiospicio.’’75 He also fre-quently complained that ‘‘[t]he sole difficulty is that they [therevisers] are Peripatetics and Thomists.’’ Now he thought the titlecould be ‘‘Solar discoveries of, etc, in three letters to etc, to whichare added those of the pretensed Apelles’’ (‘‘Scoprimenti solari deletc., compresi in tre lettere al etc., aggiuntevi quelle del fintoApelle’’). Cesi strongly suggested that Galileo handle Scheiner asmodestly as possible since ‘‘sweet words and live reasons’’ workmuch better than sharp ones.76 That advice Galileo largely ignored.A week later Cesi reported receipt of Galileo’s third letter and thatprinting was going precisely as Galileo had ordered. Other newswas worse. ‘‘Knowing how revision goes here, I doubt the approvalof that sacred text placed metaphorically at the beginning of thefirst [letter] ‘Regnum, etc.;’ since it will not be allowed, you willhave to accommodate another beginning that preserves the idea,nor will we fail to do exactly what you wish.’’77 Cesi was also try-ing to gain Grienberger’s agreement and closed on an optimisticnote. Sunday the first Lincean lecture of the year had taken place‘‘in the presence of many prelates and what matters more the bet-ter and first literary men that are in this city’’ without anyobjections.78

In his next weekly report, Cesi told Galileo that with the adviceof all the Linceans he had sent the correction of the opening ofWelser’s first letter to the reviser [sic] in order not to lose time. De-spite the revisers’ [sic] praise of the letter, the bible verse had beenexcised, replaced by two lines from Horace, although the point wasif anything strengthened in an almost literal Italian paraphrase ofMatthew: ‘‘Already human intellects have really (da dovero) forcedheaven, and the best of them (i più gagliardi) have taken it.’’79 NowCesi also decided that Galileo’s book would be a free-standing pub-lication, in at least 2000 copies.80 Shortly thereafter, Galileo’s firstrevision arrived. In a PS to his next letter Cesi noted that the revisersmust ‘‘reasonably’’ be satisfied with the temperamento [roughly:moderation] you sent, ‘‘but ultimately one can only go very slowlytaking possession from the Peripatetics; you wrote in iure (so tosay [meaning obscure; perhaps ‘‘by right,’’ i.e., properly]), adducingten scriptural passages and some Fathers in confirmation of yoursaying that celestial corruptibility is agreeable to scripture and towhat you added [to Sunspot Letters]. But it was not enough and they[the revisers] replied that the passages had been rather well inter-preted by others peripatetically, and you must have patience; inthe end, they do not want you to say in that place anything fromscripture. But I will let you know how they want it to be.’’ In anycase, the point mattered little since Cesi expected Galileo’s third

s well as the dangers his claim posed, but downplays the force of the emendation thePiero Dini on 23 March 1615. EN, 5, pp. 297–305.

and translation in Altieri Biagi & Basile (1980), pp. 9–35.

beginning of Welser’s first letter.

versions, one with and one without Scheiner’s letters. Cesi’s letter of 15 Februaryotal press run of both could have been either 2100 or 1400. EN, 11, no. 845; CL, no.einer’s, but does not make clear whether the total is then 2100. I am engaged in a

T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10 7

letter (which he had not yet seen) to ‘‘close completely’’ his oppo-nents’ arguments.81 Cesi did not finally receive it until 13 December.‘‘[T]he revisers [sic] have slowed things down not a little, but nowthey will run. I remind your lordship to write me immediatelyhow you want the passage changed where the temperamento wasnot enough’’ and meanwhile the printer would pass over it awaitingGalileo’s orders. ‘‘Here they do not wish the scripture to be enteredinto evidence.’’82 Another Lincean whose advice Cesi asked said pre-cisely the same thing, that Galileo must not mention scripture ‘‘butalways speak as a philosopher, etc.’’83 Exactly what Galileo sentand when is obscure, since on 23 December Cesi said he had heardonly that Galileo meant to send changes to the second letter andon 28 December he still did not have the ‘‘third moderation,’’ whichhad forced skipping printing that sheet. Galileo’s of 13 Decemberwith the correction finally arrived on the 28th. By then the third let-ter had gone to the revisers. Cesi added the welcome news that Cigo-li had finished his Galilean moon in the cupola of the CapellaBorghese in Santa Maria Maggiore.84

Cesi gave Galileo a New Year’s present of the revisers’ approvalof the change to the second letter, even though it still caused trou-ble by contravening Aristotelian doctrine.85 Cesi’s letter crossedwith Galileo’s announcing the title: Historia e Dimostrationi intornoalle macchie solari e loro accidenti, comprese in tre lettere scritteall’Illustriss. Sig. Marco Velseri, Duumviro d’Augusta, da G. G., Nob. Fio-rentino e Matematico Primario del Sereniss. D. Cosmo Gr. Duca di Tos-cana etc. Galileo expressed relief that his third revision ‘‘finallyarrived in time and that you [Cesi] hope it will pass.’’ Then Galileo’susual paranoia peeked out together with a liberal admixture of histrademark bravado. His enemies in Florence were so few that helaughed at them. One of them was so stupid that he had attacked‘‘Ipernico’’ for thinking the earth moved.86 Although he did not sayso, Galileo had forced this ignoramus to apologize; two years laterthe man would get his revenge by leading the attack on Galileo be-fore the Inquisition, as we shall see.87

The revisers continued their work. At the end of January Galileoreplied to another set of criticisms and a Lincean’s suggestionsabout how to answer them and in another cross of letters Cesi toldGalileo that the last change he had sent was ‘‘immediately ac-cepted by the reviser, it being enough that you speak naturally,without mixing in any supernaturalness, as they want in similarthings.’’88 Cesi was now in a great rush to get the book finished, inpart so that copies could be delivered to Germany by a delegationabout to leave Rome. He suggested that it take the third letter inmanuscript.89 By 20 February, the book was presented at a meetingof the Linceans as ‘‘now printed,’’ although work actually remainedto be done.90 It seems that permission to publish finally came about

81 EN, 11, no. 804; CL, no. 186.82 EN, 11, no. 812; CL, no. 191.83 EN, 11, nos. 818–819, identifying the correspondent as Francesco Stelluti, but CL, p. 304

Luca Valerio. See also Cesi’s of 18 January 1613 referring to Valerio’s suggestions. EN, 11,84 EN, 11, nos. 814 and 815; CL, nos. 193 and 194. There is debate about this moon’s sig85 4 January 1613. EN, 11, no. 825; CL, no. 203.86 EN, 11, no. 827; reprinted in CL, no. 204.87 Niccolò Lorini–Galileo, 5 November 1612. EN, 11, no. 793.88 EN, 11, nos. 833 and 837.89 EN, 11, no. 845; CL, no. 219.90 CL, p. 331n5.91 EN, 11, no. 849 and CL, no. 223, partially edited.92 EN, 11, no. 848; CL, no. 222. On 24 February Cigoli said the same thing. EN, 11, no. 8493 EN, 11, no. 855; CL, no. 225.94 See Stabile (1994), passim and Ferrone (1984), pp. 249–251, who speaks of ‘‘i pesanti in

‘‘significativi interventi,’’ albeit drawn up in an ‘‘atmosfera di sospetto e di soffocazione.’’95 EN, 5, pp. 232–235.96 Barone (1982); Fabris (1986); Pedersen (1985); Pesce (1987); Pesce (1991); Shea (1975

762 and 782–763; Pesce (2005); and McMullin (2005).97 Stabile (1994), pp. 43–44.98 EN, 5, pp. 99, 195 and 188.99 EN, 5, p. 239, my translation.

the same time, Cigoli writing Galileo on 24 February that he was urg-ing Cesi to print ‘‘this letter to the reader’’ now that the placet was inhand.91 Cesi also continued to advise—or more—Galileo to tonedown his rhetoric. Cesi had always urged going easy on the Germansin general and Scheiner in particular, and now with the backing ofthe Linceans he bluntly told Galileo he could not say the barbedthings he wanted to in the preface.92 After this last flurry of activity,the printing more or less ended on 22 March.93

4. Galileo’s Open Allegiance to Copernicus

In common with the anti-clerical line on Galileo, the impact ofthe censors’ actions has been blown out of proportion, as a quickglance at the book shows.94 All the points to which the revisers ob-jected in the first two letters reappear in the third, with much blun-ter abuse of Scheiner thrown in for good measure. Even themutability of the heavens gets a two-page treatment near its end,with the consequences applied directly to humans and ending withthe obligatory attack on Aristotle’s authority.95 I, too, want to stressthe censors’ intervention, but as a sign of the degree of the papalauthorities’s concern about Galileo, as well as what worried them.We already know they would not allow Galileo to use scripture.The nature of their objection is harder to grasp, as is just how Galileohad tried to appeal to the bible. There are basically two schools ofinterpretation.96 The less plausible one thinks Galileo wanted to en-list it in his support. The more convincing one argues that he tried toexclude the bible from the discussion, or at best, relegate it to lastplace in the attempt to understand natural phenomena. With itwould have gone theology, as in the second revision of the most con-troversial passage already cited.97 But Galileo’s scientific positionsthemselves were at this moment much less troubling. One pointjumps out. Despite their fear on the score of the heaven’s incorrupt-ibility, the censors did not object to Galileo’s adherence to Coperni-cus. He offered three explicit statements of allegiance toCopernicus’s system, one in the first letter and two in the third,one in its exordium.98 This last is the most important, not least be-cause of its prominent location. ‘‘I say well to your lordship [Welser]that this star [Saturn], and perhaps no less than the appearance ofhorned Venus, in admirable fashion contributes to the acceptanceof the great Copernican system, to whose universal unveiling wesee favorable winds pushing us with such a clear escort that therenow remains little to fear from clouds or crosswinds.’’99 Galileomade a change in this passage that has been assumed to have arisenfrom the censors’ objection and replaced ‘‘divine goodness’’ as themotive force with ‘‘favorable winds,’’ but we do not in fact know that

, without argument, but perhaps by inference from no. 199 more plausibly says he wasno. 831; CL, no. 207.nificance. See Ostrow (1996); Booth & Van Helden (2001).

9; CL, no. 223.

terventi censori,’’ drawing on Rossi (1978), p. 47, who had more calmly labeled them

), summarized in Blackwell (1991); Fantoli (2003), chapter 3; Finocchiaro (2002); pp.

8 T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

this was not merely stylistic, especially given the speed with whichthings moved once the third letter was finished and submitted forreview.100 He used an almost identical phrase in two other places,praising ‘‘benignità divina’’ at the end of the neuralgic second letterfor revealing the method of observing sunspots without encounter-ing opposition from the censors and again near the end of the thirdin an even more challenging way for providing both human powersand the observations they made in order to undermine Aristotle.101

No one seems to have noticed one last passage in the first letterin which Galileo implicitly endorsed Copernicus in the course oflaying out his realist conception of the universe in exactly theway that gave rise to Urban VIII’s most violent objection to the Dia-logue as offending against a nominalist belief in unfettered divineomnipotence.102 Drawing a distinction between ‘‘pure astronomers’’who only played with numbers and ‘‘philosophical ones’’ like himselfwho went after ‘‘the true constitution of the universe,’’ Galileo madeplain that he thought that ‘‘constitution’’ ‘‘is in one manner, true, realand impossible to be otherwise but in order to describe it that naturewould really (realmente) make use of that farago of spheres and or-bits drawn by the astronomers [he means the ‘‘pure’’ ones], I think itso little necessary to believe this, however adapted it may be to eas-ing astronomical computations; and I am of opinion midway be-tween those astronomers who not only admit the stars’ eccentricmovements but also eccentric orbits and spheres which lead them[the stars’ movements], and those philosophers who equally denyorbits and movements around another center than that of theearth.’’103 Nevertheless, the revisers did not demure. Peter Godmanmay overstate the case when he speaks of the ‘‘durable progeny ofRoman censorship: improvisation and severity, tempered (or com-pounded) by muddle and mess,’’ but not by much.104

5. Sunspot Letters and Phase I of Galileo’s Trial

Just about two years after Sunspot Letters appeared, in February1615 the Florentine Dominican offensive against Galileo acceler-ated. Underway probably from the moment Galileo returned to Flor-ence in 1610, the operation moved on two parallel and cross-linkedtracks. One of them involved Niccolò Lorini, the friar whom Galileohad mocked for his ignorance in 1612. He sent to Rome a copy of oneof Galileo’s more explicit declarations about scripture, natural phi-losophy and Copernicanism, his letter to Benedetto Castelli of1613.105 (The second and more famous ‘‘Letter to the Grandduchess[Mother] Christina’’ originated in the same episode at the Florentinecourt two years earlier; Galileo was then busily finishing it.) The othertactic was a personal denunciation to the Roman Inquisition. This partat least of the campaign was orchestrated by a cardinal inquisitor who

100 Shea (1975), p. 47.101 EN, 5, p. 140, note to lines 29–30 (granted, the term is benignità not bontà, but the di102 See now especially Speller (2008), in particular chapters 5 and 17.103 EN, 5, pp. 102–103. Stabile (1994), p. 48 stresses the strength of Galileo’s belief in theBellarmino, but overlooks this passage.104 Godman (2000), p. 11.105 Pagano (2009), pp. 13–14.106 The pope gave Galamini two pensions totaling almost 6,000 scudi with Cardinal Borghesan unusual mark of respect. Avvisi of 5 and 9 November and 14 December 1611 and 29 JanUrb. lat. 1080, fo. 92r.107 Ricci-Riccardi (1902), pp. 91, 95, 99–100; only a few scraps of these letters are in EN, 1was among those trying to protect Galileo.108 Ricci-Riccardi (1902), p. 101; EN, 18, nos 1069bis and 12, no. 1070.109 Pagano (2009), pp. 25–26. The ‘‘propositions to be censured’’ phrased the two pointsimmobile by local motion; that the earth is not the center of the mondo, nor immobile, bu110 Ibid., p. 26.111 Ibid., p. 37.112 Ibid., p. 40.113 Ibid., p. 41. ‘‘L’anno passato’’ (Ximenes; ibid., p. 37; ‘‘quest’estate passata’’ (Caccini; ib114 Ibid., pp. 39 and 176. Both depositions were sent by the inquisitor of Florence on 14 N115 Ibid., pp. 6–7 and EN, 19, p. 403.

had been commissary of the Inquisition, Master of the Sacred Palaceand general of the Dominicans, Agostino Galamini, a man of whomPaul V had a high opinion. Galamini had also been a client of Paul’scardinal-nephew, Scipione Borghese and at his promotion both thepope and Cardinal Scipione showered him with favors.106 Galamini’sinstrument was his client, a second Florentine Dominican, TommasoCaccini.107 It cannot be a coincidence that among Caccini’s other pa-trons was the nephew of the Inquisition’s former secretary, CardinalPompeo Arrigoni, once Paul V’s right-hand man and employer of Cac-cini’s brother Matteo.108 Caccini came to Rome towards the end ofFebruary and on Galamini’s instructions gave the Inquisition a longdeposition. While Lorini’s attack relied on scripture, Caccini’s denun-ciation at first took a more philosophical tack, as well as responding insuspiciously precise manner to all the questions an interrogatormight have been expected to ask. It was also the source of the twopropositions the Inquisition would censure which the deponent fal-sely claimed came from Sunspot Letters, ‘‘the whole earth moves by it-self, including with daily motion; the sun is immobile.’’109 Badenough, but Galileo had also interpreted scripture in order to defendthese two points. Asked how he knew Galileo taught them, Caccini ci-ted Galileo’s public reputation and conversations with one of his ‘‘sec-tarians’’ and claimed also to have read them ‘‘in a book printed inRome, that deals with sunspots, that appeared under the said Galileo’sname’’ which yet another Florentine Dominican, Ferdinando Ximenes,had lent him.110 Under questioning based on a copy of the first depo-sition and conducted on orders from Rome by the inquisitor of Flor-ence, Ximenes repeated the two points right away, piously addingthat both ‘‘were diametrically contrary to true theology and philoso-phy.’’111 As had happened in the first deposition, cosmology quicklygot jumbled up with theology, but Ximenes never said he had reador possessed a copy of Sunspot Letters, nor was he asked directly aboutthe book, leaving us unfortunately with no confirmation of Caccini’sclaim. The third and last witness examined in 1615, a student ofGalileo, said he had heard him defend both terrestrial movementand heliocentrism, ‘‘according to some letters published by him inRome under the title of On Sunspots.’’112 He also testified that Caccinihad declared the two points heretical in a conversation in July or Au-gust 1613, shortly after the book appeared (he admitted that hismemory may have been faulty as to the date).113 On 25 November1615, just four days after receiving these two depositions from Flor-ence but singling out only Ximenes’s, the Inquisition—not the Indexor the Master—ordered an examination of Sunspot Letters.114 On thestrength of all this evidence, those two propositions were identifiedas coming from the book, first, in the ‘‘summary’’ drawn up near theend of Galileo’s trial and on which his sentence rested and then unsur-prisingly in the sentence itself.115 Paul V’s order to silence Galileo of

stinction between them is a fine one) and p. 236.

reality of his vision of the universe in the context of Galileo’s later discussions with

e adding another 900, and all the cardinals made their ceremonial visit to him at once,uary 1612. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 763v, 758r and 846v and

8, nos. 1078bis and 1080bis. The DBI (51, pp. 325–326) is wrong to say that Galamini

slightly differently: ‘‘[t]hat the sun is the center of the mondo, and by consequencet the whole earth moves by itself, including with daily motion.’’ Ibid., pp. 42–43.

id., p. 26).ovember. Ibid., p. 36.

T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10 9

25 February 1616 also identifies the two propositions as Galileo’s,without giving their precise source.116

It is well known that the propositions as quoted do not appearin Sunspot Letters.117 The closest passage I have found in any of Gali-leo’s writing comes from a letter of 16 July 1611 to GallanzoneGallanzoni, maestro di camera to Cardinal Joyeuse, the man whohad mediated the end of the Interdict crisis with Venice, where Gali-leo wrote that ‘‘the earth moves with two motions . . . that is thediurnal in itself around its own center . . . and the annual motion.’’118

I am unable to suggest how this letter could have reached the Inqui-sition or Galileo’s enemies in Florence.119 Nevertheless, it is worthraising the possibility that the propositions really came not fromCaccini’s deposition but from the censoring of Galileo’s book and thatCaccini got his evidence from his sponsors in the Inquisition, notfrom Ximenes. The fact that two witnesses agreed about Galileo’sCopernican allegiance, that both propositions documenting it werecondemned and yet the Inquisition still decided noli prosegue con-firms that Copernicanism was not the real issue and was instead asmokescreen, perhaps intended to deflect the more serious chargeof interpreting scripture.

6. The End of Phase I of Galileo’s Trial

However this may be, as a result of the investigation and on thestrength of the censures of those two propositions, the first as ‘‘for-mally heretical,’’ in February 1616 Galileo received an order tocease to defend heliocentrism. This order, called a precept, endedthe first phase of his trial.120 The censures also played a role inthe notorious suspension (often incorrectly called condemnation)by the Index on 5 March 1616 of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus.121

There is legitimate cause for bewilderment that while Galileo wasunder investigation by the Inquisition, the Index issued the decree,but not against any of his books. Of course, this also helps to explainwhy his Inquisition process is missing a conclusion in the form of ajudgment, while the Index’s decree lacks any prehistory. Neverthe-less, it is not the case that the Index finished what the Inquisition be-gan, precisely because Galileo was not so much as referred tosurreptitiously in the Index’s decree.122 A mixed lot of other bookswas outright banned, including a pornographic work, only one ofthem to do with heliocentrism, Paolo Antonio Foscarini’s Concerningthe Opinion . . . About the Earth’s Mobility, etc.123 The decree makesthe proverbially committee-built camel appear a thing of beauty.

Thus by early 1616 the process that had begun almost fouryears before when Welser and Cesi invited Galileo to reply toScheiner had come to an end. A complicated interplay betweenthose three, other Linceans and the ‘‘revisers’’ led to heavy emen-dations of the text of Sunspot Letters arising mainly from the revis-ers’ objections to Galileo (and Welser) using the bible, withoutmuch affecting Galileo’s expressions of support for Copernicus. Ihave suggested that those censors could have been at least remo-tely directed by the Inquisition. Despite this, their work failed to

116 Pagano (2009), p. 45; EN, 19, p. 321.117 See, e.g., ibid., p. 7n.118 EN, 11, no. 555, from ‘‘Bibl. Naz. Fir. Mss. Gal., P. III, T. VII, 1, car. 51-55,’’ a contemporarywhich belonged to Gilberto Govi which then eventually passed to Stillman Drake and iscollection, Box 28, folder 3). This passage on fo. 12v in Drake’s copy is identical to Favaro119 The form of points condemned by the Inquisition—direct quotations or propositionsUniversity of Missouri who has worked extensively in the Index’s records tells me that thesays in conclusion that ‘‘what you describe re: the propositions in his [Galileo’s] Sunspot lettE-mail of 27 May 2010. Almost none of the Inquisition’s censurae survive making it impos120 Mayer (2010). I prefer the term precept to the usual ‘‘injunction’’ both because it direcmeanings and also because unlike an injunction in common law which must be issued by aprecept.121 Pagano (2009), pp. 42–43.122 Against Godman (2000), p. 217.123 Pagano (2009), pp. 46–47.124 Mayaud (1997), p. 74.

deflect that body’s interest in 1615, the product in part of a con-spiracy in Rome and Florence. As a result, Galileo was silenced,Copernicus’s book suspended. While there was so little interestin the second that four years later no publisher could be foundfor the ‘‘corrected’’ edition, ten years after that when Galileo setout to publish his Dialogue, the precept and the censures behindit remained very much a live issue.124 Together they would doomhim and secondarily Copernicus. The revisers might not have beenable to control Galileo in the first instance; the Inquisition succeededin the end.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was read to the Institute for theHistory and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University ofToronto. I am grateful to Marga Vicedo and Ken Bartlett for invitingme to give it and to Eileen Reeves and Mario Biagioli for their com-ments on another instantiation. Funding came from the AmericanAcademy in Rome in the form of the Millicent Mercer Johnsonpostdoctoral fellowship.

References

Altieri Biagi, M. L., & Basile, B. (Eds.). (1980). Scienziati del Seicento. Milan andNaples: Rizzardi.

Barone, F. (1982). Diego de Zuñiga e Galileo Galilei: Astronomia eliostatica edesegesi biblica. Critica storica, 19, 319–334.

Beretta, F. (1999). Le Procès de Galilée et les Archives du Saint-Office. Aspectsjudiciaires et théologiques d’une Condamnation célèbre. Revue des sciencesphilosophiques et theologiques, 83, 441–490.

Beretta, F. (2000). L’Archivio della congregazione del Sant’Ufficio: Bilancioprovvisorio della storia e natura dei fondi d’antico regime. In A. Del Col & G.Paolin (Eds.), L’inquizione romana: Metodologia delle fonti e storia istituzionale(pp. 119–144). Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste.

Beretta, F. (2005). The documents of Galileo’s trial: Recent hypotheses and historicalcriticism. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The Church and Galileo (pp. 191–211). NotreDame: University of Notre Dame Press.

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

Biagioli, M. (2006). Galileo’s instruments of credit: Telescopes, images, secrecy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blackwell, R. J. (1991). Galileo, Bellarmine, and the bible. University of Notre DamePress.

Blackwell, R. J. (2006). Behind the scenes at Galileo’s trial. Notre Dame: Notre DameUniversity Press.

Booth, S. E., & Van Helden, A. (2001). The virgin and the telescope: The moons ofCigoli and Galileo. In J. Renn (Ed.), Galileo in context (pp. 193–216). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bredekamp, H. (2007). Galilei der Künstler. Der Mond, Die Sonne, Die Hand. Berlin:Akademie Verlag.

Brevaglieri, S. (2009). Science, books and censorship in the academy of the Lincei:Johannes Faber as cultural mediator. In M. P. Donato, & J. Kraye (Eds.),Conflicting Duties. Science, Medicine and Religion in Rome (1550–1750) (pp. 133–157). London: Warburg Institute.

Bucciantini, M. (2003). Galileo e Keplero. Filosofia, cosmologia e teologia nell’Età dellaControriforma. Turin: Einaudi (Reprinted 2007).

Chambers, D. S. (1987). The ‘Bellissimo Ingegno’ of Ferdinando Gonzaga (1587–1626), cardinal and duke of Mantua. Journal of the Warburg and CourtauldInstitutes, 50, 113–147.

copy. In vol. 18 in an addition to no. 555 Favaro printed a few lines from another copynow in the Fisher Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto (Drake Italian MSS’s text except for a couple of orthographical variations.abstracted from them—may be insignificant. My former student John Frymire of the

Inquisition’s sister congregation might censor either propositions or quotations anders does not seem to me to be completely uncharacteristic of the place by any means.’’sible to describe its usual practice directly.tly translates the contemporary term which is a term of art with a number of precisecompetent court, in canon law any superior with the requisite authority could emit a

10 T.F. Mayer / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011) 1–10

Dame, B. (1966). Galilée et les taches solaires (1610–1613). Revue d’Histoire desSciences et de Leurs Applications, 19(4), 307–370.

De Luca, G. B. (1669–73). Relatio curiae romanae. Theatrum veritatis & iustitiæ, siveDecisivi discursus per materias (vol. 15). Rome: Heirs of Corbelletti.

Dizionario biografico degli italiani. (1960-). Rome: Istituto dell’enciclopedia italiana.Fabricius, J. (1611). De maculis in sole observatis (J. Borner, Snr. & E. Rehefeld).

Wittenberg: L. Seuberlich.Fabris, R. (1986). Galileo Galilei ie gli orientamenti esegetici del suo tempo. Vatican

City: Pontificia Academica Scientiarum.Fantoli, A. (2003). Galileo for Copernicanism and for the Church (G. V. Coyne, Trans.)

(3rd ed.). Vatican City: Vatican Observatory Publications.Favaro, A. (1883). Galileo Galilei e lo studio di Padova. Florence: Successori Le

Monnier.Favaro, A. (Ed.) (1933). Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, 20 vols. Florence: G. Barberà;

reprint of 1890–1909 ed.Favaro, A. (1992). Sulla stampa delle Macchie Solari. In L. Rossetti, & M. L. Soppelsa

(Eds.), Scampoli Galileiani (vol. 1, pp. 220–226). Padua: LINT; Centro per lostudio dell’università di Padova, Accademia Patavina di scienze, lettere ed arti.

Ferrone, V. (1984). Galileo tra Paolo Sarpi e Federico Cesi. In P. Galluzzi (Ed.), Novitàcelesti e crisi del sapere (pp. 239–253). Florence: Giunti Barbèra.

Finocchiaro, M. A. (2002). Galileo as a ‘bad theologian’: A formative myth aboutGalileo’s trial. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33(4), 753–791.

Frajese, V. (2006). Nascita dell’Indice. La censura ecclesiastica dal Rinascimento allaControriforma. Brescia: Morcelliana.

Gabrieli, G. (1989). Verbali delle adunanze e cronaca della prima Accademia Lincea(1603–1630). Contributi alla storia della Accademia dei Lincei. Rome: AccademiaNazionale dei Lincei (Vol. 1, pp. 497–550).

Gabrieli, G. (1938 and 1995). Il carteggio linceo della vecchia accademia di FedericoCesi: 1603–1630. Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Memorie della Classe diScienze morali, storiche et filologiche, ser. 6, vol. 7, fasc. 1–4, pp. 1–1446;reprinted Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1995.

Galilei, G., & Scheiner, C. (2010). On Sunspots. Chicago: University of Chicago Press(Eileen Reeves and Albert Van Helden, Trans. and intro.).

Gatti, I. L. (1994). Lo studio astrologico ‘De proxima reipublicae venetaeinclinatione’ del padre Ilario Altobelli OFM Conv. Il Santo. Rivista francescanadi storia, dottrina e arte, 34, 305–326.

Gauchat, P. (1935). Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi (vol. 4). Münster:Regensburger Bibliothek.

Giacchi, O. (1942). Considerazioni giuridiche sui due processi contro Galileo. InUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Ed.), Nel terzo centenario della morte diGalileo Galilei (pp. 383–406). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.

Godman, P. (2000). The saint as censor: Robert Bellarmine between inquisition andindex. Leiden: Brill.

Hofstadter, D. (2009). The earth moves. Galileo and the Roman inquisition. New York:Norton.

Mayaud, P.-N. (1997). La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à lalumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition. Rome:Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana.

Mayer, T. F. (2010). The Roman inquisition’s precept to Galileo (1616). British Journalfor the History of Science, 43, 327–351.

McMullin, E. (2005). Galileo’s theological venture. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The Churchand Galileo (pp. 88–116). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Ostrow, S. F. (1996). Cigoli’s immacolata and Galileo’s moon: Astronomy and thevirgin in early seicento Rome. Art Bulletin, 78, 218–235.

Pagano, S. M. (Ed.). (2009). I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611–1741). Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata. Vatican City: ArchivioVaticano.

Pedersen, O. (1985). Galileo’s religion. In G. V. Coyne (Ed.), The Galileo affair: Ameeting of faith and science (pp. 75–102). Vatican City: Vatican Observatory.

Pesce, M. (1987). L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella lettera di Galileo a Cristina diLorena e la sua ricezione. Storia di una difficoltà nel distinguere ciò che èreligioso da ciò che non lo è. Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi, 4, 239–284.

Pesce, M. (1991). Momenti della ricezione dell’ermeneutica biblica galileiana e della‘Lettera a Cristina’ nel XVII secolo. Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi, 8, 55–104.

Pesce, M. (2005). L’ermeneutica Biblica di Galileo e le due strade della teologia cristiana.Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

Ponzio, P. (2005). Patristic theology in the Copernican letters of Galileo. In J. Brooke& E. _Ihsanoglu (Eds.), Religious values and the rise of science in Europe(pp. 131–143). Istanbul: Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture.

Poppi, A. (1996–97). La lettera del cardinale Carlo Conti a Galileo su cosmologiaaristotelica e Bibbia (7 luglio 1612): l’approdo galileano alla nuova ermeneuticabiblica. Atti e memorie dell’Accademia patavina di scienze, lettere ed arti, 109,131–158.

Redondi, P. (1987). Galileo heretic (R. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Redondi, P. (1998). From Galileo to Augustine. In P. Machamer (Ed.), The Cambridgecompanion to Galileo (pp. 175–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Redondi, P. (2004). Galileo eretico (New ed.). Turin: Einaudi.Ricci-Riccardi, A. (1902). Galileo Galilei e fra Tommaso Caccini: Il processo del Galilei

nel 1616 e l’abiura segreta rivelata dalle carte Caccini. Florence: Le Monnier.Rossi, P. (1978). Galileo Galilei e il libro dei Salmi. Rivista di filosofia, 69, 45–71.Scheiner, C. (1630). Rosa Ursina. Bracciano: A. Feo.Shea, W. R. (1975). La Controriforma e l’esegesi biblica di Galileo. In A. Babolin (Ed.),

Problemi religiosi e filosofia (pp. 47–62). Padua: La Garangola.Shea, W. R. (1977). Galileo’s intellectual revolution: Middle period, 1610–1632. New

York: Science History Publications.Speller, J. (2008). Galileo’s inquisition trial revisited. Bern: Peter Lang.Spruit, L. (2000). Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio Romano. In E. Riondato & A.

Poppi (Eds.), Cesare Cremonini. Aspetti del pensiero e scritti (pp. 193–204). Padua:Academia Galileiana.

Stabile, G. (1994). Linguaggio della natura e linguaggio della Scrittura in Galilei.Dalla ‘Istoria’ sulle macchie solari alle lettere copernicane. Nuncius, 9, 37–64.

Stano, G., & Balsimelli, F. (1943). Un illustre scienziato francescano amico di GalileoP. M. Ilario Altobelli (Seniore) O.F.M. Conv. (1560–1637). MiscellaneaFrancescana, 43 (fasc. 1–2), 81–129.

Torrini, M. (1993). Galileo copernicano. Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, 72(1),26–42.

van Helden, A. (1996). Galileo and Scheiner on sunspots: A case study in the visuallanguage of astronomy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 140(3),358–396.