Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia: From Authentic SourcesGebler, Karl von
Religion
Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia: From Authentic Sources
Gebler, Karl von
Astronomers -- Italy -- Biography; Catholic Church. Curia romana; Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642; Religion and science -- History
The preliminary commission had just then, after about a month’s session,
completed its labours, and submitted to the Pope a long memorial on the
Galileo affair. The document begins with a concise statement of the
course of the negotiations about the publication of the “Dialogues,” and
then the three following indictments were brought against the author:—
(1) Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the hypothetical
treatment by decidedly maintaining that the earth moves and the sun is
stationary. (2) He has erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides
to the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which do not
exist; (3) and he has further been deceitfully silent about the command
laid upon him by the Holy Office, in the year 1616, which was as follows:
“To relinquish altogether the said opinion that the sun is the centre
of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to
hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing,
otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office,
which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey.”
Then follows the remark: “It must now be considered what proceedings
are to be taken, both against the person of the author and against the
printed book.” Yet the nature of these proceedings is not in any way
discussed in the document, but it now refers more in detail in five
counts to the historical events, from the time when the “Dialogues”
were submitted in Rome in 1630, to the publication in Florence in 1632.
A sixth count considers that the following points in the “Dialogues”
themselves must be laid to the author’s account:—
“1. That without orders and without making any communication
about it, he put the _imprimatur_ of Rome on the title page.
“2. That he had printed the preface in different type, and
rendered it useless by its separation from the rest of the
work; further, that he had put the saving clause at the end in
the mouth of a simpleton, and in a place where it is hard to
find; that it is but coolly received by the other interlocutor,
so that it is only cursorily touched upon, and not fully
discussed.
“3. That he had very often in the work deviated from the
hypothesis, either by absolutely asserting that the earth
moves, and that the sun is stationary, or by representing
the arguments upon which these views rest as convincing and
necessarily true, or by making the contrary appear impossible.
“4. That he had treated the subject as undecided, and as if he
were waiting for, though he does not expect, explanation.
“5. That he contemns authors who are of a contrary opinion, and
those whom Holy Church chiefly employs.
“6. That he perniciously asserts and sets forth that, in the
apprehension of geometrical matters, there is some equality
between the Divine and human mind.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account