DOCSLIB.ORG

Finocchiaro M a Retrying Galile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Finocchiaro M a Retrying Galile Retrying Galileo Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 Maurice A. Finocchiaro UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2005 by the Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Finocchiaro, Maurice A., 1942– Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 / Maurice A. Finocchiaro. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-520-24261-0 (cloth : alk. paper). 1. Galilei, Galileo, 1564–1642—Trials, litigation, etc. 2. Religion and science—Italy—History—17th century. 3. Science— Philosophy. I. Title. qb36.g2f56 2005 520′.92—dc22 2004001861 Manufactured in the United States of America 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 10987654321 Printed on Ecobook 50 containing a minimum of 50% postcon- sumer waste, processed chlorine free. The balance contains virgin pulp, including 25% Forest Stewardship Council Certified for no old-growth tree cutting, processed either tcf or ecf. The sheet is acid-free and meets the minimum requirements of ansi/niso z39.48–1992 (r 1997) (Permanence of Paper). contents preface and acknowledgments ix Introduction. The Galileo Affair from Descartes to John Paul II: A Survey of Sources, Facts, and Issues 1 1. The Condemnation of Galileo (1633) 7 1.1 “Vehemently Suspected of Heresy”: The Inquisition’s Sentence (1633) 7 1.2 “I Abjure, Curse, and Detest”: Galileo’s Abjuration (1633) 15 1.3 “Suspended until Corrected”: The Index’s Anti-Copernican Decree (1616) 16 1.4 “Hypothesis versus Assertion”: The Index’s Correction of Copernicus’s Revolutions (1620) 20 2. Promulgation and Diffusion of the News (1633–1651) 26 2.1 Nuncios and Inquisitors: Pope Urban VIII’s Orders ( July 1633) 26 2.2 Professors of Mathematics and Philosophy: Guiducci’s Report (August 1633) 28 2.3 Printed Posters and Flyers: Carafa’s Liège Notification (September 1633) 30 2.4 Private Correspondence: Buonamici’s Account ( July 1633) 33 2.5 Newspapers and Books: From Renaudot’s Abridgment (1633) to Riccioli’s Documents (1651) 37 3. Emblematic Reactions: Descartes, Peiresc, Galileo’s Daughter (1633–1642) 43 3.1 The End of the World: Descartes (1633–1644) 43 3.2 Sharing Misery: Galileo’s Daughter (1633) 51 vi contents 3.3 “The Mirrour of True Nobility & Gentility”: Peiresc’s Plea (1634–1635) 52 3.4 “No Pardon to Innocents”: Galileo (1634–1642) 56 4. Polarizations: Secularism, Liberalism, Fundamentalism (1633–1661) 65 4.1 States versus Church 66 4.2 “Philosophic Freedom”: From Strasbourg (1635–1636) to London (1644–1661) 72 4.3 Illegitimate Births, Burials, and Books: Various Retrials to Riccioli’s Apology (1651) 79 5. Compromises: Viviani, Auzout, Leibniz (1654–1704) 86 5.1 Galileo “Human Not Divine”: Vincenzio Viviani (1654–1693) 87 5.2 The Ghost of Bellarmine: Adrien Auzout (1665) 93 5.3 Diplomacy Fails: Leibniz (1679–1704) 99 6. Myth-making or Enlightenment? Pascal, Voltaire, the Encyclopedia (1657–1777) 108 6.1 From Copernicanism to Jansenism: Pascal (1657) and Arnauld (1691) 108 6.2 From Prison to Biblical Satire: Un-Enlightened Myths (1709–1773) 111 6.3 Whose Ignorance and Prejudice? Voltaire (1728–1770) 115 6.4 “Theology’s War on Science”: D’Alembert and the French Encyclopedia (1751–1777) 120 7. Incompetence or Enlightenment? Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758) 126 7.1 Galileo’s Dialogue Unbanned, Sort Of: Toaldo’s Edition and Calmet’s Introduction (1741–1744) 127 7.2 Copernicanism Unbanned, Sort Of: Lazzari’s Consultant Report (1757) 138 8. New Lies, Documents, Myths, Apologies (1758–1797) 154 8.1 Dishonorable “Onorato”: Gaetani’s Forged Letter (1770–1785) 155 8.2 Undiplomatic Diplomat: Guicciardini’s 1616 Report Published (1773) 158 8.3 From One Extreme to Another: Mallet du Pan’s Formative Myth (1784–1797) 159 8.4 “Spots in the Sun”: Tiraboschi’s Brilliant Apology (1792–1793) 164 9. Napoleonic Wars and Trials (1810–1821) 175 9.1 The Trial Proceedings to Paris: Napoleon’s Publication Plan (1810–1814) 175 9.2 Lost and Found: Marini’s Efforts (1814–1817) 178 9.3 The Napoleonic Translations: Delambre’s Finding (1820) 181 contents vii 9.4 Primary versus Accessory Causes: Venturi’s Explanation (1820) 184 9.5 Galileo’s Confession: The Inquisition’s Trial Summary Revealed (1821) 190 10. The Inquisition on Galileo’s Side? The Settele Affair (1820) and Beyond (1835) 193 10.1 More Unbanning of Copernicanism (1820–1835) 194 10.2 Anti-Copernican Insubordination: Olivieri’s Official Summary (1820) 198 10.3 Solomonic Injustice: 1820 versus 1616 218 11. Varieties of Torture: Demythologizing Galileo’s Trial? (1835–1867) 222 11.1 “Martyr of Science”? Victim of Torture? Brewster and Libri (1835–1841) 223 11.2 Immoral Disobedience? Dublin’s Cooper and Cincinnati’s J. Q. Adams (1838–1844) 226 11.3 Torturing People versus Torturing Texts: Marini’s Semi-Official Apologia (1850) 230 11.4 “Moral Torture”? Antihero? Biot’s and Chasles’s Circumstantialism (1858–1867) 233 11.5 Inquisition Right and Wrong? Madden’s Tortured Thinking (1863) 237 12. A Miscarriage of Justice? The Documentation of Impropriety (1867–1879) 241 12.1 A Legal Impropriety: Wohlwill’s Radical Revisionism (1870) 242 12.2 Independent Evidence: Gherardi’s Inquisition Minutes (1870) 246 12.3 Plea Bargaining out of Court: Commissary Maculano’s 1633 Letter Published (1875) 249 12.4 Tampering with the Evidence: Scartazzini on Paper Shuffling (1877–1878) 251 12.5 Inaccurate but Not Forged Documents: Gebler’s Balanced Synthesis (1879) 255 13. Galileo Right Again, Wrong Again: Hermeneutics, Epistemology, “Heresy” (1866–1928) 259 13.1 Cultural Penetration and Consolidation (1866–1928) 259 13.2 Galileo Theologically Right: Leo XIII’s Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) 263 13.3 Blaming “Realism”: Duhem’s Epistemological Explanation (1908) 266 13.4 Müller’s Anti-Galilean Synthesis and Garzend’s Un-Apologetic Concept of Heresy (1909–1912) 269 14. A Catholic Hero: Tricentennial Rehabilitation (1941–1947) 275 14.1 “Harmony of Science and Religion”: Gemelli Reverses Traditional View (1942) 275 viii contents 14.2 A Model of Religious Faith: Paschini’s Preview (1943) 280 14.3 A Noble Intellectual Sacrifice: Soccorsi Justifies Galileo’s Retraction (1947) 284 15. Secular Indictments: Brecht’s Atomic Bomb and Koestler’s Two Cultures (1947–1959) 295 15.1 Galileo’s Social Betrayal: Brecht’s Historical Fiction (1947/1955) 296 15.2 Galileo’s Blame for “Science versus Religion”: Koestler’s Fictional History (1959) 306 16. History on Trial: The Paschini Affair (1941–1979) 318 16.1 Silencing a Historian: Paschini’s Letters (1941–1946) 318 16.2 “Rehabilitating” a Historian: The Pontifical Academy’s Edition of Paschini’s Galileo (1964) 326 16.3 Adulterating Historiography: Bertolla’s Recovery of the Genuine Galileo (1978) 330 17. More “Rehabilitation”: Pope John Paul II (1979–1992) 338 17.1 Admitting Wrongs versus Admitting Mistakes: The Einstein Centennial Speech (1979) 338 17.2 Rethinking versus Retrying Galileo: The Vatican Study Commission (1981–1992) 343 17.3 The “Right to Make Mistakes”: Brandmüller’s New Apology (1982/1992) 348 17.4 Undoing a Rehabilitation: Poupard’s Commission Report (1992) 350 17.5 Closing a “Case”: The Pope’s Complexity Conference Speech (1992) 353 Epilogue: Unfinished Business 359 notes 367 select bibliography 429 index 467 preface and acknowledgments I first became seriously interested in the Galileo affair in October 1980, by way of the fortuitous coincidence of two events: the Vatican announcement that a papal commission was being appointed to reexamine the affair and the publication of my Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. That book was an analysis of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632), the work that triggered his condemnation in 1633, and so I felt able to make a con- tribution. However, I knew little about the facts of the trial, and to fill that lacuna I decided to master the relevant documents; thus I produced The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (1989). Moreover, my earlier work ana- lyzed Galileo’s Dialogue from the point of view of logic and scientific methodology, but to better relate it to the trial I needed a more down-to- earth analysis; so I created Galileo on the World Systems: A New Abridged Trans- lation and Guide (1997). Next, I wanted a firmer grasp of the history of the various interpretations and evaluations of the trial, in order to avoid their limitations and utilize their insights; thus the present book came into being. With these three foundations, the last remaining step will be to work out my own historical and critical account. This book is a survey of the Galileo affair from the time of his condem- nation by the Inquisition in 1633 to his alleged rehabilitation by Pope John Paul II in 1992. A key recurring question has been whether, how, and why the condemnation was right or wrong, and that is what the title Retrying Galileo is meant to convey. The survey is introductory in the sense that it contrasts to both a narrative history and a critical assessment: it has ele- ments of both but aims to perform the more fundamental task of present- ing the primary sources, historical facts, and controversial issues. Moreover, the survey is document-based in the sense that it stresses the texts that make up the primary sources, and the facts and issues are made to emerge from them. My threefold concern—with sources, facts, and issues—is reflected in ix x preface the chapter and section titles, most of which contain dates (at the end), ref- erences to sources (after the colon), and interpretive or evaluative issues or themes (before the colon). Although the original Galileo affair (1613–1633) is one of the most stud- ied events in Western culture, until now the subsequent Galileo affair (1633–1992) has never been surveyed in a systematic manner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Galileo in Rome Galileo in Rome
    Galileo in Rome Galileo in Rome The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Copyright © 2003 by Oxford University Press, Inc. First published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 2003 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 2004 ISBN 0-19-517758-4 (pbk) Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. The Library of Congress has catalogued the cloth edition as follows: Artigas, Mariano. Galileo in Rome : the rise and fall of a troublesome genius / Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-516598-5 1. Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642—Journeys—Italy—Rome. 2. Religion and science—History—16th century. 3. Astronomers—Italy—Biography. I. Shea, William R. II. Title. QB36.G2 A69 2003 520'.92—dc21 2003004247 Book design by planettheo.com 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper CONTENTS ACKNO W L E D G E M E N T S vii I N TRO D U C TIO N ix CHA P TER O N E Job Hunting and the Path
    [Show full text]
  • 1 '“Individualism” – a Word Unknown to Our Ancestors'
    Notes 1 ‘“Individualism” – a Word Unknown to our Ancestors’ 1 Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation, ed. H. J. Schroeder (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1941), pp. 214–17 and pp. 483–5. 2 Veronese’s trial is published in Philipp Fehl, ‘Veronese and the Inquisition: A Study of the Subject Matter of the So-Called Feast in the House of Levi’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, ser. VI, 58 (1961): 348–54; English translation in Venice: A Documentary History, ed. David Chambers and Brian Pullan (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), pp. 232–6. 3 David Rosand, Painting in Sixteenth-Century Venice: Titian, Veronese, Tintoretto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, rev. edn 1997), p. 120 is correct to ask that we now call this work The Last Supper – a request that, thus far, has gone unheeded. 4 Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C. Middlemore, 2 vols (New York: Harper & Row, 1958); for the original German, I have used Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, ed. Horst Günther (Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1989). 5 Jacob Burckhardt, Der Cicerone: eine Anleitung zum Genuss der Kunstwerke Italiens (Leipzig: Alfren Kröner, 1927), pp. 932–5. 6 Burckhardt, Civilization of the Renaissance, vol. 1, p. 143 for both citations. 7 Among the more influential works inviting a rethinking of the history of the self – from antiquity to the twentieth century – see Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). 8 Douglas Biow, Doctors, Ambassadors, Secretaries: Humanism and Professions in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Gustavplaybook.Pdf
    GustavUnder theAdolf Lily the Banners Great 11 Dirschau 1627 • Honigfelde 1629 • Breitenfeld 1631 • Alte Veste 1632 • Lützen 1632 PLAY BOOK Table of Contents All Scenarios .................................................................. 2 Dramatis Personae.................................................. 36 Polish Wars Special Rules.............................................. 4 Swedish Kings and Queens .................................... 37 Dirschau / Tczew ............................................................ 5 The Swedish-Polish Wars of the 17th Centure ...... 38 Honingfelde / Trzciano................................................... 9 Polish Army of the 1620s ....................................... 38 Breitenfeld ...................................................................... 12 The Swedish Army of Gustav Adolf ...................... 38 Alte Veste ....................................................................... 20 Game Tactics III ............................................................. 41 Lützen .......................................................................... 26 Bibliography ................................................................... 44 Edgehill Variant .............................................................. 33 Counterscans .................................................................. 45 Historical Notes .............................................................. 36 Charts and Tables ........................................................... 48 GMT Games, LLC 0602
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Peter Mclaughlin the Question of the Authenticity of the Mechanical
    Draft: occasionally updated Peter McLaughlin The Question of the Authenticity of the Mechanical Problems Sept. 30, 2013 Until the nineteenth century there was little doubt among scholars as to the authenticity of the Aristotelian Mechanical Problems. There were some doubters among the Renaissance humanists, but theirs were general doubts about the authenticity of a large class of writings, 1 not doubts based on the individual characteristics of this particular work. Some Humanists distrusted any text that hadn’t been passed by the Arabs to the Latin West in the High Middle Ages. However, by the end of the 18th century after Euler and Lagrange, the Mechanical Problems had ceased to be read as part of science and had become the object of history of science; and there the reading of the text becomes quite different from the Renaissance 2 readings. In his Histoire des mathématiques J.E. Montucla (1797) dismisses the Mechanical Problems with such epithets as “entirely false,” “completely ridiculous,” and “puerile.” William Whewell remarks in the History of the Inductive Sciences3 that “in scarcely any one instance are the answers, which Aristotle gives to his questions, of any value.” Neither of them, however, cast doubt on the authenticity of the work. Abraham Kaestner’s Geschichte der Mathematik (1796–1800) mentions doubts – but does not share them.4 Serious doubts about the authenticity of the Mechanical Problems as an individual work seem to be more a consequence of the disciplinary constitution of classical philology, particularly in nineteenth-century Germany. Some time between about 1830 and 1870, the opinion of most philologists shifted from acceptance to denial of the authenticity of the 5 Mechanical Problems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wallenstein Portrait Gallery
    THE WALLENSTEIN PORTRAIT GALLERY IN THE CHEB MUSEUM A Catalogue of the Permanent Exhibition Cheb 1999 CONTENTS Introduction 5 Eva Dittertová The Wallenstein tradition at the Cheb Museum 7 Eva Dittertová Foreword to the opening of the exhibition, July 27th 1998 8 Danuta Učníková The Wallensteins 10 Stanislav Kasík The family portrait gallery 19 Pavel Blattný Notes on the choice and ordering of the paintings 23 Pavel Blattný The catalogue 25 Pavel Blattný Appendices: The 1749 inventory of paintings from Mnichovo Hradiště château 60 Specialist terms 62 Pavel Blattný Analogies, models, variations 65 Pavel Blattný Lucas van Valckenborch 73 Pavel Blattný Frans Luycx 74 Pavel Blattný 3 INTRODUCTION Eva Dittertová The departure point for the creation of this catalogue was the thesis completed by Pavel Blattný for the Institute of Art History of the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University, Prague, in 1997. His theme was somewhat wider, of course, being concerned with the problematique of the development of the representa- tive, noble portrait in full length in Central Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the family gallery of forebears. The Wallenstein Collection served in this thesis as an example of the complex problems that such galleries of family forebears present in terms of Baroque historicism in Bohemia. The first demonstrable Wallenstein „family gallery“ is mentioned at Duchcov in 1731, the second at Mnichovo Hradiště in 1749; the latter ran to 16 pictures, and it is interesting that of the rich choices available among the members of the Wallenstein family, it covers virtually the same range as the Cheb collection (see the 1749 inventory from Mnichovo Hradiště).
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title The anthropology of incommensurability Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3vx742f4 Journal Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21(2) ISSN 0039-3681 Author Biagioli, M Publication Date 1990 DOI 10.1016/0039-3681(90)90022-Z Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California MARIO BIAGIOLP’ THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF INCOMMENSURABILITY I. Incommensurability and Sterility SINCE IT entered the discourse of history and philosophy of science with Feyerabend’s “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism” and Kuhn’s The Structure of Scient$c Revolutions, the notion of incommensurability has problematized the debate on processes of theory-choice.’ According to Kuhn, two scientific paradigms competing for the explanation of roughly the same set of natural phenomena may not share a global linguistic common denominator. As a result, the possibility of scientific communication and dialogue cannot be taken for granted and the process of theory choice can no longer be reduced to the simple picture presented, for example, by the logical empiricists. By analyzing the dialogue (or rather the lack of it) between Galileo and the Tuscan Aristotelians during the debate on buoyancy in 1611-1613, I want to argue that incommensurability between competing paradigms is not just an unfortunate problem of linguistic communication, but it plays an important role in the process of scientific change and paradigm-speciation. The breakdown of communication during the
    [Show full text]
  • CHARLESWORTH, J.H. — the Pesharim and Qumran His- Tory
    119 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2005 120 As to the hermeneutical matter it is argued that ‘pesher' refers to a type of interpretation which is best characterized as ‘fulfillment exegesis'. There is no discussion of other aspects of this type of interpretation, such as the modes of it and the question of the techniques involved (see, e.g., M. Horgan, Pesharim, pp. 244-247). In the main section of the book, first a synopsis of Qumran history is given (pp. 25-58) in which the author deals with several debated issues and uncertainties in a sound and balanced way. This is followed by chapters about the pesharim and Qumran history, the dat- ing of the pesharim, and the issue of historical allusions in the pesharim, the last of which is central to the book. Since the interpretations in the pesharim are presented in a camou- flaged way, and therefore are difficult for ‘outsiders’ to understand, the interpretation of these ‘interpretations' (pesharim) is not an easy matter. It is in a sense the decod- ing of a language full of veiled names and expressions. One therefore can only agree with the following statement, ‘The historical data mirrored in the pesharim can be recovered and understood only within a balance of delicate possibilities and probabilities' (p. 116). The pesharim, dated roughly speaking to the first half of the first century BCE, allude to persons and groups in Judah of the time, and to persons and groups outside Judah. One can agree that, e.g., the ‘Seekers-after-smooth-things' as well as ‘Ephraim' are a sobriquet for the Pharisees, but one won- ders whether Pesher Isaiah-a (4QpIsa-a [4Q161) is one of the sources which refers to king Jonathan (Alexander Jannaeus), because this pesher does not offer a clear reference to this king.
    [Show full text]
  • Paolo Sarpi E Hugo Grotius: Un Dialogo Mancato?
    2019 Isonomia – Storica Rivista online di Filosofia Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo Paolo Sarpi e Hugo Grotius: un dialogo mancato? Alcune osservazioni su sovranità, jus circa sacra e fundamentalia fidei * Gregorio Baldin Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia [email protected] Abstract Hugo Grotius’ correspondence names frequently Paolo Sarpi. Grotius knew some of Sarpi’s texts, but his discovery of the Venetian friar dates back to the late 1620s, when he had already written his most important philosophico- political works. Nevertheless, some of Grotius’ texts, in particular the De Imperio Summarum Potestarum circa Sacra (written between 1614 and 1617), show significant analogies with Sarpi’s ideas. To understand these analogies, it is necessary to glance at the political and cultural milieu of the early 17 th -century Europe, when important political and religious events happened. The political and religious scenarios of the Republic of Venice and the United Provinces let us understand the reasons for some of the similarities between the writings of Sarpi and that of Grotius, but they also explain the reasons of their different orientations about the Synod of Dordrecht. However, Grotius and Sarpi evidently agree on some important topics, like irenicism, and the opposition to dogmatic disputes, but they especially share a particular concept of sovereignty, and of the jus circa sacra which must pertain to sovereign authority. Keywords : Hugo Grotius, Paolo Sarpi, sovereignty. * This article is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (GA n. 725883 EarlyModernCosmology). Gregorio Baldin “Paolo Sarpi e Hugo Grotius: un dialogo mancato? Alcune osservazioni su sovranità, jus circa sacra e fundamentalia fidei ” © 2019 Isonomia, Rivista online di Filosofia – Storica – ISSN 2037-4348 Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo http://isonomia.uniurb.it/storica 2 GREGORIO BALDIN 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of North Carolina at Asheville “A
    The University of North Carolina at Asheville “A Great Event, and Even Greater for its Consequences:” Re-examining the Metanarrative of the Galileo Affair A Senior Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of History in Candidacy for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in History by William Voit Asheville, North Carolina 21 November, 2003 2 “I urge theologians, scientists, and historians, motivated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, to deepen an examination of the Galileo case, and in a loyal recognition of errors, from whatsoever side they come, put an end to the mistrust to which this affair still gives rise in many minds.” 1 On November 10, 1979, Pope John Paul II spoke these words to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. 2 In this address, he attempted to mend wounds opened 350 years before by the famous trial of Galileo Galilei, an incident that has come to be known as the Galileo Affair. Galileo’s life and his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church are often cited as the prime example in the metanarrative, or important historical theme, of the “science versus faith” conflict in modern civilization. However, in the attempt to force Galileo into this framework, the personal religious statements of the eminent scientist are often ignored. In order to gain a complete understanding of Galileo’s role in the metanarratives of the early modern age, one must first examine the historiographical data about Galileo, and then follow the development of his relationship with the Church throughout his life. 3 By examining the religious statements of Galileo and his interaction with the Church, one will discover that the Galileo Affair speaks less about the conflict between faith and science, and more about the conflict within a faith, a conflict over scriptural interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kada Je Bartol Kašić Počeo I Završio Svoj Prijevod Biblije Na Hrvatski
    SLOVO, sv. 56-57 (2006-’07), 559-570, Zagreb 2008. UDK: 22(=862)”16” WHEN DID BARTOL KAŠIĆ COMMENCE AND COMPLETE HIS TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE INTO CROATIAN? Francis J. THOMSON, Antwerp The second of the two decrees on Scripture and Tradition adopted at the fourth session of the Council of Trent on 8 April 1546 stated that of all the Latin versions in circulation the Vulgate because of its centuries-old use by the Church in public services, sermons, exegesis and disputations was to be considered the authoritative one and specifi cally insisted that future editions of the Vulgate should be corrected.1 In their letter of 26 April to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (1520-1589) the Council legates reported that the Council had requested that the task of revision be entrusted to the Pope2 and in his reply the Cardinal very correctly pointed out the diffi culties involved and called it una impresa troppo larga et troppo indeterminata.3 It was not until 1569, six years after the work of the Council had fi nally come to an end with the twenty-fi fth and fi nal session on 3-4 December 1563, that the commission to revise the text was formed and in November 1588 the revised text was submitted to Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), who was so displeased with the result that he reworked it, restoring many of the previous readings. The resultant text published in April 1590 left so much to be desired that on 5 September 1590, nine days after the Pope’s death on 27 August, the College of Cardinals forbade all further sales and withdrew as many copies as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mystery of Fr-Bn Copte 13 and the “Codex St.-Louis”: When Was a Coptic Manuscript First Brought to Europe in “Modern” Times?
    Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004) 5–23 THE MYSTERY OF FR-BN COPTE 13 AND THE “CODEX ST.-LOUIS”: WHEN WAS A COPTIC MANUSCRIPT FIRST BROUGHT TO EUROPE IN “MODERN” TIMES? BY STEPHEN EMMEL The present investigation seeks to clarify statements in the secondary Coptological literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries con- cerning the existence of a “Codex St.-Louis,”1 that is to say, a Coptic manuscript supposedly brought to Paris by Louis IX at the end of the Sixth Crusade in 1254.2 The Objects of Investigation (1) Bibliothèque Nationale de France (FR-BN), manuscript Copte 13. A beautifully illustrated Tetraevangelium (the four Gospels) in Bohairic Coptic, copied and illuminated between 1178 and 1180 by Michael, 1 So called by René-Georges Coquin in correspondence between us in the early 1990s. 2 Most of the basic research for this investigation was done a little over a decade ago, and I now take the occasion of the Eighth International Congress of Coptic Studies (Paris, June/July 2004, with an accompanying exhibition titled “Pages d’une autre Égypte: les manuscrits des Coptes” planned by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France to include the manuscript in question, Copte 13) to report it. I owe special debts of gratitude for assis- tance of one sort and another to Anne Boud’hors, Jacques Debergh, Michel Garel, Iris Hinerasky, and Bentley Layton. To Dr. Boud’hors I am indebted for the following obser- vation (made in a letter dated 21 March 1991), which eventually altered the course of my thinking on this topic decisively: “Finalement je me demande si tout cela n’est pas une légende, et si ce manuscrit [le “Codex St.-Louis”] n’est pas le Copte 13 (qui aurait pu passer par l’Oratoire?).
    [Show full text]
  • The Magnificent Interior
    The Magnificent Interior Emotion, Gender, and Household in the Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici Karen J. Burch Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Royal Holloway, University of London Department of History September 2019 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Karen Burch, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, it is clearly stated. Signed: Dated: 2 Abstract Though Lorenzo de’ Medici (1449-1492) is one of the most well- studied Florentine figures in history, previous studies have almost exclusively focused on his political life and his contributions as an art patron. Few historians have given time to his emotional life, his relationships with the members of his household, or the ways in which he understood himself as a Medici man. The neglect of this crucial facet of the human experience fails to challenge previous understandings of Lorenzo’s life. This thesis is meant to be a corrective to earlier work in Laurentian history. I approach Lorenzo’s life from a standpoint which incorporates the methodologies of emotions history, gender history, household history, and the history of sexuality. By making a close study of a variety of sources, including letters, poetry, and artwork, I will seek to create a new portrait of Lorenzo which explores his internal life. This, I believe, will give greater context to the decisions and behaviours which shaped his political and artistic career. Additionally, by exploring Lorenzo’s inner life, we will come to a deeper understanding of the ways in which masculinity, sexuality, and household relationships shaped the lives of Florentine men.
    [Show full text]