Notes

Chapter 1 Introduction

Avoiding Myths and Muddles

1. Voltaire (1877–83), 12:249; Koestler (1964).
2. Einstein (1954), 271; Hawking (1988), 179; (2002), p. xvii.
3. Gingerich (1982), 133; for further details, documentation, and references, see Finocchiaro (1980), 103–66; (1997), 335–56; (2014a), 259–80.
4. See, for example, Finocchiaro (1980), 180–223, 343–412; (2010), 65–96, 229–50, 277–90; (2014a), 243–80; and Chapters 6 and 10, this volume.
5. See, for example, Finocchiaro (1980), 114–15; (2010), 121–34; (2011); (2014a), 259–64; and Chapters 3 and 10, this volume.
6. See, for example, Finocchiaro (1980), 145–79; (1997), 47–69, 335-56; (2010), pp. xiii–xliii, 243–48, 277–90; (2014a), 259–80; and Chapters 8 and 10, this volume.
7. Biagioli (1993, 2006); Finocchiaro (2013).
8. Cf. Ranke (1841), 2:98–125, especially 116–19; Pastor (1898–1953), 28:271–321; Redondi (1987), 227–32; Miller (2008).
9. Here, my account relies primarily on Masini (1621), and to a lesser extent also on Scaglia (1616), Beretta (1998, 1999), and Mayer (2013, 2014, 2015).
10. Masini (1621), 16–17.
11. Masini (1621), 17–18.
12. Masini (1621), 166–7.
13. Masini (1621), 188.

Chapter 2 When the Earth Stood Still

1. Galilei (1890–1909), 2:205–55; see also Cohen (1960), Kuhn (1957), Lindberg (1992), and Toulmin and Goodfield (1961).
2. This diagram is adapted from Kuhn (1957), 31–6, and Harris and Levey (1975), 883.

Chapter 3 The Copernican Controversy (1543–1609)

1. For more details and references, see Finocchiaro (1980), 8-12; (1985); (1997), 306–8; (2010), 144 n. 33.
2. Cf. Finocchiaro (2002b).
3. For example, in his first book, which he sent to Galileo as a gift, Kepler explained why there were exactly six planets in the Copernican system and why their orbital sizes followed the sequence they did. The explanation was based on the idea that the planetary orbits could be identified with the six spheres that can be circumscribed around the five regular polyhedrons (also called Platonic solids), and on the geometrical fact that there are five and only five such solids. See, for example, Dreyer (1953), 373–6; Bucciantini (2003), 3–22.
4. Galilei (1960), 97; Copernicus (1992), 125–6.
5. Galilei (1890–1909), 2:223.
6. Galilei (1890–1909), 1:304–7.
7. See, respectively, Galilei (2008), 97–9, 209.

Chapter 4 Re-assessing Copernicanism (1609–1616)

1. This diagram is taken from Palmieri (2001), 110.
2. Galilei (2008), 46.
3. Drake (1957), 24; (1983), 14; Van Helden (1989), 31.
4. Galilei (2008), 60.
5. Galilei (1890–1909), 3:46; cf. Galilei 2008, 83. I thank David Wootton for bringing this evidence to my attention, although, if I understand him correctly, he (Wootton 2010) wants to interpret it as somehow strengthening Galileo’s commitment to Copernicanism.
6. Galilei (1890–1909), 11:11–12.
7. Galilei (1890–1909), 11:11–12.
8. Galilei (1890–1909), 11:11–12.
9. Galilei 1890–1909, 11:344.
10. In Reeves and Van Helden (2010), 296.
11. Drake (1983), p. xix, 133–5.
12. Cf. Reeves and Van Helden (2010), 258–65.
13. Galilei (1890–1909), 12:34–5.
14. In Finocchiaro (1989), 133.
15. Galilei (2008), 111; Finocchiaro (1989), 88; (2014b), 49.
16. Galilei (2008), 110; Finocchiaro (1989), 88; (2014b), 49.
17. Galilei (2008), 111; Finocchiaro (1989), 88–9; (2014b), 49.
18. Galilei (2008), 112; Finocchiaro (1989), 89; (2014b), 50.
19. Galilei (2008), 113; Finocchiaro (1989), 90; (2014b), 51.
20. Galilei (2008), 114; Finocchiaro (1989), 91; (2014b), 51–2.
21. Cf. Blackwell (1991), 23.
22. Guerrini (2009), 47–70.
23. Foscarini (1615), 19.
24. Foscarini (1615), 29–30.
25. Foscarini (1615), 30–1.
26. Foscarini (1615), 34.
27. Foscarini (1615), 35.
28. Boaga (1990), 194.
29. Galilei (2008), 113; Finocchiaro (1989), 90; (2014b), 51.
30. Galilei (2008), 115; Finocchiaro (1989), 92; (2014b), 53.
31. Galilei (2008), 119; Finocchiaro (1989), 96; (2014b), 56.
32. Galilei (2008), 120; Finocchiaro (1989), 96; (2014b), 57.
33. Galilei (2008), 136; Finocchiaro (1989), 110; (2014b), 70.
34. Galilei (2008), 140; Finocchiaro (1989), 114; (2014b), 73.
35. Galilei (2008), 140; Finocchiaro (1989), 114; (2014b), 73.
36. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 2, chapter 9, as translated in Finocchiaro (1989), 95; (2014b), 55; Galilei (2008), 118.
37. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 1, chapter 21, as translated in Finocchiaro (1989), 101; (2014b), 61; Galilei (2008), 126.
38. For more details and references, see Finocchiaro (2010), 87–9.

Chapter 5 The Earlier Inquisition Proceedings (1615–1616)

1. Galilei (1890–1909), 12:226–27.
2. The report also stated that some of Galileo’s wordings in his critical remarks were excessively but unnecessarily negative and harsh. And here it is important to note that there exist two versions of Galileo’s letter to Castelli, one harshly worded and another milder one. The Inquisition consultant examined the harsher one, and judged it essentially unobjectionable, despite some minor flaws in its tone. And Galileo himself had some inklings that the harshly worded version was unnecessarily offensive, and revised it by toning down some of its language. These issues have recently received considerable attention, when a previously unknown manuscript was discovered in the archives of the Royal Society in London; it seems to be the original letter to Castelli in Galileo’s own handwriting, with the harsh wordings deleted and corrected into milder ones. See Galilei (1890–1909), 19:305; Finocchiaro (1989), 135–6; Pesce (1992); (2008), 29–53; Camerota, Giudice, and Ricciardo (2018); Abbott (2018); and Anonymous (2018).
3. Finocchiaro (1989), 147; (2014b), 102.
4. Finocchiaro (1989), 147–8; (2014b), 102–3; Galilei (2008), 175–6.
5. For this particular thesis, especially incisive is the analysis in Speller (2008), 96–8.
6. Finocchiaro (1989), 148–50; (2014b), 103–4; Galilei (2008), 176–8.
7. Finocchiaro (1989), 200–2.
8. Finocchiaro (1989), 148; (2014b), 103.
9. Finocchiaro (1989), 153; (2014b), 105; Galilei (2008), 178.
10. On this particular point, see Kelly (2015); (2016).

Chapter 6 The Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632)

1. As previously noted, for more details and references on this argument, see Finocchiaro (1980), 8-12; (1985); (1997), 306-8; (2010), 144 n. 33.
2. For documentation of this interpretation and criticism of alternatives, see Finocchiaro (1980), 16–18, 76–8; Drake (1986); MacLachlan (1990); Pitt (1992), 78–109; and Chapter 4, this volume.
3. Galilei (1997), 104.
4. Finocchiaro (1989), 184.
5. This diagram is taken from Smith (1985), 544; cf. Galilei (1953), 348.
6. This diagram is adapted from Smith (1985), 545.
7. Galilei (1997), 235, 237; cf. Galilei (1953), 328, 335.
8. This is adapted, with some obvious additions, from Galileo’s Dialogue (Galilei (1953), 426; (1997), 291). I thank Mark Attorri for suggesting these additions, as well as for many other valuable comments.
9. For example, in Galilei (1953), 352.
10. Galilei (1953), 60.
11. Galilei (1890–1909), 7:292–3; cf. Galilei (1953), 268; Finocchiaro (1997), 365.
12. Galilei (1997), 147; cf. Galilei (1953), 127.
13. Galilei (1997), 233; cf. Galilei (1890–1909), 7:355. Here, Galileo’s meaning will be completely missed if one relies on Drake’s English translation (Galilei (1953), 327) or that by Davie (Galilei (2012), 307); even Strauss, who gets the German translation right (Galilei (1982), 342), misses the essential point in his comment (Galilei (1982), 551 n. 34); cf. Finocchiaro (1980), 230–1, 244.
14. Galilei (1997), 284; cf. Galilei (1953), 420.

Chapter 7 The Inquisition Trial (1632–1633)

1. Here, I am following in part the interpretation in Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1981).
2. Finocchiaro (1989), 218–22; (2014b), 119–22; Galilei (2008), 272–6.
3. For an elaboration of this conjecture, see Beltrán Marí (2006), 496–528.
4. For an elaboration of this conjecture, see Speller (2008), 143–60, 375–96.
5. Seghizzi, who had been the commissary in 1616, had died in 1625.
6. Finocchiaro (2005), 247; (2014b), 132–3.
7. Masini (1621), 120-51; Finocchiaro (2009).
8. Finocchiaro (1989), 287–91; (2014b), 134–8; Galilei (2008), 288–93.
9. Finocchiaro (1989), 291; (2014b), 138; Galilei (2008), 292.
10. For details, see Finocchiaro (2009), 68–74.
11. Finocchiaro (1989), 292–3; (2014b), 138–9; Galilei (2008), 293–4.
12. Finocchiaro (1989), 292; (2014b), 139; Galilei (2008), 293.
13. Finocchiaro (1989), 292; (2014b), 139; Galilei (2008), 293.
14. For example, Genovesi (1966), 268.

Chapter 8 Becoming a Cultural Icon (1616–2016)

1. See Mayaud (1997), 52.
2. For more details and documentation, see Mayaud (1997); Heilbron (1999; 2005); Finocchiaro (2005), 126–53, 193–221.
3. For more details and documentation, see Heilbron (1999), 207–11; (2010), 362–5; McMullin (2005), 323–60; Finocchiaro (2005); (2010), pp. xx–xliii, 229–338.
4. Paschini (1964).
5. Leo XIII (1893), paragraph 18, p. 334. Cf. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 1, Chapter 21, translated in Finocchiaro (1989), 101; (2014b), 61; Galilei (2008), 126.
6. Leo XIII (1893), paragraph 18, p. 334. Cf. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 2, Chapter 9, translated in Finocchiaro (1989), 95; (2014b), 55; Galilei (2008), 118.
7. For more details and documentation, see Acloque (1982); Heilbron (1999), 208–9, 235–8, 300–2; (2005); Finocchiaro (2010), pp. xxi–xxii.
8. Galilei (1890–1909), 7:259–60; (1953), 233–4.
9. For more details and documentation, see Finocchiaro (2010), pp. xx–xxxi, 155–314.
10. Galluzzi (2000), 539.
11. For details, see Koyré (1955); Galluzzi (1977); Heilbron (2010), 359–60.
12. John Paul II (1992), section 5, paragraphs 4–5.
13. John Paul II (1992), section 7, paragraph 2.
14. Mallet du Pan (1784), 122; cf. Finocchiaro (2002a).
15. Galilei (1890–1909), 15:55–6.
16. Paschini (1943), 97; cf. Finocchiaro (2005), 280–4. In one of his unpublished writings dated 1980, Stillman Drake made a similar point; see DiCanzio (1996), 309.
17. Duhem (1908), 136; cf. Duhem (1969), 113.
18. See Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1981); Finocchiaro (2010), Chapters 3, 9, 11, and 12.
19. Rowland (2001; 2003).
20. For more details and documentation, see Finocchiaro (2005), 295–317; (2010), pp. xxxi–xxxviii, 300–1.
21. Feyerabend (1985), 164.
22. Feyerabend (1988), 129; (1993), 125.
23. Benedict XVI (2006).
25. Winfield (2008).
26. Bucciantini, Camerota, and Giudice (2011).
27. For more details and documentation, see Pagano (1984; 2009; 2010); Finocchiaro (2016; 2018); see also Chapter 5, this volume.
28. Obviously, the 2016 anniversary is merely the last episode discussed here, and not the end of the story. In fact, the August 2018 discovery of Galileo’s original letter to Castelli promises to rekindle some issues, as suggested from the attention given to it by the journal Nature. See Abbott (2018); Anonymous (2018); Camerota, Giudice, and Ricciardo (2018); and Chapter 5, note 2, this volume.

Chapter 9 Religion vs. Science?

1. Draper (1874); White (1896). For some criticism, see Lindberg and Numbers (1987); Brooke (1991), 34–7.
2. Voltaire (1877–83), 12:249; Russell (1935), 31–43; Einstein (1953), 7; Popper (1956). For more details and references, see Finocchiaro (2002b); (2005), 115–25; (2009); (2010), 293–6; (2014a), 311–14.
3. John Paul II (1979), section 6, paragraph 1.
4. John Paul II (1979), section 6, paragraph 2.
5. John Paul II (1979), section 7, paragraph 1.
6. On the non-monolithic character of the Catholic Church, see also Segre (1991), 30; Feldhay (1995); Lindberg (2003), 58; Speller (2008); and Mayer (2012), 3.
7. For similar views and additional support, see Kuhn (1977); Moore (1979), 80–103; and Numbers (1993), pp. xiv–xv.
8. Campanella (1994).
9. The French scholar Michel-Pierre Lerner deserves credit for having stressed this; see Lerner (2001), pp. xcv–c, 1–2.
10. Campanella (1622), 30; cf. Campanella (1994), 79, where the English translation misses this particular nuance.
11. Galilei (1890–1909), 12:287.
12. Campanella (1622), 50; cf. Campanella (1994), 110.
13. Campanella (1994), 65.
14. Campanella (1994), 54.
15. Campanella (1994), 65–6.
16. Campanella (1994), 54.
17. Campanella (1994), 69.
18. Campanella (1994), 57.
19. Campanella (1994), 71.
20. Campanella (1994), 74.
21. Campanella (1994), 74.
22. Campanella (1994), 76.
23. Campanella (1994), 97.
24. Campanella (1994), 98.
25. Campanella (1994), 99.
26. Campanella (1994), 122–3.
27. Cf. Finocchiaro (2005), 72–6.
28. Milton (1644), 537–8; I have modernized the spelling.
29. Voltaire (1877–83), 12:249.
30. Libri (1841), 46–7.
31. Einstein (1953), p. vii.
32. Ross (1646), 9.
33. Mallet du Pan (1784), 122.
34. Brewster (1841), 93–5.
35. Duhem (1908), 136; (1969), 113; Feyerabend (1988), 129; and cf. Chapter 8, this volume.
36. For a clarification of the difference between these two buildings, often confused even by scholars, see Shea and Artigas (2003), 30, 74, 106–7, 134–5, 179–80, 195.
37. For more details, see Berggren and Sjöstedt (1996), 19–20, 145–7.
38. “Epigrafi ed Offese,” L’Osservatore Romano, April 23, 1887.
39. For a general account of myths, see Carvalho Neto (1971); for partial applications to the relationship between science and religion, see Livingstone (2007), Numbers (2009); for partial applications to the Galileo affair, see Benítez (1999), 85–110; Finocchiaro (2002a; 2009); Lessl (1999); Segre (1998).
40. Cf. Brown (1979).
41. Beltrán Marí (1998); Benítez (1999), 85–110.

Chapter 10 A Model of Critical Thinking?

1. For one of the first elaborations of this thesis, see Butterfield (1949).
2. Newton (1999), 424; Einstein (1953), p. xiii; Hawking (1988), 179; (2002), p. xvii; Hume (1851–60), 4:521–7; (1948), 24–5; Kant (1965), 20–2; Ortega y Gasset (1956); (1958), 9–29. Cf. Finocchiaro (1980), pp. xv–xx, 92–7; (2014a), 243–5, 314–16.
3. For more details about the telescope controversy, see for example Feyerabend (1975; 1988); Ronchi (1958); Van Helden (1984; 1994).
4. For more details, see, for example, Hill (1984); Finocchiaro (2010), 97–120; Palmieri (2008).
5. Galilei (1997), 173; cf. Galilei (1953), 190.
6. Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, 167a21.
7. Hill (1984), 110–12. The truth of the matter is that Galileo was presumably embellishing a version formulated by Copernicus (On the Revolutions, I, 7; (1992), 14–15). The latter was attributing the argument to Ptolemy. But the relevant passage from Ptolemy (Almagest, I, 7; (1952), 10–12) is insufficiently clear and explicit: it is hard to determine whether he indeed had the extrusion objection in mind or was talking about terrestrial bodies being left behind if the whole Earth were moving. For further clarifications about this aspect of the question, see Palmieri (2008).
8. Galilei (1953), 373–9, 389–97; cf. Finocchiaro (2014a), 201–9.
9. Galilei (1997), 234; (2008), 242.
10. Galilei (1997), 235; (2008), 242.
11. Galilei (1997), 147–8.
12. In Finocchiaro (1989), 85; (2014b), 93–4.
13. Finocchiaro (1989), 278; (2014b), 129; Galilei (2008), 283.

Chapter 11 Some Final Thoughts

1. See, for example, Brooke (1991), 5, 8–10, 33, 42, 50–1; Brooke and Cantor (1998), pp. xi, 21, 66; Lightman (2001); Lindberg and Numbers (1986), 6, 10, 14; (2003), 3.