This article examines Galileo's confrontations with the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition in light of the rules and technicalities of inquisitorial procedure as set forth in the Corpus juris canonici, officially issued in 1582 under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII. The primary decretal governing inquisition comes from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which also established the regulations of sacramental confession and the seal of secrecy. Inquisition was intended for the prosecution of public crimes, but when it was adapted to pursuing heresy, the rights of suspects were regularly disregarded, and, rather than being charged with public crimes, they were forced to incriminate themselves, even on secret deeds and previously unuttered beliefs. When first summoned in 1616, Galileo was not questioned, but merely warned not to espouse heliocentrism. In 1632, Holy Office investigations resulted in a summons, and when he appeared in April 1633, he was interrogated without being charged. His formal trial took place on May 10, and his guilty plea of favoring heliocentrism without heretical intention triggered an automatic examination of his private beliefs under torture (in his case, threat of torture), a new procedure adopted by the Holy Office around the turn of the seventeenth century.
1 Greenblatt, Stephen, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern (New York: Norton, 2011), 255 .
2 For instance, Biagioli, Mario, Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1993); Fantoli, Annibale, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, trans. Coyne, George V., 3rd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2003); Fantoli, The Case of Galileo: A Closed Question? trans. Coyne, George V. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 2012); Finocchiaro, Maurice A., Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010); Blackwell, Richard J., Behind the Scenes at Galileo's Trial (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006); Marí, Antonio Beltrán, Talento y poder: Historia de las relaciones entre Galileo y la Iglesia católica, 2nd ed. (Pamplona: Laetoli, 2007). See also Hofstadter, Dan, The Earth Moves: Galileo and the Roman Inquisition (New York: Norton, 2009); Heilbron, J. L., Galileo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); and Wootton, David, Galileo: Watcher of the Skies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010).
3 Pagano, Sergio, I documenti Vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611–1741), Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69 (Vatican City: Archivio Secreto Vaticano, 2009) (hereafter cited as DV). Cf. Pagano's earlier collection, I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 1984). Many of the important documents are translated in English in The Trial of Galileo, 1612–1633, ed. and trans. Mayer, Thomas F. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012) (hereafter cited as TofG); also in Finocchiaro, Maurice A., The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). An abridged version of Finocchiaro's volume, with some additional documents, is The Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2014). In what follows, the translations are all by the present author; TofG is referred to only to indicate where Mayer translates the original document cited. Mayer's translations are often “literal to the point of awkwardness,” as Eatough, Geoffrey says of his own Frascatoro's Syphilis (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1984), viii, but this style can often be helpful in conveying the sense of the originals. Some documents not in DV can be found in Le opere di Galileo Galilei, ed. Favaro, Antonio, 20 vols. (Florence: G. Barbèra, 1890–1909; repr. 1929–1939) (hereafter OGG).
4 See especially del Col, Andrea, L'Inquisizione in Italia: Dal XII al XXI secolo (Milan: Mondadori, 2006); del Col, L'Inquisizione del patriarcato di Aquileia e della diocesi di Concordia: Gli atte processuali, 1557–1823 (Udine: Instituto Pio Paschini, 2009); Black, Christopher F., The Italian Inquisition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); Aron-Beller, Katherine, Jews on Trial: The Papal Inquisition in Modena, 1598–1638 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011). However, Wickersham, Jane K., Rituals of Prosecution: The Roman Inquisition and the Prosecution of Philo-Protestants in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), does have a strong emphasis on procedure.
5 Francesco Beretta, Galilée devant le Tribunal de l'Inquisition: Une relecture des sources (Ph.D. diss., Fribourg, 1998); Beretta, “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-Office,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 83, no. 3 (1999): 441–490 ; Beretta, “L'affaire Galilée et l'impasse apologétique: Réponse à une censure,” Gregorianum 84, no. 1 (2003): 169–192 . Other articles of Beretta's will be cited below.
6 Speller, Jules, Galileo's Inquisition Trial Revisited (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008).
7 Mayer, Thomas F., The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and Its Laws in the Age of Galileo (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2013) (hereafter cited as RI 1), see especially chap. 5, “Inquisition Procedure: The Holy Office's Use of Inquisitio,” 155–205; Mayer, The Roman Inquisition: On the Stage of Italy, c. 1590–1640 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) (hereafter cited as RI 2); Mayer, The Roman Inquisition: Trying Galileo (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015) (hereafter cited as RI 3). Regrettably, Mayer died before being able to put the finishing touches on his final volume, which was seen through the publishing process by Kenneth Bartlett. For Mayer's critique of Beretta, see RI 3, pp. 57–58, 254n36, and for his critique of Speller, RI 3, pp. 301–303n25.
8 See Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “The Right to Remain Silent: Before and After Joan of Arc,” Speculum 68, no. 4 (October 1993): 992–1026 , repr. in Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), essay 3. The required rules were eventually followed, once the trial began, but only after they had first been broken (p. 1001). See also Kelly, “Inquisitorial Deviations and Cover-ups: The Trials of Margaret Porete and Guiard de Cressonessart, 1308–1310,” Speculum 89, no. 4 (October 2014): 936–973 .
9 The illustration that appears on the dust jacket of Mayer's three volumes, called “The Table of Inquisition,” from the 1692 edition of Philippus van Limborch's Historia Inquisitionis, conveys the reality perfectly: the inquisitor sitting stiffly at one end of the table, facing the defendant, seated on a bench, with (on the back side of the dust jacket) the notary at the far end of the table.
10 For example, Mayer's frequent assessments of character, based on his prosopological approach to history. Another instance is Mario Biagioli's suggestion that the Holy Office's investigation of Galileo “was not the result of the pope's friendly gesture towards Galileo but was concerned with framing Galileo as carefully as possible so that nobody else would be implicated” (Galileo, Courtier, 354).
11 This principle is expressed by Innocent III in his decretals, Sicut and Tua nos, Decretales Gregorii IX ; or, Liber Extra (hereafter cited as X); Emil Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–1881) (hereafter cited as CIC), bk. 5, title 3, chaps. 33–34; vol. 2, cols. 762–763. See Kuttner, Stephan, “Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat: Problemata ex doctrina poenali decretistarum et decretalistarum a Gratiano usque ad Gregorium PP. IX,” Acta Congressus iuridici internationalis: 7. saeculo a decretalibus Gregorii 9. et 14. a Codice Iustiniano promulgatis, Romae 12–17 novembris 1934, 5 vols. (Rome: Pontificale Institutum Utriusque Iuris, 1935–1937), 3:225–246: “Ecclesia de occultis non judicat.” For canonist terminology and abbreviations, see Brundage, James A., Medieval Canon Law (London: Routledge, 1995). Citations of the text of Latin and Italian documents are edited to modern English standards of punctuation and captalization, especially in removing superfluous commas before quod/che (“that”) for restrictive clauses, and before et/e/& (“and”) for mere additives, and before sive/aut/ò (“or”) for noncontrastive cases. For instance, tenuto, e creduto is rendered as tenuto e creduto (“held and believed”).
12 In the decree Tametsi, doing away with clandestine marriages, “cui malo, cum ab Ecclesia, quae de occultis non judicat, succurri non possit, nisi efficacius aliquod remedium adhibeatur, idcirco sacri Lateranensis Concilii sub Innocentii III celebrati vestigiis inhaerendo praecipit” (the evil of which the Church, which does not judge concerning hidden matters, cannot help unless some remedy be efficaciously applied, therefore, following in the footsteps of the Lateran Council celebrated under Innocent III, [this holy Synod] commands). Quoted in Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum, et declarationum, ed. Denziger, Heinrich, rev. Schönmetzer, Adolf, 32nd ed. (Barcelona: Herder, 1963), p. 418, no. 1814.
13 Ordinary Gloss to X 2.20.37 Cum causam, s.v. de causis, Corpus juris canonici, 3 vols. (Rome, 1582) (hereafter cited as CJC), 2:736, http://digital.library.ucla.edu/canonlaw/index.html. See R. H. Helmholz, “Origins of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination: The Role of the European Ius commune,” New York University Law Review 65, no. 4 (October 1990): 962–990.
14 Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, const. 8), Qualiter et quando no. 2, X 5.1.24, CIC 2:745–747. On inquisitorial procedure see Kelly, Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West, especially essay 1: “Inquisition and the Prosecution of Heresy: Misconceptions and Abuses,” repr. of Church History 58, no. 4 (December 1989): 439–451 .
15 The method had been used for heresy cases in the diocese of Auxerre, however, beginning in 1198. See Bird, Jessalyn, “The Wheat and the Tares: Peter the Chanter's Circle and the Fama-Based Inquest Against Heresy and Criminal Sins, c. 1198–c. 1235,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Washington, DC, August 1–7, 2004), ed. Blumenthal, Uta-Renate, Pennington, Kenneth, and Larson, Atria A., Monumenta iuris canonici, series C: Subsidia, vol. 13 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2008), 763–856, esp. 806–807.
16 As even Mayer says, TofG, p. 7.
17 X 5.38.12 Omnis utriusque sexus (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, const. 21), CIC 2:887–888.
18 Guy, Bernard (Bernardus Guidonis), Practica inquisitionis heretice pravitatis, ed. Douais, Célestin (Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1886). A partial edition and French translation is given by Guillaume Mollat with Drioux, G., Manuel de l'inquisiteur, 2 vols. (Paris, 1926–1927), containing most of Part 5. Part 5 is also translated in Wakefield, Walter L. and Evans, Austin P., “Bernard Gui's Description of Heresies,” in Heresies of the High Middle Ages: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 373–445 . See the beginning of Part 5 (ed. Douais, 235–237; ed. Mollat, 1:2–9).
19 Eymeric, Nicholas, Directorium inquisitorum (1376), ed. Peña, Francisco, 2 vols. (Rome: Populus Romanus, 1578); Eymeric's text is given in vol. 1, and Peña's scholia are in vol. 2, separately paginated. One of Peña's consultants for this edition was the current assessor and commissary general of the Holy Office, and he was able to use its archive (Mayer, RI 1, p. 159). Peña published an expanded version of his edition in 1585, consulted here in the reprint of Venice: Zalterius, 1595, in which his scholia, now called commenta, are incorporated into Eymeric's text. See Borromeo, Agostino, “A proposito del Directorium inquisitorum di Nicholas Eymerich e delle sue edizioni cinquecentesche,” Critica Storica 20, no. 4 (1983): 499–547 , esp. 523; see also Peters, Edward M., “Editing Inquisitors’ Manuals in the Sixteenth Century: Francisco Peña and the Directorium inquisitorum of Nicholas Eymeric,” The Library Chronicle 40 (Winter 1974): 95–107 .
20 Peña commenting on Eymeric, part 3, title De modo interrogandi reum accusatum,1:286; scholium 19, 2:130: “Quamvis in his quae ad praxim attinent nihil sit nominatim a jure cautum—ea enim judicum prudentiae reliqui solent, et plurimum in his etiam consuetudo singularum inquisitionum sibi vendicat—nihilominus tamen . . . quo ordine . . . haec sint gerenda . . . breviter indicabimus” (Even though in these matters that pertain to practice there is nothing specifically laid down by law—for they are usually left to the prudence of the judges, and also for the most part the custom of individual inquisitorial centers holds sway—nevertheless, we will briefly indicate the order in which they are to be done).
21 Mayer, RI 1, pp. 181–184.
22 Farinacci, Prospero, Tractatus de haeresi (Lyons, 1650), title 185, no. 139, p. 148. For Farinacci, who was the secular fiscal procurator (prosecutor) in Rome, see Del Re, Niccolò, “Prospero Farinacci, giureconsulto romano (1544–1618),” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 98 (1975): 135–220 ; cf. Mayer, RI 1, pp. 159–160 and 333–334nn33–37, and Wickersham, Rituals, 16–17. This treatise, finished in 1614 and first printed in 1616 (Del Re, “Prospero Farinacci,” 172–184), was the last part (title 18) of Farinacci's vast work, Praxis et theorica criminalis (or Variae quaestiones et communes opiniones criminales).
23 Mayer, RI 1, p. 182.
24 Peña, Introductio sive Praxis inquisitorum (hereafter cited as Praxis inquisitorum), submitted to the Holy Office for review in 1605, but not printed in Peña's lifetime; see Borromeo, “A proposito,” 518. It was eventually published in a later edition of Cesare Carena's Tractatus de Officio Sanctissimae Inquisitionis (1636): according to Borromeo, it first appeared in the 5th edition, Cremona, 1655, but Peters, “Editing,” 106n17, says it is in the edition of Cremona, 1641. Farinacci's annotations appear in a manuscript version of Peña's Praxis inquisitorum, Vatican Barb. Lat. 1367, which is the version of the work cited here (following Mayer).
25 Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk. 2, chap. 17, fol. 124v: “Et non dicatur nisi quod in denunciatione et depositionibus testium continetur, quia non licet dicere mendacium ad veritatem eruendam” (And he is not to tell anything except what is in the denunciation and the depositions of witnesses, because it is not allowed to tell a lie in order to draw out the truth).
26 Note by Farinacci to Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, 2.17, fol. 124v: “Caveant judices sub mendacio et falsa assertione querere a reis extorquere confessiones. Nam, ultra quod male faciunt, confessiones hujusmodi tanquam per suggestionem ex[t]ortae confitentibus non nocent.” Prosperi, Adriano, Tribunali della coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori, missionarii (Turin: Einaudi, 1996), 207 , makes a mistake similar to Mayer's when speaking of the periculum suggestionis, taking it to mean that the inquisitor was not to suggest answers from the suspect.
27 See Boniface VIII's decree, Postquam, Liber Sextus (1298) 5.1.1 (CIC, 2:1069), and the Ordinary Gloss to it by John Andrew (CJC 3:1:609–610), and also the commentary by Archdeacon Guy of Baisio (ca. 1306), given in Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “Inquisition, Public Fame, and Confession: General Rules and English Practice,” in The Culture of Inquisition in Medieval England, ed. Flannery, Mary and Walter, Katie (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2013), 8–29 , esp. 12.
28 Mayer, RI 1, p. 183.
29 Black, Italian Inquisition, 73.
30 Masini, Eliseo, Sacro Arsenale; overo, Prattica dell'Officio della Santa Inquisizione (Genoa: Pavoni, 1621), part 9 (advice for inquisitors), question 108, pp. 294–295.
31 Ibid., q. 153, p. 306; cited and translated by Black, Italian Inquisition, 75. Note that when Black speaks of the allowability of breaking “confessional secrecy” (62, 74, cf. 73 ), the secrecy meant refers not to a penitent's own confessed and repented sins, but to sins of others that the penitent reported, which fell outside the sacramental seal. On confession, see also Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza; Brambilla, Elena, Alle origini del Sant'Ufficio: penitenze, confessione, e giustizia spirituali del Medioevo al 16 secolo (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000); Brambilla, Giustizia intollerante: Inquisizione e tribunali confessionali in Europa (secoli IV–XVIII) (Rome: Carocci, 2006).
32 Mayer, RI 1, p. 183, citing DV, no. 17, pp. 95–98; cf. TofG, no. 16, pp. 81–84.
33 I will discuss the full text below.
34 An sciat causam vocationis?
35 Kelly, “Inquisition, Public Fame, and Confession,” 11–13.
36 Guy, Practica, bk. 5, title 4, chap. 8 (ed. Douais, 284; ed. Mollat, 1:182); Eymeric, part 3, title cautela, no. 6, 1:292, approved by Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk, 2, chap. 21, fol. 142v, and other contemporary commentators. See Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “Torture in Canon Law and Church Tribunals: From Gratian to Galileo,” Catholic Historical Review 101, no. 4 (Autumn 2015): 754–793 , esp. 787.
37 Masini, Sacro Arsenale, part 6 (torture), 146–147: “Del modo di dar la corda al reo che ricusa di rispondere, ò non vuole precisamente rispondere in giudicio” (Of the way to give the rope to a suspect who refuses to respond, or respond precisely, in court). If he says to the judges, “Se voi me volete dar la corda, datemi prima le mie difese, e poi fate quei che vi pare” (If you wish to give me the cord, first give me my defenses, and then do what you will), tell him “quod in hujusmodi casibus copiae non dantur, nec defensiones” (that in such cases a copy [of the charges and testimony] is not given, nor are defenses). Torture of non-responsive suspects in pre-trial interrogations is approved by Bernard Guy, Practica, bk. 5, title 4, chap. 8 (ed. Douais, 284; ed. Mollat, 1:182), and also by Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi, title 185, no. 139, p. 148, and the authorities he cites.
38 Masini, Sacro Arsenale, part 4 (dealing with the “repetitive” and defensive aspects of the trial), pp. 97–98: he says here that defenses are always given before any torture is inflicted. Perhaps it was from this statement that Italo Mereu, Storia dell'intolleranza in Europa, 6th ed. (Milan: Bompiani, 2000), 301 concluded that if the inquisitor wished to move from a preliminary examination to a rigorous examination under torture, he would issue an interlocutory sentence offering the suspect a chance to defend himself. (Rather, he should say, the inquisitor would begin the trial by leveling charges and “giving defenses.”)
39 Censure of 24 February 1616, DV, no. 19, pp. 42–44; TofG, no. 22, pp. 91–92.
40 Garzend, Léon, L'Inquisition et l'Hérésie: Distinction de l'Hérésie Théologique et de l'Hérésie Inquisitoriale: a Propos de l'Affaire Galilée (imprimatur 30 December 1912; Paris:Desclée, 1913), as is evident in his title. He first establishes the narrow view of heresy in nineteenth-century theologians (chap. 4), next the broad inquisitorial view (chaps. 5–7), then the narrow view among theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (chap. 8), and he concludes that the sentence against Galileo as a heretic, even though the pope therein condemned Copernicanism as heresy, did not establish it as a “real” heresy against the Catholic faith (chap. 9, esp. pp. 478–479). Cf. Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 272–274.
41 Beretta, “L'affaire Galilée,” 173.
42 Monition and precept, 26 February 1616, DV, no. 21, pp. 45–46; TofG, no. 24, pp. 93–94.
43 Mayer, RI 3, chap. 3 “The Precept of 26 February 1616,” pp. 53–79; chap. 4 “The Legal Meaning of 1616: The Jurisprudence and Use of Admonitions and Precepts,” pp. 80–120.
44 See Fantoli, Annibale, “The Disputed Injunction and Its Role in Galileo's Trial,” in The Church and Galileo, ed. McMullin, Ernan (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 117–149 , arguing especially (122–124) against Beretta, “Le process de Galilée,” 476–480, and Beretta, “Le Siège Apostolique et l'affaire Galilée: Relectures romaines d'une condamnation célèbre,” Roma Moderna e Contemporanea 7, no. 3 (September–December 1999): 421–461. See also Mayer, RI 3, pp. 58–59.
45 Sentence of 22 June 1633, DV, no. 114, pp. 161–162; TofG, no. 81, pp. 190–191.
46 Decree of the Index, 5 March 1616, DV, no. 22, pp. 46–47; TofG, no. 28, pp. 98–100; Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 148–150.
47 Sentence, DV, p. 162; TofG, p. 191.
48 Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 200–202, gives the decree of 15 May 1620 correcting Copernicus and allowing its publication. See Speller, Galileo's Inquisition Trial, 112–113.
49 Mayer, RI 3, p. 219.
50 Bellarmine to Galileo, 26 May 1616, DV, no. 41, p. 76; TofG, no. 31, pp. 103–104.
51 Mayer, TofG, no. 38, p. 118.
52 Niccolini to the Florentine secretary of state, 5 September 1632, OGG, 14:383–385: “In queste materie del Santo Ufizio non si faceva altro che censurare, e poi chiamare a disdirsi.” The letter is translated by Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 229–232. See Mayer, RI 3, pp. 150–151.
53 Ibid., “Non par dunque a V. Santità che egli habbia a sapere antecedentemente le difficultà e le opposittioni o le censure che si fanno alla sua opera, e quel che dà fastidio al Santo Ufizio?”
54 Ibid., “Il Santo Ufizio . . . non fa queste cose et non camina per questa via, nè si danno mai a nessuno queste cose antecedentemente, nè s'usa.”
56 Peña on Eymeric, part 3, title De defensionibus reorum, scholium 34, 2:145–146, citing Justinian's Digest, 1.1.3 Ut vim, and Clem. 2.11.2 Pastoralis, sec. Ceterum defectus (CIC, 2:1153). The latter reads: “Nec . . . defensionis (que a jure provenit naturali) facultas adimi valuisset, cum illa imperatori tollere non licuerit que juris naturalis exsistunt” (Nor would it be valid for the opportunity of defense, which comes from natural law, to be removed, since even an emperor is not allowed to take away what exists by natural law).
57 Congregation report on Galileo's book, August/September 1632, DV, no. 25, pp. 49–57; TofG, no. 38, pp. 118–120 (excerpts); Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 218–222 (complete, except for the correspondence of the censor; DV, pp. 53–57).
58 Decree of the Holy Office, 23 September 1632, DV, no. 130, pp. 187–187; TofG, no. 39, pp. 121–122. The original of the decree has suffered deterioration since it was first published by Silvestro Gherardi in 1870, and the text is based in part solely on his transcription.
59 Holy Office to the inquisitor of Florence, 25 September 1632, TofG, no. 40A, pp. 122–123, original in Cioni, Michele, I documenti Galileiani del S. Ufficio di Firenze (Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1908; repr. Florence: Pagnini, 1996), no. 18, pp. 24–25 .
60 Galileo's first pre-trial session, 12 April 1633, DV, no. 37, pp. 66–72; TofG, no. 65, pp. 155–162: “vocatus, comparuit . . . personaliter.” For an edition with unexpanded abbreviations, see OGG, no. 24.31, 19:336–342.
61 Eymeric, Directorium, part 3, title Modus interrogandi reum accusatum, 1:286, sec. 74: “juratus . . . tam de se quam de aliis dicere veritatem.” Peña on Eymeric, bk. 3, scholium 21, 2:133: “Hujus autem juramenti formula vulgo talis esse solet: ‘Juro per Deum et crucem et sacrosancta quatuor Evangelia manibus propriis tacta, me dicturum veritatem: quod si fecero, Deus me adjuvet; sin autem contra, Deus me condemnet.’” Peña traces the de se et aliis formula to the council of Béziers (1246), and says it is also in the bull Inter cunctas of Martin V (1418), which he published in a companion volume, Literae apostolicae diversorum Romanorum pontificum pro Officio Sanctissimae Inquisitionis (Rome: Populus Romanus, 1579), pp. 743–751 ; but in fact the formula does not appear there, even though the bull requires suspects to respond to questions about their beliefs. When Peña describes the sermo generalis in scholium 11 on Eymeric's part 3 (2:122), he cites the council of Bourges again as telling the inquisitors to order “ut omnes qui se vel alios sciverint in crimine labis hæreticæ deliquisse compareant coram vobis veritatem dicturi” (that all who know themselves or others to have sinned in the crime of heretical guilt to appear before you to tell the truth). In other words, it concerns those who come forward to confess their own heresy as well as the heresy of others.
62 Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 14, 2:125: “Cum hodie accusantis persona raro admittatur, publicus est constitutus minister, quem vulgo fiscalem dicimus, qui personam accusatoris subit, et reos accusat; nec se subscribit ad poenam talionis aut ad alias quas falsi accusatores pati solent” (Since these days an accuser is rarely admitted, a public minister has been appointed, whom we commonly call the fisc, who undertakes the role of the accuser and accuses suspects; but he does not bind himself to the penalty of retaliation or other penalties that false accusers commonly suffer).
63 Ibid., scholium 18, 2:129: “Fiscalis petit ab inquisitore ut rei comprehendantur” (The fisc petitions from the inquisitor that the suspects be taken). For more on the fisc, see Mareu, Storia dell'intolleranza, 221–224. Beretta, Galiée devant le Tribunal, 56–57, has only a very brief account of the fisc. For Mayer's description, see RI 1, pp. 15–16, where he claims that it was a serious violation of the rules for Sincero to conduct interrogations, “precisely because of his office of prosecutor and also because he could not administer oaths” (16). But it was the judge (in this case, Maculano), who administered oaths, not the fisc.
64 Sentence against Galileo, 22 June 1633, DV, no. 114, pp. 159–165, esp. 164; TofG, no. 81, pp. 189–193, esp. 193: “Questa . . . sentenza . . . proferiamo . . . nella causa e cause vertenti avanti di noi tra il magnifico Carlo Sincero, dell'una e dell'altra legge dottore, procuratore fiscale di questo S. Officio, per una parte, e te, Galileo Galilei antedetto, reo qua presente, inquisito, processato, e confesso come sopra, dall'altra” (We pass . . . this . . . sentence . . . in the case and cases pending before us between the Honorable Carlo Sincero, doctor of both laws, fiscal procurator of this Holy Office, on the one side, and you, the aforesaid Galileo Galilei, the defendant here present, investigated, tried, and confessed as above, on the other side). Specifying causa e cause ‘case and cases’ was a mere matter of boilerplate precaution and prolixity.
65 Mayer, Trying Galileo, has Maculano doing the honors. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 8, says that the interrogations were conducted by Sinceri (i.e., Sincero) under Maculano's supervision. Blackwell wrongly includes the actual trial session of 10 May in his analysis, at which Sincero was not present (he was only at the pre-trial sessions of 12 April and 30 April).
66 OGG, 19:336–337: “coram . . . R. P. Fratris Vincenzo Maculano . . . et assistente R. D. Carolo Sincero, procuratore fiscale Sancti Officii; . . . fuit per D. int.s.” Pagano silently expands the second D to Dominos rather than Dominum.
67 Letter of Galileo to Geri Bocchineri, 23 April 1633, OGG, no. 2478, 15:101: “che son quelli che me disaminano.”
68 Galileo's first pre-trial session, 12 April 1633, DV, p. 70; TofG, pp. 159–160, ques. 19.
69 Maculano to Card. F. Barberini, 22 April 1633: Holy Office condemned Galileo's book on 21 April, DV, no. 137, pp. 191–192; TofG, no. 68, p. 168–169.
70 Maculano to Barberini, 28 April 1633: extrajudicial approach, OGG, no. 2486, 15:106–107; TofG, no. 70, pp. 170–171.
71 By Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 15–16, and by Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus, 149.
72 Depending on their evaluation of the disposition of Maculano and Francesco Barbarini toward Galileo, some historians consider the extrajudicial plan to have been beneficial to Galileo, whereas others, like Mayer (RI 3, pp. 223–224), consider it detrimental. But the mere fact that it was designed to guarantee conviction made it detrimental in itself.
73 It seems that Maculano and Sincero had made an earlier extrajudicial visit to Galileo on April 23, telling him of their firm intention to “expedite him” once he could rise from his sickbed: Galileo to Geri Bocchineri, 23 April 1633, OGG, no. 2478, 15:101. Moreover, in his letter of 22 April, cited above, Maculano says that he had visited Galileo twice already.
74 Maculano to Barberini, 28 April 1633.
75 Masini, Sacro Arsenale, part 2, pp. 37, 46–47.
76 Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk. 2, chap. 15, no. 3, fol. 118r. Farinacci adds a long note (fol. 118rv) in which he too gives no indication that torture was used to evoke intention. Beretta, Galilée devant le Tribunal, 192, says that the examination on intention concluded the processo offensivo, citing this passage of Peña's.
77 Galileo's second pre-trial session, 30 April 1633, DV, no. 38, pp. 72–74; TofG, no. 71, pp. 171–173.
78 Adhémar Esmein, “Le serment des inculpés en droit canonique,” Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences réligieuses 7 (1896): 231–248.
79 Mayer, RI 1, p. 186.
81 Peña on Eymeric, bk. 2, scholium 11, 2:40: “Cum in tribunali inquisitionis receptum nunc est, ut fiscalis semper accuset” (Since it is now the accepted practice that the fisc is always the accuser in the tribunal of [the?] inquisition). One sees from Masini's Sacro Arsenale that the fisc serves as the adversary of the defendant in every case; it is he who formulates and administers the articles of accusation and interrogation; but this is observed only from the defense phase onwards: pp. 88–97; cf. pp. 156, 168, 176, 227, 232, 253–254. Masini's manual moves from uncovering suspects (part 2) and interrogating them as witnesses against themselves (part 3), to dealing with witnesses and the defendant's defenses (part 4), when the defendant “pertinaciously remains in denial” (se il reo si mostrarà pertinace nel negare, p. 85) without explaining how and when he denied what. At one point, when dealing with an absent suspect, he has the gall to say that the preliminary questioning of a suspect constituted the contesting of the suit. See part 7 (sentencing), p. 236, where he says that the testimonies of witnesses in the informative process prove nothing until they are repeated in court: “Conciosia che dopo le ordinarie citationi, come nella quinta parte, fà di mestiero primieramente repetere i testimonii quali (come già piu volte è stato detto) essaminati nel processo informativo, non citata la parte, anzi non contestata ancor la lite, cioè, non interrogato il reo, non provano, se non si repetono ad effetto di condannarlo, ma fanno solamente indicio ad inquirere contro di lui, tanto piu non essendo il reo nè veramente nè presuntivamente confesso. Di poi conviene legitimamente assegnargli le difese e dargli anco le opportune ditioni” (Since, after the ordinary citations like those given in part 5, it is necessary first to re-hear the witnesses, who [as has been said many times], having been examined in the informative phase, when the party [i.e., the defendant] had not been cited, nor the suit yet contested, that is, the suspect/defendant not interrogated, prove nothing, unless they repeat themselves with the intention of convicting him; rather they simply constitute a reason to inquire [i.e., begin an inquisition] against him; this is especially true if the defendant has not really or presumptively confessed. Moreover, it is necessary to assign him defenses and make the required declarations). The sentence-formula that follows claims that the absent defendant has been cited to respond to the condemned heresies charged against him (p. 237), but no such citation formula is given in part 5 or elsewhere in the manual.
82 Peña on Eymeric, bk. 3, scholium 14, 2:125, continuing the passage cited in n62 above: “qui, testibus receptis, et habitis de crimine (diligenti inquisitione praecedenti) debitis informationibus, in haec ferme verba libellum accusatorium formare solet: ‘Ego Augustinus Officii Sanctissimæ Inquisitionis fiscalis, coram te, reverendo inquisitore, judice delegato in causis fidei contra hæreticam pravitatem, criminaliter accuso Martinum Lutherum.’ . . . Haec est vulgaris forma, qua hodie fiscalis utitur, de qua pulchre,” etc. (who, after witnesses have been received and due information collected by means of a preceding diligent inquisition, customarily forms a bill of charges in words like these: ‘I, Augustine, fisc of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, in your presence, reverend inquisitor, judge-delegate in cases of the faith against heretical depravity, criminally accuse Martin Luther.’ . . . This is the common form that the fisc uses today, which is well treated by [etc.]), citing Durant (13th cent.), Diego Simancas (d. 1583), and Conrad Braun (d. 1563), “and by all criminalists in their practical manuals”: Jean Milles de Souvigny (Practica criminalis, 1549), Girolamo Gigante (d. 1570), Giulio Claro (d. 1575), “and others.”
83 Peña on Eymeric, bk. 3, scholium 14, 2:125, continued: “In hoc libello crimina singula admissa fiscalis narrare debet, ut reus intelligat quibus sit responsurus delictis, ut se tueatur” (In this bill the fisc should narrate each of the crimes admitted [to the list of charges], so that the defendant may understand the offenses he is to answer to, in order to defend himself). Peña goes on to say that the names and circumstances of witnesses are to be omitted.
84 Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 19, 2:131: “Per quas [i.e., decem dies a tempore capturae] si reus vel nihil confiteatur vel non plene confiteatur, tunc promotor fiscalis accusationem proponit contra reum de illis delictis que per testes probata sunt” (If the defendant confesses nothing or not fully during the ten days after arrest, then the fiscal promoter formulates accusations against the defendant dealing with the offenses that are proved by witnesses).
85 Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk. 2, chap. 29, fol. 170v–171r: “Postquam inquisitor supradictis modis recepit informationem contra reum sibi denunciatum, procurator fiscalis in quibusdam inquisitionibus praesentat in judicio, praesente reo, libellum accusatorium continentem capita delictorum, quem exhibit inquisitori. In supremo tamen foro Sanctae Romanae et Generalis Inquisitionis procurator fiscalis loco libelli dat positiones et articulos eadem delicta continentes.”
86 Ibid., fol. 171rv. The formula reads, with cuts: “Positiones et articulos infrascriptos . . . exhibet . . . procurator fiscalis . . . in causa haeresis . . . quam habet contra . . . N., in carceribus Sancti Officii detentum, quos ad probandum . . . admitti petit juxta stilum Sancti Officii.” John Tedeschi, “The Organization and Procedures of the Roman Inquisition,” in The Prosecution of Heresy (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Early Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1991), 127–203, esp. 135 and 168n58, cites Peña's Praxis inquisitorum, as printed in the 1668 edition of Carena's Tractatus, 418, as specifying that the articles must be in the vernacular so that they might be more easily understood. But this instruction does not appear in the manuscript version, where all of the particulars about the articles are in Latin.
87 Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk. 2, chap. 29, first example (171v–172r): “Et primo hic loco articulorum procurator fiscalis praedictus repetit et reproducit testes desuper examinatos, illorum depositiones, et dicta ejusdem inquisiti, confessiones, acta, et documenta quaecunque in hujusmodi causa factas respective et facta, in parte tamen et partibus, sive quatenus praedicta omnia et eorum singula sic ut supra repetita et reproducta pro fisco faciunt et contra dictum N, et non alias aliter, nec alio modo; de quo protestatur expresse.”
88 Ibid., fols. 172r–173r; followed by a long protest that he intends everything to be done properly (fol. 173rv). See the full concluding formula about fame in Masini, Sacro Arsenale, part 4 (repetition and defense), fisc's articles, no. 1, p. 88: “Et alias, prout testes desuper informati specificabunt, quod fuit et est verum, manifestum, publicum, et notorium.”
89 Peña, Praxis inquisitorum, bk. 2, chap. 30, fols. 178v–179r, cited by Mayer, RI 1, pp. 186–187. Mayer makes a slip when he says that Farinacci added a monster note here on Peña's caution that the fisc is to avoid impertinent charges; rather than covering fols. 177r–182r, his note appears only on fol. 179r (elsewhere too Mayer mistakes Peña's elaborations for Farinacci's comments: RI 1, p. 176 on torture of suspects). In the next chapter, 2.31, Peña skips the defendant's plea and moves to the questions that the imprisoned defendant's defender (procurator et defensor) submits to be asked of the witnesses that the fisc has produced against him (fols. 182v–189r).
90 Sentence against Galileo; for the full text, see n64 above.
91 Luigi Firpo, Il processo di Giordano Bruno, ed. Diego Quaglioni, 2nd ed. (Rome: Salerno, 1993), doc. 51, official summary of the trial, addressed to the assessor, Marcello Filonardi (previously the fisc who assembled the charges for “repetition,” no. 238), March 1598, pp. 247–304; section 240, p. 297: “Frater Jordanus habuit copiam totius processus offensivi.” The summary is one of the few official records of the case to survive. For an analysis of the case, see Maurice A. Finocchiaro, “Philosophy versus Religion and Science versus Religion: The Trials of Bruno and Galileo,” in Giordano Bruno, Philosopher of the Renaissance, ed. Hilary Gatti (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 51–96, esp. 55–65, 86–91. The case is also analyzed by Francesco Beretta, “Giordano Bruno e l'Inquisizione Romana: Considerazioni sul procsso,” Bruniana e Campanelliana 7, no. 1 (2001): 15–49, making use of Peña's Praxis inquisitorum (in the 1655 edition).
92 Eymeric, title Directorium, part 3, Modi sex tradendi copiam processus delato de haeresi, suppressis delatorum nominibus, 1:296–298; cf. Peña, scholia 36–37, 2:148–149. In Eymeric's previous chapter, De defensionibus reorum, at the point where he mentions the disclosure of witness names, a side note has been placed: “Haec hodie cessant per generalem Sancti Officii consuetudinem” (1:196).
93 See Hofstedter, Earth Moves, 21n (on processo), 141, 149 (contravention of canon law).
94 Tisset, Pierre, ed., with Lanhers, Yvonne, Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc, 3 vols. (Paris: Klincksieck, 1960–1971), 1:184.
95 Galileo is formally charged, 10 May 1633, DV, no. 40, p. 75: “Idem pater Commissarius assignavit terminum octo dierum ad faciendas suas defensiones, si quas facere vult et intendit.” Cf. TofG, no. 74, p. 175.
96 Mayer, RI 3, p. 196.
97 For advocates in early-seventeenth-century practice, see Mayer, RI 1, pp. 191–194.
98 Peña on Eymeric, bk. 3, scholium 34, 2:146: “Dandus est autem advocatus cum reus negat objecta crimina.” See Mayer, RI 1, p. 191: He notes that Farinacci says that advocates are not allowed for heretics, but it was recognized that this held true only in cases where it was certain that the defendant was a heretic, not when that matter was under trial. See Peña on Eymeric, bk. 2, scholium 7, 2:36.
99 Peña on Eymeric, bk. 3, scholium 34, 2:146: “In praesentia cujuslibet inquisitoris reus communicabit cum eo, et de consilio advocati vel verbo vel scripto respondebit ad accusationem.”
100 Ibid.: “Advocati partes erunt admonere reum ut veritatem confiteatur, paenitentiamque petat pro culpa, si quam habet; responsio vero fiscali notificabitur seu intimabitur.”
101 Galileo's plea, 10 May 1633, DV, no. 40, p. 75: “Io ho sentito quello che Vostra Paternità m'ha detto; e le dico in risposta che per mia difesa, cioè per mostrar la sincerità e purità della mia intentione, non per scusare affatto l'haver io ecceduto in qualche parte, come ho già detto, presento questa scrittura, con una fede aggiunta, del già eminentissimo sig. cardinale Bellarmino, scritta di propria mano del medesimo sig. cardinale.” Cf. TofG, no. 74, p. 175: Mayer takes the “writing with affadavit attached” to refer only to Bellarmine's testimonial, meaning that the record does not mention Galileo's defense statement. See RI 3, p. 196.
102 Galileo's defense regarding the censor and the precept, 10 May 1633, DV, no. 42, pp. 76–78; TofG, no. 75, pp. 176–178.
103 Galileo's plea, 10 May 1633, DV, no. 40, p. 75: “Del rimanente mi rimetto in tutto e per tutto alla solita pietà e clemenza di questo tribunale.”
104 Summarium, DV, no. 1, pp. 5–11; TofG, no. 77, pp. 179–183: May–June 1633.
105 Mayer, RI 3, p. 199. He cites, as examples of the anti-Galileo perceptions, Beretta, Francesco, “Rilettura di un documento célèbre: Redazione de diffusione della sentenze e abiura di Galileo,” Galilaeana 1 (2004): 91–115 , esp. 102; Beltrán Marí, Talento, 579–582; and Speller, Galileo's Inquisition Trial, 298. Heilbron, Galileo, 316, believes that it was unfair, but says that it made no difference, since the pope was fully aware of the facts.
106 Congregation of the Holy Office pronouncing on Galileo, 16 June 1633, DV, no. 138, pp. 192–193; TofG, no. 78, p. 184.
107 Ibid.: “Auditis votis, Sanctissimus decrevit ipsum Galileum interrogandum esse super intentione, etiam comminata ei tortura.” The pope's words could be translated, “even threatening him with torture,” and taken to indicate that the examination could have been ordered not only without torture but even without the threat of torture.
108 Mayer, RI 3, pp. 203.
109 Speller, Galileo's Inquisition Trial, 33, disagreeing with Fantoli, Galileo for Copernicanism, 315, and others.
110 See Kelly, “Judicial torture,” 789–790.
111 Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 118, 2:231. He does not mention the practice in his Praxis inquisitorum, finished in 1605.
112 Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi, title 179, no. 56, p. 37.
113 Masini, Sacro arsenale, part 2 (examining suspects), pp. 46–47: “E qui pure fà di mestiero particolarmente avertire che, quantunque la mala credenza contra la fede risieda nell’ animo, di cui solo Iddio è ve[n]ditore et giudice incorrottevole e incorrotto, ne possa perciò dall’ huomo vedersi ò penetrarsi, non potendo l'acume dell'occhio mortale tanto avanti trapassare in alcun modo, tuttavia dalle parole e fatti hereticali si presume pur anco nella mente errore et mala fede. La onde, se il reo havrà giuridicamente confessato ò pur sarà dopo la negativa rimaso legitimamente convinto, d'haver proferito bestemmie hereticali ò commesso fatti parimente hereticali, dovrà immediatamente essaminarsi sopre l'intentione ò credenza sua, cioè, se ha col cuor tenuto et creduto ciò che con la bocca sacrilegamente ha proferito, ò con l'opere istesse empiamente protestato [for professato?], interrogandolo distintamente supra ciascuno di quegli articoli che vengono tocchi dalle supradette bestemmie e fatti hereticali” (And here it is necessary to take particular notice that, even though bad belief against the faith resides in the mind, of which only God is the incorruptible and uncorrupted avenger and judge, and consequently cannot be seen or penetrated by man, since the vision of mortal sight cannot extend so far in any way, nevertheless it is presumed from heretical words and deeds that error and bad faith are also in the mind. Therefore, if the suspect has confessed juridically, or at least after remaining in denial has been legally convicted, of having uttered heretical blasphemies or having committed deeds similarly heretical, he should immediately be examined on his intention or belief, that is, whether he held and believed in his heart that which he sacrilegiously uttered with his mouth or with his very deeds impiously protested [professed?], questioning him separately on each of those articles that touch upon the said heretical blasphemies and deeds). The examination involves torture when wrong beliefs are denied: see pp. 121–129.
114 20 Sept. 1607, “Sanctissimus decrevit ut torqueatur supra intentione, et, si nihil superveniat, abjuret de vehementi, et damnetur ad triremes per quinquennium,” cited by Tedeschi, “Organization and Procedures,” 184n110. The intention to be checked would presumably concern his belief in the sacrament of marriage (see p. 144).
115 See Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 54, 2:167: “De illis vero qui propter immaturam aetatem et corporis debilitatem, quales sunt impuberes, aut propter senectutem non torquentur, dubium est an saltem terreri possint; et verius est posse, cum leviter etiam et cum moderamine, juxta personae et temperamenti corporis qualitatem, torqueri possint” (But concerning those who are not tortured because of bodily weakness, like children below puberty, or because of old age, it is questioned whether they can at least be terrorized [threatened]; and the preferable opinion is that they can, since they are able to be tortured lightly and with moderation, in accord with each person's nature and bodily condition). The question is discussed by Finocchiaro, Maurice A., “Myth 8: That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism,” in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, ed. Numbers, Ronald L. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009), 68–78, 249–252, esp. 77. Beretta, “Procès de Galilée,” 481, says that it is definitely the case that the pope limited the examination to the threat of torture because of Galileo's age and illness. But the record is noncommittal.
116 Fantoli, Galileo for Copernicanism, 538–539n77, wrongly translates this as “after he undergoes.” Speller, Galileo's Inquisition Trial, 306, is correct in saying it means, “if he has remained firm” (or, better, “if he should remain firm”). But he is mistaken in claiming that there was no such thing as a crime of intention (304).
117 An example can be seen in the case of Thomas More: refusal to take the oath of succession was misprision of treason (More was imprisoned for it); impugning the king's titles (specifically, “Supreme Head of the English Church”) was treason (More was sentenced to death upon conviction).
118 See the list of offenses that call for conviction under this head by William Lyndwood, Provinciale, sive Constitutiones Angliae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1679; repr. Farnborough: Gregg, 1968), bk. 5, title 5, chap. 4, Finaliter, at vehementer suspecti (p. 302, col. b, note n).
119 Urban VIII's decree against Galileo, 16 June 1633, DV, no. 138, p. 193; TofG, no. 78, p.184.
121 Mayer, RI 3, p. 202. The two precedents for publicizing sentences that Mayer names on p. 211 do not compare to the scope and importance of the Galileo action.
122 See Beretta, “L'affaire Galilée,” 180–181: abjuration was used only when the offense concerned a matter of the faith, or when a proposition was formally or virtually heretical. See also Beretta's entry, “Galilei, Galileo,” in Dizionario storico dell'Inquisizione, ed. Prosperi, Adriano with Lavenia, Vincenzo and Tedeschi, John, 5 vols. (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa, 2010), 2:636–640, esp. 638.
123 Beretta, “Siège Apostolique,” 430.
124 Beretta, “L'affaire Galilée,” 185: He would be made to abjure de formali rather than de vehementi.
125 Interrogation of Galileo about his beliefs, 21 June 1633, DV, no. 48, pp. 101–102; TofG, no. 80, pp. 186–188: “An teneat vel tenuerit, et a quanto tempore citra, solem esse centrum mundi.”
126 Ibid.: “ideo dicat libere veritatem, an illam teneat vel tenuerit.”
127 Ibid.: “vel saltem quod illam tenuerit [illo] tempore et ideo, nisi se resolvat fateri veritatem, devenietur contra ipsum ad remedia juris et facti opportuna.”
128 Ibid.: “dicat veritatem, alias devenietur ad torturam.”
130 Meeting of the Congregation of the Holy Office, Decreta anno 1533: DV, no. 140, p. 194, June 22, beginning on fol. 102v: “In qua propositae fuere causae infrascriptae, quas in notam sumpsit idem Dominus Assessor et mihi Notario tradidit [here Pagano skips the list of consultors present, resuming on fol. 103r:] Galileus de Galileis Florentinus abjuravit de vehementi in congregatione etc. juxta formulam etc.” There follows the text of Galileo's abjuration. For the missing list of consultors, see Beretta, “Rilettura,” 103n47.
131 Sentence, DV, no. 114, pp. 162–163; TofG, no. 81, pp. 191–192.
132 As some authors seem to think: for instance, Fantoli, Galileo, 336.
133 Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 25.
134 Summarium, DV, no. 1, p. 8; TofG, no. 77, p. 181. The Italian reads: “Trovò che il Galileo haveva trasgredito gli ordini et il precetto fattogli, con riceder dall'ipotesi” (He found that Galileo had transgressed the orders and the precept given to him, by receding from hypothesis).
135 Sentence, DV, no. 114, pp. 162–163; TofG, no. 81, pp. 191–192.
136 Ibid. The text reads: “nel quale [esame], senza però pregiuditio alcuno delle cose da te confessate, e contro di te dedotte, come di sopra, circa la detta tua intentione rispondesti cattolicamente.”
137 Masini, part 6 (torture), p. 125: “Converrà che i giudici facciano la protesta che non se gli dà la tortura se non pro ulteriori veritate e super intentione, senza alcuno pregiudicio delle cose da lui già confessate e delle quali è convinto; e tal protesta è non solamente utile, ma anco necessaria, perche se il reo, ancorche confesso et pienamente convinto, senza detta protesta negasse in tortura il fatto, e in detta sua negativa persistesse, dovrebbe andarsene assoluto” (It is advisable that the judges make a protest that he is put to torture only for further truth and upon intention, without any prejudice concerning things already confessed by him and on which he has been convicted; and such a protest is not only useful but also necessary, because, if the defendant, after having confessed and having been fully convicted, should in the absence of said protest deny the deed under torture, and persist in his denial, he should betake himself away, absolved). Note that here the examination on intention comes after the defendant has been convicted of the heretical deed itself.
138 Sentence, DV, no. 114, p. 164; TofG, no. 81, p. 193.
140 See Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 55, 2:171.
141 Sentence, DV, p. 164; TofG, p. 193.
142 Congregation decree commuting Galileo's sentence, 23 June 1633, DV, no. 141, pp. 194–195.
143 Abjuration, DV, no. 115, p. 165; TofG, no. 82, p. 194.
144 Masini, part 7 (ending the process), pp. 171–180, esp. 175, 178.
145 Peña on Eymeric, part 3, scholium 55, 2:171.
146 Cf. Abjuration, DV, no. 115, pp. 165–166; TofG, no. 82, pp. 194–195.
147 Mayer, RI 3, pp. 221.
148 Ibid., 219–221.
149 For English practice, which followed canonical rules, see Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “Thomas More on Inquisitorial Due Process,” English Historical Review 123, no. 503 (August 2008): 847–894 ; Kelly, “Mixing Canon and Common Law in Religious Prosecutions under Henry VIII and Edward VI: Bishop Bonner, Anne Askew, and Beyond,” Sixteenth-Century Journal 46, no. 4 (Winter 2015): 927–955 .
150 Mayer RI 3, pp. 214–217.
151 Ibid., p. 152.
152 Ibid., p. 214.
153 Mayer, RI 1, p. 177.
154 Beretta, Francesco, “Une deuxième abjuration de Galilée, ou l'inaltérable hiérarchie des disciplines,” Bruniana e Campanelliana 9, no. 1 (2003): 9–43 , esp. 9: letter of 29 March 1641 to Francesco Rinuccini.
155 The edition by Nicolaus Mulerius, first printed in Amsterdam in 1617, was reissued in 1640. The next printing was in Warsaw in 1854. See Copernicus, Nicolaus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Facsimile of the 1543 edition, with preface by Müller, Johannes, New York: Johnson, 1965), ix–xi.
An earlier version of this paper was presented in a symposium, “The Roman Inquisition in the Time of Galileo,” held in the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at UCLA on February 26, 2016, the 400th anniversary of Galileo's encounter with Cardinal Inquisitor Robert Bellarmine; see:http://cmrs.ucla.edu/wp-content/pdfs/conferences/2016feb26_galileo_conference.pdf. The author wishes to thank the other participants for their encouragement: namely, Christopher Black, Francesco Beretta, Maurice Finocchiaro, Paula Findlen, John Heilbron, Thomas Rausch, and Jane Wickersham, with especial gratitude to Professor Finocchiaro for his meticulous corrections and advice. For his own contribution to the symposium, see Maurice A. Finocchiaro, “Galileo's First Confrontation with the Inquisition (1616): Four Orders and Three Issues,” Galilaeana 13 (2016).
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed