Galileo, the Church and the Heliocentric Affair

Introduction

Galileo Galilei has been hailed as the father of modern astronomy and modern physics. But he is also famous for his infamous trail with the Catholic Church in 1633. The popular version of this affair is as follows: “Galileo, a scientist of highest rank, proved the theory advanced by Copernicus in the 16th century, namely that the sun is the center of the world around which the earth revolves annually while rotating on its axis. The Catholic Church, which held to the geocentric model wherein the earth is static, condemned Galileo as a heretic for his claim. He was then tortured, threatened with execution until he recanted, imprisoned for life, blinded and refused Catholic burial.”[1] But contrary to popular belief, a large amount of hagiography and other legends surround this incident, and the social, political, textual and scientific realities of the time reveal a much more complex issue.[2]

In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed his hopes that "theologians, scholars, and historians... will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in frank recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come, [will] dispel the mistrust that still opposes, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith... One might perhaps be surprised that... I am returning to the Galileo case. Has not this case long been shelved and have not the errors committed been recognized? That is certainly true."[3] But as is pointed out, incidents such as what happened with Galileo must be researched and remembered if we are to stop history from repeating itself. One would contend that a cursory look at what transpired between Galileo and the Catholic Church early in their relationship, the meeting with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1616, and the events leading up to his trial at the hands of the Holy Office in 1633 are worth reconsidering in light of scholarly research, scientific understanding and a look at the original documents themselves if we are to come to a fuller understanding of what actually occurred, moving beyond the legendary into reality.

The Life of Galileo Galilei

Born in the Italian city of Pisa in 1564, Galileo was raised as a Roman Catholic and was sent to a Jesuit monastery to study medicine. Four years in, he felt that he was called to be a monk, and began considering priesthood.[4] He joined the Vallumbrosan Order as a novice at age 14,[5] but a year later his father withdrew him from the Order, feeling that his son had a different calling. Moving into science and mathematics, by the time Galileo was 25, he had invented a hydrostatic balance, written an essay on gravity, and gained the attention of several theologians and scientists, including the Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius and the Marquise Guidubaldo del Monte, the brother of Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte.[6]

Throughout his life, Galileo fathered three illegitimate children - the eldest, Virginia, was born in Padua in 1600. Virginia went on to join the Sisters of St. Clare, and he had joined the Secular Franciscans.[7] Although a devout Catholic throughout his life, as evidenced by his writings, he refrained from marrying the mother of his children, and thus, bought a villa close to Virginia’s convent in 1617.[8] He did this because the illegitimacy of his daughter would necessitate a larger dowry than he desired to pay, thus, his girls were forced to stay in the convent for the remainder of their father’s lives.[9]

During his scientific career, he wrote a number of works including his Letter on Sunspots, the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, written in the style of a Platonic dialogue, the Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences, as well as a number of letters to his critics and inquirers. It was several of these works, in which he held the heliocentric model of the solar system proposed in 1543 by Nicholas Copernicus to be true, that led to trouble with the larger scientific community and ultimately, the Catholic Church - in 1616 and again in 1633. The consequences of the latter led to his house arrest by the Holy Office until his death in 1642, in which he received viaticum (last rites) and was buried.[10]

Competing Models of the Universe

At the core of the Galileo affair, we find competing models of the universe. In antiquity, the Greek astronomer Ptolemy held a view now known as the geostatic view, claiming that the earth was motionless - and geocentric - that the center of the universe was the earth.[11] Prior to this, Greek philosopher Aristotle held a similar view. Aristotle had argued against the heliocentric (or geokinetic) view which placed the sun at the center, so that by the time of Galileo, most had accepted the geocentric view of the universe. Aristotle argued that if heliocentrism were true, one would observe parallax shifts in the position of the stars as the earth moved around the sun. Indeed, even when Galileo had eventually promoted heliocentrism, he could not disprove this notion, as the technology was not yet available to demonstrate a parallax shift. At this point, the evidence indicated that the stars were fixed in their positions and that the earth and stars did not move in space, only the sun, the moon and planets.[12] 

Consider the example of sunspots. Since sunspots are sometimes large enough to be seen by the human eye, sunspots had been seen through the centuries in Europe, the Near East and in China, and in 1607, Kepler mistook a sunspot for Mercury passing in front of the sun.[13] There had been early forms of telescopes for many centuries, but it was not until the Dutch had made a spyglass in 1608-1609 that telescopic discoveries could more easily be made. Thus, it is understandable as to why various discoveries and models of scientific thinking took longer to develop than others, given the lack of available technology at certain time periods.

Now, concerning models of the universe, it was the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543 who published his work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, bringing back the heliocentric model once postulated by the pre-Socratic Greek thinker, Pythagoras.[14] Copernicus dedicated his work to to Pope Paul III, and asked a friend, Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman, to write a preface in which heliocentrism was presented as accounting for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentric model.[15] His idea was that the earth rotated on its own axis each day and annually revolved around the sun, which therefore meant that the earth was not motionless, and not the center of the universe.[16] It was here that Galileo stepped onto the scene, picking up the Copernican view of heliocentrism.

Notably, early on “in his lectures [Galileo] not only taught the old astronomy of Ptolemy, but denied Copernicus explicitly.”[17] It was only after Galileo became famous through his discoveries that he declared his Copernican view in print.[18] Although Galileo did not have proofs for his theory - as the first real proof was found 50-100 years later - he acted as if though he had proofs, but would not present them, as in his view, no one else was intelligent enough to understand them.[19] In fact, there were already parts of Galileo’s theory which could not be supported as they were already outdated by Kepler’s research.[20] Despite this, he refused to accept Kepler’s elliptical planetary orbits,[21] and in one of his works, the Dialogue, Salviati (Galileo's alter ego) dismisses Kepler's lunar tide theory.[22] Although he may not have had proof positive for his theory, the question remains - how did Galileo come to his conclusions? By using the aforementioned Dutch spyglass, he developed a telescope that enabled him to peer into the heavens. He discovered what seemed to him to be mountains and other features on the moon, spots on the sun, the rotation of the sun, phases of Venus, and what appeared to be four “moons” orbiting Jupiter.

While these discoveries made Galileo an instant celebrity throughout Europe, the majority of the academic establishment remained unconvinced by heliocentrism.[23] He believed that the fact that moons orbited Jupiter and that Venus went through phases showed that it orbited around the Sun and demonstrated that geocentrism was false. When examining these various observations, Galileo determined that the geocentric view of the universe was undermined, and sought to promote heliocentrism. Had he promoted it simply as a theory or a method to account for planetary motion, he likely would not have faced the challenges that he later did. But when Galileo began championing heliocentrism as a proven fact - despite the fact that there was not yet any conclusive proof - he ran into problems, and moved the debate from the scientific community into the theological community.[24]

Early Relationship with the Church
“Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to the Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without hesitation, believe it to be so.” - St. Augustine[25]

As aforementioned, Galileo had a much more complex relationship with the Catholic Church than hagiographical accounts indicate. These various encounters with the Church are worth considering as a backdrop to his 1616 meeting with Bellarmine and his trial in 1633. It was previously noted that Galileo was a Secular Franciscan, had at one point been in formation within the Vallumbrosan Order (a Benedictine branch) - and also had a daughter in a Franciscan convent. Clearly, had a relationship with the Church from early on in his life. But later in his life, in 1611, after publishing his Messenger from the Stars, Fr. Christopher Clavius, the chief mathematician and astronomer at the Jesuit Collegio Romano wrote to Galileo to inform him that the astronomers at the college confirmed his discoveries.[26] As a result, wide-eyed and overjoyed, Galileo left for Rome with the expectation of convincing the Church of the Copernican theory, as he felt their findings would support his view. The Jesuits, many prelates, cardinals, and Pope Paul V greeted him, and admitted him into the Accademia dei Lincei whose common goal was to “fight Aristotelianism all the way.”[27] He said in his writings, “Everybody is showing me wonderful kindness, especially the Jesuit Fathers,” and following this visit, he returned to Florence encouraged.[28]

Two years later, in December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina attended a breakfast at the Medici palace. Here, one of Galileo's former students, Benedictine monk Benedetto Castelli, was asked to explain the significance of the Galileo’s discoveries.[29] During this discourse, the Grand Duchess brought up the apparent contradiction with sacred Scripture, such as when the sun and the moon seemingly stand still over the valley of Ajalon (Joshua 10). Following this, Castelli wrote a letter to Galileo informing him of this conversation, so Galileo decided to write a response to the Duchess.[30] Now, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) had agreed that if the Church Fathers held a consensus on a topic, and was supported by the Scriptures, that settled the matter. At this point, the church leaders used passages from the Church Fathers as well as the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and St. Thomas Aquinas to conclude that heliocentrism was a dangerous and fallacious notion.[31] Thus, in his letters - particularly his letter to the Duchess Christina, Galileo decided to also appeal to such an authority. In his reply to the Duchess, with the help of the monk Castelli he found citations that would support his position. He cited St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Tertullian, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as Ecclesiastes, Job, and Jeremiah. He also cited ancient Greek and Roman authorities such as Seneca, Plato, Pythagoras and others.

A further “tool” that Galileo utilized was the notion of phenomenological language, that is, the language of appearances. Today, we say that the sun rises, the sun sets, the “stars are out,” “the moon is out,” and so forth. But this earth-bound terminology does not express true scientific fact, nor is it intended to. The sun appears to rise and set, thus, we describe it by the language of appearances. Galileo used the example of Scripture speaking of God having feet, hands, a face, getting angry and other anthropomorphic qualities that were understood phenomenologically.[32] Now, the Church recognized such passages but during this time period, choosing to promote a personal interpretation of sacred Scripture was an intensely sensitive subject. The Church had just endured the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, and one of the main disagreements with Protestants was over personal interpretation of the Bible.

At this point, it is pertinent to take a brief look at what Galileo actually wrote about Scripture and the Church, allowing Galileo to speak for himself: 
- “If these reflections, which are far from my own profession, should contain (besides errors) anything that may lead someone to advance a useful caution for the Holy Church in her deliberations about the Copernican system, then let it be accepted with whatever profit superiors will deem appropriate; if not, let my essay be torn up and burned, for I do not intend or pretend to gain from it any advantage that is not pious or Catholic”[33] (emphasis mine). 
- “The motion of the earth and stability of the sun could never be against Faith or Holy Scripture...”[34] 
- “I have no other aim but the honor of the Holy Church and do not direct my small labors to any other goal.”[35] (emphasis mine).

This brief selection of quotes from Galileo’s own writings is sufficient insofar as it helps to show that in these and other writings, Galileo clearly attempted to reconcile heliocentrism with Scripture. He believed, at the point in which he had written this, that the Church was on his side. But the success he faced in Rome in 1611 with the Jesuits and the well-constructed scientific and theological letter to the Duchess did not last. Galileo continued to insist that the Copernican theory was proven, but would not put forth any evidence. Also, his “tide” evidence was discredited by Kepler’s lunar tide research, so the Church came to a place where they no longer took his theory seriously and saw it as a challenge to Scripture and to their authority, as well as science of the day.

Thus, on February 26, 1616, Pope Paul V sent the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine to speak with Galileo. He told Galileo that he could view Copernicus’s teachings in a hypothetical light, but could not teach it is a proven fact.[36] Since Galileo agreed to the wishes of Bellarmine and the Pope, there was no injunction against him, and he returned home still believing that he cold discuss the Copernican theories as an hypothesis.[37] But rumor grew that Galileo was brought before the Holy Office or the Inquisition and was forced to abjure his findings, so as a result, Bellarmine defended Galileo, saying: "We... have heard that Mr. Galileo Galilei is being slandered or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot he defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616."[38]

Bellarmine had not condemned or tortured Galileo, but brought him to a bit of a halt. But despite this initial halt to his growing passion and fierce writing, Galileo continued to hold and discuss Copernican theories, as Bellarmine indicated that he could. Unfortunately for Galileo, this initial halt to his teaching was not to be his last, nor the most damaging.

“In the Year of our Lord, 1633”: Trial and Error

For a while, Galileo’s relationship with the Catholic Church continued to stay in good favor. His works were not banned in the official Vatican Index of Banned Books - although the works of Copernicus were. Four years after the encounter with Bellarmine, Galileo’s friend, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, actually wrote an ode to Galileo, titled “Adulatio Perniciosa”.[39] Further, about seven years after his encounter, Galileo published a book, Assayer, and dedicated to this friend Barberini, who became Pope Urban VII later that year.[40] Pope Urban VIII was fond of Assayer, and actually had it read out loud during some of his meals at the Vatican. The book examines the views of the Jesuit astronomer Orazio Grassi. Galileo disagreed with Grassi, but this did not concern the Pope, who agreed in 1624 to let Galileo hold the Copernican view “with the proviso that it should be ‘hypothetical,’”[41] as Pope Paul V had before him. During his stay in Rome in 1624, Galileo had six private audiences with his friend the Pope, who gave Galileo many gifts, including medals of gold and silver and as well as a pension for his son.[42] He also praised Galileo so much that he referred to him as his “beloved son.”[43] Galileo left Rome, as he had several years prior, believing that he could write about heliocentrism, as long as he noted that it was still hypothetical.[44]

But this freedom was not to last. A few years later, Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, in which he used an argument which Pope Urban VIII had offered, putting it in the mouth of his character, Simplicio. Unfortunately, Galileo also portrayed Simplicio - as the name suggests - in a very foolish light. The Pope felt mocked and betrayed at how his friend could publicly disgrace him. This was the wrong move for Galileo, intentional or unintentional. He had mocked the very person he needed on his side, and made enemies of the Jesuits, who were once his major supporters. Why had Galileo written such a Dialogue? Galileo was not a very wealthy man, and during his earlier time at the university teaching mathematics, he received a very low salary, and also had to provide dowries for his sisters.[45] Later in life, when he became the chief philosopher and mathematician for the grand duke of Tuscany, he constantly had the need to prove himself, providing new evidences and each written work had to be better than the last.[46] The result was his Dialogue. Thus, the Pope had to decide what to do about his friend. At the time, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was going on between Catholics and Protestants. Some had been accusing the Pope of favoring Protestants and becoming a Protestant himself, which frustrated him.[47] This, coupled with his lack of support from the Duke of Tuscany, made the Pope feel as though he needed a scapegoat to reassert and reinforce his authority. Galileo ended up becoming this scapegoat.[48]

Galileo was called to Rome to answer to the Holy Office. On April 12, 1633 his trial began when the Commissary Vencenzo Maculano asked Galileo “Did you write the book Dialogue?” There were three scholars - Inchofer, Riccardi, and Oreggi - appointed by the Pope to review this book and their conclusion was that the author held and defended the Copernican theory. Interestingly, prior to this, four church censors had previously approved the book for publication and given it an imprimatur.[49] Now, at the first session of the trial, Galileo showed confidence. He did not feel he had anything to hide or worry about. But at the second session, a copy - not the original, with no signatures - of an injunction against Galileo from Fr. Segizzi written in 1616 was presented. This has been considered very suspicious to most scholars, possibly a forgery.[50] By this point, Segizzi was dead, as was Cardinal Bellarmine, and the Holy Office had simply “found” this document. There was no way to prove it was actually written by him. Galileo was shocked, and claimed that he had never received an injunction from Segizzi. Pope Urban VIII stated that he would not have encouraged Galileo in 1624 had he known of the injunction, as did Riccardi - who had given the work the imprimatur (approval).[51]

Bellarmine’s letter to Galileo said nothing of any kind of injunction against him, but was only given a monitum (warning) by Bellarmine in 1616.[52] Galileo thus said in his defense, “Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it... he told me that otherwise, namely taken absolutely, the opinion could be neither held nor defended... I keep a certificate by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine himself... in which he says that Copernicus's opinion cannot be held or defended, being against Holy Scripture. I present a copy of this certificate, and here it is.”[53]

Despite his defense as well as his previous relationships with the Church, Galileo was asked to recant his findings, his Dialogue was banned and put on the Index of Banned Books, and he was asked to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was sentenced to house arrest.[54] Galileo returned to Florence, and took this as an opportunity to resume the work on mechanics he had put aside twenty years prior. This resulted in what is arguably his most important work, the Two New Sciences, published in 1638. Galileo combined mathematics and experimental science in a new way. Toward the end of his life he lost his eyesight, and died in 1642. Significantly, Galileo was still buried in the church of Santa Croce in Florence.

Conclusion

As is apparent, there were a number of complex factors at play in the Galileo affair. The hagiographical accounts of Galileo have been largely exaggerated, as evidenced by the trial records, the writings of Galileo himself, the letters of Cardinal Bellarmine, and an examination of the known facts. There still exists debate about certain aspects of the trial, such as the authenticity of the Segizzi injunction, but contrary to the popular account of the Galileo affair, the real struggle was not necessarily between religion and science, but between new science and old science. What the Church did not like was a challenge to its authority. As aforementioned, the theologians saw trouble coming from a single individual - in the two hundred years prior, they had already dealt with William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, John Knox, John Calvin, Thomas Muntzer - and all of those who were against the Catholic Church. The Church, therefore, had its guard up. The records from his trial show that when he was finally called to Rome, there was “no direct discussion and its many passages referring to astronomical matters, even though those were the foundation of the charges against him.”[55] More notably, already by the late 1600s, Jesuits were teaching Copernican astronomical theory in their missions to the East.[56] Galileo’s legacy lived on.

Aruthur Koestler, Hungarian author, once wrote of Galileo and his impact, “Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; nor the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy... and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science. What he did was to found the modern science of dynamics, which makes him rank among the men who shaped human destiny.”[57] The Galileo affair has been greatly misconstrued and misunderstood in popular culture. It has been cited as a polemic in science vs. religion debates, and although to some degree this is warranted, the complexity of this matter as well as Galileo’s history with the Church is often ignored. Therefore, one would conclude that what transpired was more of a result of the political, social, economic and scientific issues at play than a strictly religious affair. Moving forward, what happened between Galileo and the Catholic Church should continue to be studied and remembered, so that as we continue to grow as a global community, we do not repeat the mistakes of our past, but look forward to the future together.

Sources Consulted

Blackwell, Richard. Behinds the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. Print.

Custance, Arthur C. “The Medieval Synthesis and the Modern Fragmentation of Thought”. Grand Rapids: Science and Faith, The Doorway Papers VIII, 1978. 154. Print.

Daly, John S. Theological Status of Heliocentrism. 1997. 1. Web.

Decaen, Dr. Chris. "Dr. Chris Decaen Lecture: Galileo & The Church." Thomas Aquinas College. Thomas Aquinas College Board of Governors., 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. The Galileo Affair. California: University of California Press, California Studies in the History of Science, 1989. Print.

Kinkel, John R. “The Galileo Affair: A Sociological Investigation into Religious Conflict”. 2nd ed. Rochester: Religious Studies Oakland University, 2010. Web.

Koestler, Arthur. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London, 1959. 353. Print.

Lentini, Liza. "20 Things You Didn't Know About Galileo." Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing, 2 July 2007. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. .

McMullin, Ernan. “Galileo on science and Scripture”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 271-347. Print.

Schirmaccher, Thomas. Legends about the Galileo Affair. Friedensallee: RVB International, 2001. 8-30. Print.

Winschel, Jason. “Galileo -Villain or Victim?”. The Angelus, October 2003. 9-39. Print.

"The Galileo Controversy." Catholic Answers. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

Endnotes

[1]  Winschel, Jason. “Galileo -Villain or Victim?”. The Angelus, October 2003. 10. Print.
[2] Decaen, Dr. Chris. "Dr. Chris Decaen Lecture: Galileo & The Church." Thomas Aquinas College. Thomas Aquinas College Board of Governors., 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2015
[3] Ibid. .
[4] Lentini, Liza. "20 Things You Didn't Know About Galileo." Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing, 2 July 2007. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. <http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/20-things-you-didn2019t-know-about-galileo>
[5] Winschel 11.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. NOVA. PBS, 2002. DVD.
[8] Lentini. 
[9] Ibid.
[10] Winschel 38.
[11] Finocchiaro, Maurice A. The Galileo Affair. California: University of California Press, California Studies in the History of Science, 1989. 7. Print.
[12] "The Galileo Controversy." Catholic Answers. Web. 14 Mar. 2015. 
[13]  Blackwell, Richard. Behinds the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. 66. Print.
[14]  Finocchario 7.
[15]  Catholic Answers.
[16] Finocchario 15.
[17] Schirmaccher, Thomas. Legends about the Galileo Affair. Friedensallee: RVB International, 2001. 20. Print.
[18] Ibid., 21.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 22.
[21] Winschel 14.
[22] Decean.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Catholic Answers.
[25] Quoted in Providentissimus Deus. Derived from The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII. Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1995. 294. Print.
[26] Winschel 14.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] McMullin, Ernan. “Galileo on science and Scripture”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 277. Print.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Kinkel, John R. “The Galileo Affair: A Sociological Investigation into Religious Conflict”. 2nd ed. Rochester: Religious Studies Oakland University, 2010. 18-19. Print.
[32] “[I] believe that Solomon, Moses, and all other sacred writers knew perfectly the constitution of the world, as they also knew that God has no hands, no feet, and no experience of anger, forgetfulness, or regret; nor will we ever doubt this. But we say what the Holy Fathers and in particular St. Augustine say about these matters, namely that the Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they wrote for various reasons.” from Galileo's Considerations on the Copernican Opinion (1615).
[33] Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615). Letters and writings derived from Finocchario.
[34] Galileo's Considerations on the Copernican Opinion (1615). 
[35] Galileo to Monsignor Dini (23 March 1615).
[36] Kinkel 21.
[37] Ibid., 10.
[38] Finocchario 153.
[39] Kinkel 16.
[40] Ibid., 15-16.
[41] Ibid., 19-20.
[42] Winschel 36.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Finnocchario 11.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Kinkel 33.
[48] Finocchario 12.
[49] Kinkel 23.
[50] Ibid.,26.
[51] Ibid., 42.
[52] Kinkel 28.
[53] The Later Inquisition Proceedings: Galileo's First Deposition (12 April 1633); derived from Finocchario 258-259.
[54] Kinkel 31.
[55] Blackwell, XI. 
[56] Winschel 39.
[57] Koestler, Arthur. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London, 1959. 353. Print.