The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII

Without a doubt the most well-known, in fact notorious, episode in the transition from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology/astronomy in the seventeenth century was the publication of Galileo Galilei’s Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) in 1632 and his subsequent trial and conviction by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition or simply Roman Inquisition; an episode that has been blown up out of all proportions over the centuries. It would require a whole book of its own to really do this subject justice but I shall deal with it here in two sketches. The first to outline how and why the publication of this book led to Galileo’s trial and the second to assess the impact of the book on the seventeenth century astronomical/cosmological debate, which was much less than is often claimed.


Frontispiece and title page of the Dialogo, 1632 Source: Wikimedia Commons

The first salient point is Galileo’s social status in the early seventeenth century. Nowadays we place ‘great scientists’ on a pedestal and accord them a very high social status but this was not always the case. In the Renaissance, within society in general, natural philosophers and mathematicians had a comparatively low status and within the ruling political and religious hierarchies Galileo was effectively a nobody. Yes, he was famous for his telescopic discoveries but this did not change the fact that he was a mere mathematicus. As court mathematicus and philosophicus to the Medici in Florence he was little more than a high-level court jester, he should reflect positively on his masters. His role was to entertain the grand duke and his guests at banquets and other social occasions with his sparkling wit, either in the form of a discourse or if a suitable opponent was at hand, in a staged dispute. Points were awarded not for truth content but for verbal brilliance. Galileo was a master at such games. However, his real status as a courtier was very low and should he bring negative attention to the court, they would drop him without a thought, as they did when the Inquisition moved against him.


Galileo Portrait by Ottavio Leoni Source: Wikimedia Commons

As a cardinal, Maffeo Barberini (1568–1644) had befriended Galileo when his first came to prominence in 1611 and he was also an admirer of the Accademia dei Lincei. When he was elected Pope in 1623 the Accademia celebrated his election and amongst other things presented him with a copy of Galileo’s Il Saggiatore, which he read and apparently very much enjoyed. As a result he granted Galileo several private audiences, a great honour. Through his actions Barberini had raised Galileo to the status of papal favourite, a situation not without its dangers.


C. 1598 painting of Maffeo Barberini at age 30 by Caravaggio Source: Wikimedia Commons

Mario Biagioli presents the, I think correct, hypothesis that having raised Galileo up as a court favourite Barberini then destroyed him. Such behaviour was quite common under absolutist rulers, as a power demonstration to intimidate potential rebels. Galileo was a perfect victim for such a demonstration highly prominent and popular but with no real political or religious significance. Would Barberini have staged such a demonstration at the time? There is evidence that he was growing more and more paranoid during this period. Barberini, who believed deeply in astrology, heard rumours that an astrologer had foreseen his death in the stars. His death was to coincide with a solar eclipse in 1630. Barberini with the help of his court astrologer, Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) took extreme evasive action and survived the cosmic threat but he had Orazio Morandi (c. 1570–1630), a close friend and supporter of Galileo’s, arrested and thrown in the papal dungeons, where he died, for having cast the offending horoscope.

Turning to the Dialogo, the official bone of contention, Galileo succeeded in his egotism in alienating Barberini with its publication. Apparently during the phase when he was very much in Barberini’s good books, Galileo had told the Pope that the Protestants were laughing at the Catholics because they didn’t understand the heliocentric hypothesis. Of course, during the Thirty Years War any such mockery was totally unacceptable. Barberini gave Galileo permission to write a book presenting and contrasting the heliocentric and geocentric systems but with certain conditions. Both systems were to be presented as equals with no attempts to prove the superiority or truth of either and Galileo was to include the philosophical and theological opinion of the Pope that whatever the empirical evidence might suggest, God in his infinite wisdom could create the cosmos in what ever way he chose.

The book that Galileo wrote in no way fulfilled the condition stated by Barberini. Presented as a discussion over four days between on the one side a Copernican, Salviati named after Filippo Salviati (1682–1614) a close friend of Galileo’s and Sagredo, supposedly neutral but leaning strongly to heliocentricity, named after Giovanni Francesco Sagredo (1571–1620) another close friend of Galileo’s. Opposing these learned gentlemen is Simplicio, an Aristotelian, named after Simplicius of Cilicia a sixth-century commentator on Aristotle. This name is with relative certainty a play on the Italian word “semplice”, which means simple as in simple minded. Galileo stacked the deck from the beginning.

The first three days of discussion are a rehash of the previous decades of discoveries and developments in astronomy and cosmology with the arguments for heliocentricity, or rather against geocentricity in its Ptolemaic/Aristotelian form, presented in their best light and the counter arguments presented decidedly less well. Galileo was leaving nothing to chance, he knew who was going to win this discussion. The whole thing is crowned with Galileo’s theory of the tides on day four, which he falsely believed, despite its very obvious flaws, to be a solid empirical proof of the Earth’s movements in a heliocentric model. This was in no way an unbiased presentation of two equal systems but an obvious propaganda text for heliocentricity. Worse than this, he placed the Pope’s words on the subject in the mouth of Simplicio, the simpleton, not a smart move. When it was published the shit hit the fan.

However, before considering the events leading up to the trial and the trial itself there are a couple of other factors that prejudiced the case against Galileo. In order to get published at all, the book, as with every other book, had to be given publication permission by the censor. To repeat something that people tend to forget, censorship was practiced by all secular and all religious authorities throughout the whole of Europe and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought were alien concepts in the world of seventeenth century religion and politics. Galileo wanted initially to title the book, Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Seas, referring of course to his theory of the tides, and include a preface to this effect. He was told to remove both by the censor, as they, of course, implied a proof of heliocentricity. Because of an outbreak of the plague, Galileo retired to Florence to write his book and preceded to play the censor in Florence and the censor in Rome off against each other, which meant that the book was published without being properly controlled by a censor. This, of course, all came out after publication and did not help Galileo’s case at all; he had been far too clever for his own good.

Another major problem had specifically nothing to do with Galileo in the first instance but rebounded on him at the worst time.  On 8 March 1632 Cardinal Borgia castigated the Pope for not supporting King Philipp IV of Spain against the German Protestants. The situation almost degenerated into a punch up with the Swiss Guard being called in to separate the adversaries. As a result Barberini decided to purge the Vatican of pro-Spanish elements. One of the most prominent men to be banished was Giovanni Ciampoli (1589–1643) Barberini’s chamberlain. Ciampoli was an old friend and supporter of Galileo and a member of the Accademia dei Lincei. He was highly active in helping Galileo trick the censors and had read the manuscript of the Dialogo, telling Barberini that it fulfilled his conditions. His banishment was a major disaster for Galileo.


Giovanni Ciampoli Source: Wikimedia Commons

One should of course also not forget that Galileo had effectively destroyed any hope of support from the Jesuits, the leading astronomers and mathematicians of the age, who had very actively supported him in 1611, with his unwarranted and libellous attacks on Grazi and Scheiner in his Il Saggiatore. He repeated the attacks on Scheiner in the Dialogo, whilst at the same time plagiarising him, claiming some of Scheiner’s sunspot discoveries as his own. There is even some evidence that the Jesuits worked behind the scenes urging the Pope to put Galileo on trial.

When the Dialogo was published it immediately caused a major stir. Barberini appointed officials to read and assess it. Their judgement was conclusive, the Dialogo obviously breached the judgement of 1616 forbidding the teaching of heliocentricity as a factual theory. Anybody reading the Dialogo today would confirm that judgement. The consequence was that Galileo was summoned to Rome to answer to the Inquisition. Galileo stalled claiming bad health but was informed either he comes or he would be fetched. The Medici’s refused to support him; they did no consider him worth going into confrontation with the Pope for.


Ferdinando II de’ Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany in Coronation Robes (school of Justus Sustermans). Source: Wikimedia Commons

We don’t need to go into details of the trial. Like all authoritarian courts the Inquisition didn’t wish to try their accused but preferred them to confess, this was the case with Galileo. During his interviews with the Inquisition Galileo was treated with care and consideration because of his age and bad health. He was provided with an apartment in the Inquisition building with servants to care for him. At first he denied the charges but when he realised that this wouldn’t work he said that he had got carried away whilst writing and he offered to rewrite the book. This also didn’t work, the book was already on the market and was a comparative best seller, there was no going back. Galileo thought he possessed a get out of jail free card. In 1616, after he had been interviewed by Bellarmino, rumours circulated that he had been formally censured by the Inquisition. Galileo wrote to Bellarmino complaining and the Cardinal provided him with a letter stating categorically that this was not the case. Galileo now produced this letter thinking it would absolve him of the charges. The Inquisition now produced the written version of the statement that had been read to Galileo by an official of the Inquisition immediately following his interview with Bellarmino expressly forbidding the teaching of the heliocentric theory as fact. This document still exists and there have been discussions as to its genuineness but the general consensus is that it is genuine and not a forgery. Galileo was finished, guilty as charged. Some opponents of the Church make a lot of noise about Galileo being shown the instruments of torture but this was a mere formality in a heresy trial and at no point was Galileo threatened with torture.

The rest is history. Galileo confessed and formally adjured to the charge of grave suspicion of heresy, compared to heresy a comparatively minor charge. He was sentenced to prison, which was immediately commuted to house arrest. He spent the first months of his house arrest as the guest of Ascanio II Piccolomini (1590–1671), Archbishop of Siena,


Ascanio II Piccolomini Source: Wikimedia Commons

until Barberini intervened and sent him home to his villa in Arcetri. Here he lived out his last decade in comparative comfort, cared for by loyal servants, receiving visitor and writing his most important book, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze (Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences).

Galileo’s real crime was hubris, trying to play an absolutist ruler, the Pope, for a fool. Others were executed for less in the seventeenth century and not just by the Catholic Church. Galileo got off comparatively lightly.

What role did the Dialogo actually play in the ongoing cosmological/astronomical debate in the seventeenth century? The real answer is, given its reputation, surprisingly little. In reality Galileo was totally out of step with the actual debate that was taking place around 1630. Driven by his egotistical desire to be the man, who proved the truth of heliocentricity, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the most important developments and so side lined himself.

We saw earlier that around 1613 there were more that a half a dozen systems vying for a place in the debate, however by 1630 nearly all of the systems had been eliminated leaving just two in serious consideration. Galileo called his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, but the two systems that he chose to discuss, the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system, were ones that had already been rejected by almost all participants in the debate by 1630 . The choice of the pure geocentric system of Ptolemaeus was particularly disingenuous, as Galileo had helped to show that it was no longer viable twenty years earlier. The first system actually under discussion when Galileo published his book was a Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation, Christen Longomontanus (1562–1647), Tycho’s chief assistant, had published an updated version based on Tycho’s data in his Astronomia Danica in 1622. This was the system that had been formally adopted by the Jesuits.


The second was the elliptical heliocentric system of Johannes Kepler, of which I dealt with the relevant publications in the last post.

Galileo completely ignores Tycho, whose system could explain all of the available evidence for heliocentricity, because he didn’t want to admit that this was the case, arguing instead that the evidence must imply a heliocentric system. He also, against all the available empirical evidence, maintained his belief that comets were sublunar meteorological phenomena, because the supporters of a Tychonic system used their perceived solar orbit as an argument for their system.  He is even intensely disrespectful to Tycho in the Dialogo, for which Kepler severely castigated him. He also completely ignores Kepler, which is even more crass, as the best available arguments for heliocentricity were to be found clearly in Kepler published works. Galileo could not adopt Kepler’s system because it would mean that Kepler and not he would be the man, who proved the truth of the heliocentric system.

Although the first three days of the Dialogo provide a good polemic presentation for all of the evidence up till that point for a refutation of the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system, with the very notable exception of the comets, Galileo’s book was out dated when it was written and had very little impact on the subsequent astronomical/cosmological debate in the seventeenth century. I will indulge in a little bit of hypothetical historical speculation here. If Galileo had actually written a balanced and neutral account of the positive and negative points of the Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation and Kepler’s elliptical heliocentric system, it might have had the following consequences. Firstly, given his preeminent skills as a science communicator, his book would have been a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate and secondly he probably wouldn’t have been persecuted by the Catholic Church. However, one can’t turn back the clock and undo what has already been done.

I will close this overlong post with a few brief comments on the impact of the Church’s ban on the heliocentric theory, the heliocentric hypothesis was still permitted, and the trial and sentencing of Galileo, after all he was the most famous astronomer in Europe. Basically the impact was much more minimal than is usually implied in all the popular presentations of the subject. Outside of Italy these actions of the Church had almost no impact whatsoever, even in other Catholic countries. In fact a Latin edition of the Dialogo was published openly in Lyon in 1641, by the bookseller Jean-Antoine Huguetan (1567–1650), and dedicated to the French diplomat Balthasar de Monconys (1611–1665), who was educated by the Jesuits.


Within Italy well-behaved Catholics censored their copies of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus according to the Church’s instructions but continued to read and use them. Censored copies of the book are virtually unknown outside of Italy. Also within Italy, astronomers would begin their discussions of heliocentricity by stating in the preface that the Holy Mother Church in its wisdom had declared this system to be false, but it is an interesting mathematical hypothesis and then go on in their books to discuss it fully. On the whole the Inquisition left them in peace.


***A brief footnote to the above: this is a historical sketch of what took place around 1630 in Northern Italy written from the viewpoint of the politics, laws and customs that ruled there at that time. It is not a moral judgement on the behaviour of either the Catholic Church or Galileo Galilei and I would be grateful if any commentators on this post would confine themselves to the contextual historical facts and not go off on wild moral polemics based on hindsight. Comments on and criticism of the historical context and/or content are, as always, welcome.











Filed under History of Astronomy, History of science, Myths of Science, Renaissance Science

24 responses to “The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII

  1. Perhaps Galileo’s connection to Paolo Sarpi would explain a lot more of the politics that lead to the ban on his dialogue.

    • Vaguely possible but highly unlikely. Galileo’s close association with Sarpi ended in 1611, when he moved to Florence to become court mathematicus & philosophicus to the Medici. Sarpi also died in 1623, ten years before his trial.

  2. Jim Harrison

    You write “censorship was practiced by all secular and all religious authorities throughout the whole of Europe and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church.” That’s right, of course; but it’s important to recognize that control of discourse didn’t end with the decline of prior censorship by governments and churches in some countries. It did change and arguably become more rigorous in some respects, Indeed, the invention of printing made a replacement for censorship imperative because the cheap mechanical reproduction of texts multiplied nonsense much faster than truth. Eventually, journal editors and peer review took the place of the Sacred Congregation. Those guys correct manuscripts a lot more rigorously than the Jesuits. I note that the Internet is creating a fresh crisis in regard to the management of speech. We’re in the midst of a huge argument about how to tame the flood of dreck unleashed when every damned fool, con man, or malevolent government can blog or tweet. Haven’t figured out how to manage that problem yet.

    By the way, there’s a typo in Barberini’s dates. 1568–1685 seems a hair long.

  3. timoneill007

    This is the one many of us have been waiting for! Many thanks Thony – it’s an excellent summation and a valuable contribution.

  4. Matthew Cobb

    Great post, Thony. You say at the end that the impact of the affair on heliocentrism was pretty minimal. But what about other fields? It seems to have sent a cold wind blowing through many European thinkers – Descartes decided not to publish his work on the human brain because of it (I’m pretty sure there’s a letter somewhere from him giving the Galileo condemnation as the reason for not publishing, so this is more than a supposition). So the popular impression that the affair represented a limit on bold thinking may have been about at the time, even if heliocentric ideas were rekativeky unaffected (because data, I guess).

    • Descartes is the notable exception, he also didn’t publish his, rather bad, book on heliocentric astronomy because of the Galileo affair. It is said he did so out of respect to his Jesuit teachers but that all seems rather thin. However, he appears to be literally the only significant thinker, who reacted so negatively to the trial and its outcome. I certainly know of no others.

  5. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – protipsss

  6. Pingback: Top story HACKER NEWS: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII - Nate's Blog

  7. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – Latest news

  8. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – News about world

  9. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – Outside The Know

  10. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – Hckr News

  11. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVII – Ultimate News

  12. A couple of years ago I read Maurice A. Finocchiaro’s _Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs_ (Springer, 2010). Finocchiaro started out as a student of Feyerabend at Berkeley and has dedicated most of his academic career to Galileo. According to him, various authors have been taking Galileo down (much along the same lines as you do here) at least since the counter-revolutionary journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote in 1784 that “Galileo was persecuted not at all insofar as he was a good astronomer, but insofar as he was a bad theologian”. But these takedowns have never succeeded in overturning the established reputation of Galileo because they are based on misconceptions and manipulations of the historical record and on a misunderstanding of Galileo’s argument for a geokinetic cosmology which, according to Finocchiaro, “can be successfully defended” and “shown to be a model of critical thinking”.

    Let me point out here two specific points that Prof. Finocchiaro makes in his book and which run counter to your own interpretation. According to Finocchiaro, the passage in the _Dialogue_ in which Simplicio declares that, in his omnipotence, God could have produced the observed physical phenomena while arranging the cosmos however he wanted, was added by the explicit instruction of the ecclesiastical censors who supervised the preparation of the book and authorized its publication, and so cannot have been intended by Galileo as a caricature of the pope. The other is that the pope’s decision to move against Galileo (after his _Dialogue_ had already been published with the approval of the Church authorities) was largely driven by politics: The pope was regarded as an enemy of the Hapsburgs (who included both the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Spain), and the Hapsburgs were accusing the pope of being soft on Protestantism and aiding the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War. The pope eventually decided to respond to that challenge by using Galileo “as a scapegoat to reassert, exhibit, and test his authority and power”.

    • So Alejandro, you have read a book. I hope that you read it more attentively than you appear to have read my blog post? You tell me on the basis of having read that book that the Pope was in dispute with the Habsburgs and because GG was associated with the Habsburg party the Pope chose to punish him “as a scapegoat to reassert, exhibit, and test his authority and power”. You announce this all in a rather triumphal manner, as if revealing something of which I was unaware.

      If you look at the ninth paragraph above you might perhaps notice that I outline the Pope’s dispute with the Habsburgs and even explain how GG became implicated in it. In the fourth paragraph I even explain that the Pope moved against Galileo, a papal favourite, as a demonstration of his power.

      You also tell me that, “his _Dialogue_ had already been published with the approval of the Church authorities”. In paragraph eight I explain that GG obtained permission to publish through deception and cheating, so whether we can say the book was published with the approval of the Church authorities is a very moot point.

      Thank you for telling me, who Maurice A. Finocchiaro is, now I know who the author is of those books that I have sitting on my book shelf. Finocchiaro is in fact a very good historian of science, who has contributed much to our knowledge of the good Tuscan mathematicus. However, like many other GG experts he has a strong tendency to be hagiographical and to present the evidence so as to make GG appear in the right and all those around him in the wrong. For example you write, “a misunderstanding of Galileo’s argument for a geokinetic cosmology which, according to Finocchiaro, “can be successfully defended” and “shown to be a model of critical thinking”“. Finocchiaro is not the only GG groupie to make this claim but if ones theory, like GG’s theory of the tides, is not only contradicted by the empirical facts but completely refuted by them, then it is not a model of critical thinking but quite simply a load of old crap.

  13. Andreas Tober

    This, I know, does not have a lot to do with your post, but you may be able to answer this question which has puzzled me for a while. What was Francis Bacon’s view on the question of helio / geocentric system. I recollect reading a comment of his (which I now can’t find) which seems to be dismissive of the heliocentric system. I know (not least from your writing) that at the time of his death, the scientific method was not able to decide the question, but I am under the impression that Bacon did not apply this method, he is credited with, in that case.

    • Bacon is falsely credited with having created the scientific method, which by the way doesn’t exist! Bacon believed in pure induction in natural philosophy. He argued that the function of the researcher was to collect data and at some time when when enough data had accumulated then a theory would, so to speak, crystallise out of the collected material. He thought it was fundamentally wrong to start with a hypothesis or a theory and thus rejected the heliocentric hypothesis on these grounds. He also rejected the use of mathematics in natural philosophy. All of this makes him a contrarian in the so-called scientific revolution rather than the leading figure as which he is usually presented.

      William Harvey, the discoverer of the blood circulation system, who was Bacon’s physician, summed it up rather nicely. He is quoted as having said:

      “He writes [Natural] Philosophy like a Lord Chancellour.”

  14. Hi Thony, one small & pedantic correction: you write “this is a historical sketch of what took place around 1630 in Northern Italy”, but the whole 1630 affair happened between Florence and Rome, so very much in Central Italy.

    It may sound an insignificant detail, but there was and still there is a big cultural difference between Northern, Central and Southern Italy. BTW, it’s not a secret that if Galileo had continued publishing his stuff from Padova (and thus under the Most Serene Republic of Venice) it’s very unlikely he would have been bothered by the Inquisition.

    • The point about Central rather than Northern Italy taken and accepted. However, your claim that if Galileo had continued to publish from Padova it’s very unlikely that he would have been bothered by the Inquisition is rubbish.

      • Well, it’s an extremely well documented story, and while it’s of course impossible to be absolutely sure about “what could have happened”, Galileo’s contemporaries were aware that going away from Venice he had traded financial security and a relative intellectual independence for a uncertain chance of national fame under – and riches – under a far more absolutist control.

        This was explicitly told by Sagredo himself to Galileo in a 1611 letter (after Galileo had left Venice for good), where he warned him “The freedom and self-determination that are guaranteed in Venice, where else will you find them? You had powerful and affectionate support here, that was growing with your age and and the authority of your friends”.

        The best studies on this subject have been done by Vittorio Frajese (who may be Italy’s biggest expert on the relationship between Venice and the Counter Reform) and some of his stuff is available for free here (in Italian, alas).

        Frajese conclusions (but he’s not the only one) are as follows_ Galileo could have incurred in some trouble with the Venetian authorities because of his Copernican position, but this would never had taken the same form of the Roman trial. Cesare Cremonini, the aristotelian philosopher, was accused of much more serious things than Galileo in 1604 and 1610, and noting came out of it, because the Most Serene was interested in keeping him working. Between 1597 and 1630 the relationships between Venice and Rome were, to put it charitably, absolutely awful, partly because Venice wanted to keep the local clergy autonomous from Rome’s meddling, partly because Venice after Lepanto began an anti-Hapsbourg, anti-Spain, pro-France political phase.

        The problem, as you know well and as you have repeated many times, is that Galileo was blinded by his own ambition and his own misguided sense of self-importance. He wrote a letter in 1610 to a Belisario Vinta, complaining that, yes, in Padova he was getting 1000 florins of yearly wage, plus all the money he was getting from private tutoring, and a lot of spare time, but hey, I can do better, I want someone to pay me to spend 100 percent of my time doing research at my leisure, and Padova is just a place of regional renown, I want to be famous nationwide! (not kidding). The rest, as they say, is history.

      • BTW I’ve re-read Heilbron’s description of the 1607 political crisis between the Pope and Venice, and it’s much more shallow and old-fashioned that I remember. For instance, he says that in 1607 Venice was not a significant military power, which is simply not true (see the Morea wars against the Ottoman Empire in the latter part of the century). Part of the crisis solution was due to Venice threatening military action in the Adriatic Sea, something that the Papal State could hardly withstand in 1607. The description of Paolo Sarpi and Cremonini’s dealings with the Inquisition is also quite problematic: Heilbron seems to inflate the importance of the Doge and the “young men”, while the consensus now is the two affairs were manoeuvred by the Council of the Ten and by the State Inquisitors (not to be confused with the Inquisitors Against Blasphemy, different office). As for most of the post-1508 Venetian history, concerns about the Most Serene security and independence prevailed against anything else. Also, Heilbron writes “lucrative papal appointments beguiled prominent members of the Donà Sarpi camp. Others came to see that Venice’s continuing rapid loss of commerce reduced its independence of action and made cooperation with Rome mandatory”. This is nonsense – no “prominent member” could have changed what was a political direction due not to the need to “cooperate with Rome” but of maintaining Venice commercial channels open with the Protestant world. There was no real “softening” of the position with Rome. On the contrary, there was, after 1607, a violent wave of repression against patricians who seemed to be inclined to have separate deals with the Holy Office. See the case against Angelo Badoer, ex-Venetian ambassador to the Vatican turned spy for the Pope, who was assassinated in Rome in 1630 by Venetian agents. Also, “Inquisition and censorship returned back to normal” has very little meaning, considering that censorship in Venice had been never the same thing as censorship in the rest of Italy, and the 1607 crisis had not seen a temporary change of course in these matters so there was nothing to “go back to normal”.

      • Ok, one very last point related to Heilbron (apologies Thony, I hope this doesn’t annoy you too much, but I’m very passionate about the history of Venice): he writes about Urbano VIII denying Galileo’s burial in Santa Maria Maggiore: “Either way Urban denied Galileo his tomb in Florence as he had done Sarpi his in Venice”. This is simply not true. Sarpi was buried in the Palladian church of San Giorgio Maggiore because he wanted to be buried there (it’s written in his will) there’s absolutely no way the Pope could have interfered

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s