Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

THE STATUS OF THE INQUISITION'S PRECEPT TO GALILEO (1616) IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nuncius

<title> ABSTRACT </title>On February, 26 1616 Galileo received an order to cease and desist from defending Copernicus. This order, technically called a precept, became the hinge of his trial and one of the two principal elements in his condemnation. As soon as the corpus of evidence came together fitfully in the nineteenth century, a number of scholars thought they saw vital contradictions in the documents and used them to argue that the precept, even if it was indeed administered, should not have been. At present the line that Galileo fell victim to a legal impropriety comes perilously close to orthodoxy. This situation overlooks the contested interpretation of Galileo's trial from the first over both the fact and the meaning of this precept. This article demonstrates that the terms of the debate were largely set in the 1870s and by historicizing the interpretation of "legal impropriety" it also suggests the need for further research before accepting it. Finally, it raises questions about the legal impropriety thesis. Did the Inquisition have a procedure to cover cases like Galileo's? If so, did it follow it in 1616 and 1633? Most urgent, what was a precept, how should one have been administered, what was its purpose or purposes? All these and others cannot presently be answered.

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/182539109x00048
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/182539109x00048
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/182539109x00048
2009-01-01
2016-12-11

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Nuncius — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation