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.

This Article is currently unavailable for purchase.
Add to Favorites

Cover image Placeholder

<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.

10.1163/221058709X00042
/content/journals/10.1163/221058709x00042
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/221058709x00042
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/221058709x00042
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/221058709x00042
2016-09-30

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation