GALILEI, GALILEO

(b. Pisa, Italy, 15 February 1564; d. Arcetri, Italy, 8 January 1642),

physics, astronomy, philosophy of science. For the original article on Galileo see DSB, vol. 5.

Since the publication of Stillman Drake’s DSB entry on Galileo in 1972, Galilean studies have come a long way. New translations have made Galileo’s works accessible to a large, multinational reading public. New critical editions of his texts, in many cases complemented by a sophisticated apparatus and explanatory comments, have helped to provide a more profound appraisal of his splendid prose. Above all, a host of studies on nearly every aspect of Galileo’s life and accomplishments have deepened scholars’ understanding of his eminent intellectual legacy. As a rough indication as of 2007 of the number of studies on Galileo published after Drake’s DSB article, suffice it to say that the International Galilean Bibliography (edited by the Institute and Museum of History of Science in Florence) counts more than 6,100 post-1972 records.

Thanks to this vast number of studies scholars are in a position to assess from a sounder historical standpoint the many facets of Galileo’s achievements. Even though the results of these studies do not significantly affect the excellent outline provided by Drake, subsequent works have added pieces of information that deserve to be taken into account in order to achieve a more comprehensive appraisal of Galileo’s accomplishments.

Editions . A noteworthy feature of Galilean studies since the 1970s is the publication of new, often outstanding editions of Galileo’s works. Of special value are the Sidereus nuncius edited by Isabelle Pantin (with French translation and very detailed notes) and the critical editions of the Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems, the Discourse on the Comets, and The Assayer prepared by Ottavio Besomi and Mario Helbing. All these editions couple philological exactitude with extensive and accurate commentaries. Of great interest for Galilean scholars is the edition of the proceedings of Galileo’s trial by Father Sergio Pagano, which adds to the known documentation some materials not included in the Edizione Nazionale (National Edition) of Galileo’s works.

Readers in English have increased opportunities to read Galileo’s texts thanks to improved or fresh translations. In 1974 Stillman Drake replaced the old version of the Two New Sciences by Henry Crew and Alfonso De Salvio (first issued in 1914) with a subsequent, more careful one. Further, in 1977 William Wallace translated from the Latin Galileo’s Early Notebooks(the so-called Juvenilia), and in 1989 Albert Van Helden edited a remarkable English Sidereus nuncius (The Sidereal Messenger). In the same year, Maurice Finocchiaro translated the most relevant documents pertaining to the “Galileo affair,” comprising the theological letters to Benedetto Castelli, Piero Dini, and Grand Duchess Cristina, as well as the Discourse on the Tides (1616) and the Reply to Francesco Ingoli (1624). Eight years later, in 1997, Finocchiaro also published a large collection of excerpts from Galileo’s Dialogue, which he complemented with explanatory notes.

Editorial work has also been actively engaged with Galileo’s unpublished texts. This has been the case notably with the logical notes of Manuscript 27 of the Galilean Collection in the National Library of Florence, which were integrally edited by William F. Edwards and William Wallace in 1988 under the title Tractatio de praecognitionibus et praecognitis and Tractatio de demonstratione. Wallace also provided an English translation of these treatises, emphasizing their importance for the development of Galileo’s scientific methodology.

Another remarkable edition concerns the Galilean Manuscript 72, whose contents show the evolution of Galileo’s thought on mechanics from his early years in Padua to the printing of Two New Sciences in 1638. Under the title Galileo Galilei’s Notes on Motion, the Central National Library (Florence), the Institute and Museum of History of Science (Florence), and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Berlin) have carried out an innovative project, publishing on the Internet an electronic reproduction (accompanied by transcriptions and apparatus) of this manuscript. The Institute and Museum of History of Science in Florence has also edited a Web archive, Galileothek@, which offers texts of all of Galileo’s works as well as images, bibliographical records, lexicographical and thematic indexes, sections devoted to experiments, and a detailed Galilean chronology, along with powerful tools for searching and navigating through the various repositories.

Finally, it should be added that a project of updating the masterful twenty-volume National Edition of Galileo’s Works (Opere), edited by Antonio Favaro and published between 1890 and 1909, was initiated in 2006. This project, anticipated to be completed by 2010, includes the publication of several volumes devoted to all those Galilean materials (works, letters, documents) that were unknown to Favaro and accordingly were not included in his edition.

Jesuit Sources . One of the most interesting debates surrounding Galileo concerns the sources of the above-mentioned notes on logic (Galilean Manuscript 27) and of the treatises edited by Favaro under the title Juvenilia. A few scholars (Alistair Crombie, Adriano Carugo, and William Wallace) have argued that these texts are based on works of Jesuit authors. As the specific sources of Galileo’s Juvenilia they name Franciscus Toletus’s commentaries (1573 and 1575) on Aristotle’s Physics and De generatione et corruptione, Benedictus Pererius’s textbook De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus(1576), and the commentary on Sacrobosco’s Sphere by the distinguished Jesuit astronomer Christopher Clavius (1581). More controversial is the identification of the precise texts said to have inspired the notes on logic of Galileo’s Manuscript 27. Crombie and Carugo held that Galileo relied on a printed book (Ludovico Carbone’s Additamenta ad commentaria D. Francisci Toleti in Logicam, 1597), while Wallace has maintained that the real source of these Galilean comments on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics was a manuscript reportatio of the logic course offered at the Collegio Romano by the Jesuit professor Paolo Della Valle during the academic year 1587–1588. Though no copy of this manuscript is extant, Wallace holds that its contents were plagiarized by Ludovico Carbone, a circumstance that would account for the resemblances between Galileo’s Manuscript 27 and Carbone’s Additamenta.

On these grounds, Wallace has emphasized the crucial role played by Aristotelian logic and methodology for Galileo’s achievements, adding that the alleged strong epistemological continuity perceptible in Galileo’s scientific evolution is the result of his unwavering reliance on the Aristotelian demonstrative method he learned from the Jesuit commentaries. Wallace’s conclusion is in fact quite bold, arguing that “Galileo’s methodology was already spelled out in the treatises he appropriated from the Collegio Romano” (1992, p. xvi). Although it is not possible to provide here a detailed survey of Wallace’s arguments, it must be observed that, apart from its pronounced conjectural character—there is no compelling evidence of Galileo’s use of the Collegio Romano’s materials—Wallace’s reconstruction obscures Galileo’s vehement anti-Aristotelian polemic, which actually forms a substantial part of his accomplishments.

As antidote to such a “pan-logical” view of Galileo’s epistemology, one should also bear in mind what Galileo claims in the “Second Day” of the Two New Sciences: “It seems to me that logic teaches how to know whether or not reasonings and demonstrations already discovered are conclusive, but I do not believe that it teaches how to find conclusive reasonings and demonstrations” (Drake trans., 2nd edition, 1989, p. 133).

Galilean Manuscript 72 . As a central contribution to modern science, Galileo’s theory of motion has always attracted much scholarly attention. In the last decades of the twentieth century a more precise assessment of the development of Galileo’s views on this matter became possible thanks to more careful studies of the scraps of Manuscript 72.

It is known that Galileo had planned to write a treatise on motion prior to his discoveries with the telescope in the 1609–1610 period. In May 1610 he wrote to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Belisario Vinta, that he was about to bring to completion “three books on local motion, an entirely new science, no one else, ancient or modern, having discovered some of the very many admirable properties that I demonstrate to exist in natural and forced motions” (Opere, Edizione Nazionale a cura di A. Favaro, Florence: Giunti Barbera, 1890–1909, repr. 1968, X, pp. 351–52). However, because Galileo embarked on different scientific pursuits and became involved in a number of scientific disputes, he was unable to bring out his “new science of motion” before 1638, when he published the Two New Sciences. Manuscript 72 constitutes a kind of filing cabinet in which Galileo saved the drafts of the theorems that he was to include in his Two New Sciences, along with numerous textual fragments, drawings, and calculations related to his mechanical research. Because they cover a period of nearly forty years, the materials of the codex are of the utmost importance for a more precise appraisal of Galileo’s route to his final theory of motion. For this reason, Galileo scholarship has paid increasing attention to Manuscript 72.

A remarkable result of these studies concerns clues in Manuscript 72 that indicate Galileo carried out an extensive experimental program. Several diagrams and calculations contained in the codex seem to provide evidence that, since the earliest years of the seventeenth century, Galileo performed experiments by rolling balls down planes inclined at small angles to the horizontal and by studying the swings of pendulums of different lengths. Although scholars have proposed different interpretations and chronologies of its contents, consensus exists that several folios of Manuscript 72 record experimental data. This evidence strongly reinforces the thesis that an important part of Galileo’s accomplishments in mechanics was rooted in experimentation.

Thus, while in his entry for the DSB in 1972 Drake wrote that “the role of experiment in Galileo’s physics was limited to the testing of preconceived mathematical rules and did not extend to the systematic search for such rules” (p. 247), seven years later, in 1979, he argued that the contents of Manuscript 72 bear out the conclusion that “Galileo found the law of free fall by experiment, or rather by the making of very careful measurements” (1979, p. x).

Nevertheless, it is still difficult to ascertain whether Galileo resorted to experiments merely to confirm the results he had already obtained via mathematical reasoning or whether the experimentation itself played a role in obtaining the results. At any rate, relying on careful survey of the contents of Manuscript 72, one can confidently assume that experimental practice was an essential constitutive element of Galileo’s “new science of motion.”

Atomism and the Eucharist . In section 48 of The Assayer(1623), Galileo set forth a theory of knowledge based on a sharp distinction between “objective” and “subjective” qualities. According to this view, whereas features such as shape, size, position, motion, and number are qualities intrinsic to real things, impressions such as colors, tastes, smells, or tactile properties do not exist in the objects themselves but only in the sentient subject experiencing them. For this reason, sensible qualities were characterized by Galileo as “mere names,” qualities that “reside only in the consciousness” and that would be “wiped away and annihilated” once human sensibility is removed. Behind sensible qualities are the true components of the real world, atoms, whose impinging on the sense organs produces sensory impressions. Hence, for example, the sensation of heat stems from the motion of a “multitude of minute particles” that penetrate human bodies; “their touch as felt by us when they pass through our substance is the sensation we call ‘heat.’” (trans. in Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, New York: Anchor Books, 1957, p. 277). Galileo’s stance was clearly rooted in the tradition of ancient atomism, whose most distinguished representatives, such as Democritus and Lucretius, had already stated similar views.

Two documents discovered in the Archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly Holy Office) show that Galileo’s atomistic theory was brought to the attention of the Inquisitorial authorities, most likely before the trial of 1633. The first document was found in 1982 by Pietro Redondi and is usually referred to as “G3,” from the code appearing on the top of its first page. G3 is a denunciation of the atomism of The Assayer. The anonymous author protested that Galileo’s interpretation of sensible qualities clashed with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, according to which, after consecration in the Mass, bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This transformation is understood as transubstantiation because it concerns the

substances of bread and wine, whereas their “accidents,” or apparent qualities (color, odor, exterior shape), remain unchanged by virtue of a divine miracle. The author of G3 remarked that, according to the terms of Galileo’s argument, it would be impossible to separate the accidental properties of bread and wine from their own substances. Indeed, because those accidental properties are regarded as “mere names” and as nonexistent outside human sensory perception, on the basis of Galileo’s theory one would be obliged to conclude that “in the Sacrament there are substantial elements of the bread and the wine, which is an error condemned by the Sacred Council of Trent.”

Redondi dated G3 to 1624 and attributed it to Orazio Grassi, the Jesuit mathematician against whom Galileo had written The Assayer. Redondi also connected the document to the trial of 1633, suggesting that the charge of Copernicanism that motivated the trial was a stratagem devised by Pope Urban VIII (a former friend of Galileo) in order to avoid having the scientist face the more serious accusation of Eucharistic heresy.

Redondi’s ascription of G3 to Grassi has been proved to be mistaken, and his thesis concerning the “true” (although disguised) reasons of the trial has been generally rejected by scholars. Nevertheless, Redondi’s book triggered a fresh wave of interest in the Galileo affair and renewed investigations into its cultural and political context.

Another document, similar to G3, was discovered by Mariano Artigas in 1999 and has been carefully studied by Artigas himself along with Rafael Martinez and William Shea. This document is placed in the same volume as G3, the volume EE of the collection “Acta et Documenta,” where it occupies sheet 291. For this reason it has been called “EE 291.”

Like G3, EE 291 is anonymous (it is in Latin while the former is in Italian), and it equally develops a criticism of the theory of sensible qualities expounded in The Assayer, which it deems incompatible with the doctrine of the Eucharist. The author of this document has been identified as the Jesuit Melchior Inchofer, who probably was a member of the commission appointed by the pope in the summer of 1632 to examine Galileo’s Dialogue. Inchofer, a firm opponent of Copernicanism, could have written EE 291 in order to worsen Galileo’s position by adding a further charge against him. Thus, the discoveries of G3 and EE 291, besides providing valuable pieces of information on previously unknown episodes of Galileo’s life, also opened a new chapter of investigation concerning the difficult relationship between atomism and Eucharistic doctrine.

The Role of Patronage . It is well known that Galileo spent a great part of his mature life, from 1610 until his death in 1642, at the Medici court as mathematician and philosopher of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Furthermore, even before his return to Florence from Padua (in the autumn of 1610), Galileo had to deal with several patrons in order to promote his career and to obtain academic positions. Indeed, the practice of relying on the support of influential patrons was quite normal at the time. As Richard S. Westfall remarked: “Patronage was perhaps the most pervasive institution of preindustrial society” (1985, p. 29); hence: “the system of patronage […] was a feature of 17th century life as distinctive as scientific technology is in the 20th century” (1984, p. 200).

For this reason, the last decades have witnessed a growing interest in re-interpreting Galileo’s life and achievement in the light of the patronage culture. Richard S. Westfall focused on the role played by patronage in Galileo’s relationship with the Accademia dei Lincei (1984) and the Jesuit order (1988) as well as in the controversial episode of the discovery of the phases of Venus (1985), while Frederick Hammond provided a fascinating outline of the connection between Pope Barberini’s system of patronage and the Galileo affair.

But the most comprehensive study on this matter is certainly Mario Biagioli’s seminal book, Galileo Courtier. Biagioli argues that “Galileo’s courtly role was integral to his science” (1993, p. 1), because “the court contributed to the cognitive legitimation of the new science by providing venues for the social legitimation of its practitioners” (1993, p. 2). Actually, courtly patronage being “the social world of Galileo’s science” (1993, p. 4), the latter was involved in a process of self-fashioning, aimed to work out a fresh social and intellectual image, best fitted to courtly codes and rules. In this process, Galileo “used the resources he perceived in the surrounding environment to construct a new socio-professional identity for himself, to put forward a new natural philosophy, and to develop a courtly audience for it” (1993, p. 5). In short, Biagioli views Galileo “not only as a rational manipulator of the patronage machinery but also as somebody whose discourse, motivations, and intellectual choices were informed by the patronage culture in which he operated throughout his life” (1993, p. 4).

Biagioli’s detailed account (based on detailed documentation from primary and secondary sources) mainly concerns Galileo’s experience at the Medici court, spanning from 1610 to just after the 1633 trial. The core of his interpretation relies on the assumption that the social legitimation Galileo acquired in the courtly milieu assured the cognitive legitimation of his theories.

While innovative and appealing, Biagioli’s historio-graphical proposal runs the strong risk of being sometimes unreliable and implausible. For example, Biagioli views Galileo’s Copernican commitment as an outcome of a strategy based on the logic of patronage. As he puts it: “Copernicanism was the ‘natural’ choice for someone such as Galileo who aspired to a higher socioprofessional status, while the court was the social space that could best legitimize such an unusual socioprofessional identity” (1993, p. 226). Hence, “the increasing commitment to Copernican astronomy that Galileo developed in those years [i. e. after 1609–1610] may have resulted also from the patronage dynamics that pushed him to defend his discoveries and produce even more of them” (1993, p. 91).

This seems an oversimplified account of the motivations that drove Galileo to embrace the Copernican theory, because it completely ignores the theoretical reasons behind his choice, which were rooted in the interplay between astronomical arguments and the principles of Galileo’s “new science of motion.” Indeed, by reducing the cognitive acceptance of science to its social legitimation, Biagioli tends to obscure the autonomy of scientific debate. Consequently, he often disregards the multifaceted complexity of history, failing to recognize that ideas follow often their own paths, connected to, but not always dependent on, social features.

The Galileo Affair Revisited . On 10 November 1979, on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Albert Einstein, before a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II delivered an address on the “deep harmony that unites the truths of science with the truth of faith” (L’Osservatore Romano, English week edition, November 26, 1979, pp. 9–10). In his speech John Paul II dealt with the trial and condemnation of Galileo, frankly admitting that the scientist “had to suffer a great deal at the hands of men and organs of the Church.” John Paul II expressed the hope that “theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal 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.”

As a consequence of this wish, in July 1981, the Vatican constituted a study commission divided into various sections (exegetical, cultural, scientific-epistemological, and historical-juridical). The commission met several times, held a few conferences, and issued a significant number of publications. Its work was declared to be concluded on 31 October 1992, at an audience given by the pope at a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy. On that occasion the pope underlined Galileo’s mistake in not presenting the Copernican system as a hypothesis, because “it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proofs” (trans. in Fantoli, 2003, p. 370). Yet John Paul II acknowledged that Galileo’s views on scriptural interpretation were sounder than those put forth by the theologians of his epoch. The pope also claimed that the Galileo affair resulted from a “tragic mutual incomprehension” that would have poisoned the subsequent relationship between faith and science, creating the myth of the Church’s opposition to the free search for truth. He concluded that “the clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.”

John Paul II’s words were of the highest importance, marking a break with the Church’s long-held attitude toward Galileo by honestly recognizing the errors committed by the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, some of the arguments put forth by John Paul II suggested a defensive strategy not consonant with that “loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come.” It is misleading to blame Galileo for his refusal to consider Copernicanism as a hypothesis while emphasizing his alleged inability to provide definitive evidence in support of the Copernican theory. Indeed, Galileo did not regard Copernicanism as a purely mathematical expedient to predict celestial events. According to his view, in fact, a system of the world should account for the true structure of the universe. At the same time, Galileo was firmly convinced of having good reasons in support of Copernicanism, because observations and theoretical explanations (not only his mistaken theory of tides, but also his new science of motion) confirmed to him that the arguments for the Earth’s motion were much stronger than those against it.

Still, it must be remembered that Galileo was not condemned for the inadequacy of his scientific or epistemological position but for exegetical considerations pertaining to the clash between heliocentrism and several passages of the Bible. The epistemological concerns raised by John Paul II were never addressed by the Roman inquisitors, who only focused on the theological consequences of Galileo’s Copernicanism.

In conclusion, the Galileo affair is by no means a closed question and continues to be a promising field for historical investigation. Many of its most obscure facets are as of 2007 still in need of clarification, and it also deserves to be carefully and constantly pondered for its worth as a significant memento. As Annibale Fantoli has observed, the Galileo affair “remains, and should remain, ‘open’, as a severe lesson of humility to the Church at all levels and as a warning, no less rigorous, not to wish to repeat in the present or in the future errors similar to those which have brought about [such a] heavy burden” (2003, p. 373).

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

The most useful and complete bibliographical resource in the field of Galilean studies is the International Galilean Bibliography, edited by the Institute and Museum of History of Science in Florence. Covering the entire reception of Galilean work, it lists more than 17,000 records. Available from http://www.imss.fi.it/biblio/ebibgali.html.

WORKS BY GALILEO

Galileo’s Early Notebooks: The Physical Questions. Translated from the Latin with historical and paleographical commentary by William A. Wallace. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.

I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. A cura di Sergio M. Pagano. Vatican City: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, 1984.

Tractatio de praecognitionibus et praecognitis and Tractatio de demonstratione. Transcribed from the Latin autograph by William F. Edwards, with an introduction, notes, and commentary by William A. Wallace. Padua: Antenore, 1988.

The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Edited and translated with an introduction and notes by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Sidereus nuncius, or, The Sidereal Messenger. Translated with introduction, conclusions, and notes by Albert Van Helden. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Two New Sciences Including Centers of Gravity and Force of Percussion. Translated with introduction and notes by Stillman Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1974; 2nd ed., Toronto: Wall & Thompson, 1989.

Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze, attinenti alla meccanica ed i movimenti locali. A cura di Enrico Giusti. Turin, Italy: Einaudi, 1990.

Galileo’s Logical Treatises: A Translation, with Notes and Commentary, of His Appropriated Latin Questions on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. By William A. Wallace. Dordrecht-Boston: Kluwer, 1992.

Sidereus nuncius/Le messager céleste. Texte, traduction et notes établis par Isabelle Pantin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992.

Galileo on World Systems: A New Abridged Translation and Guide. By Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano. Edizione critica e commentata a cura di Ottavio Besomi e Mario Helbing. Padua: Antenore, 1998.

Discorso delle comete. Edizione critica e commentata a cura di Ottavio Besomi e Mario Helbing. Padua: Antenore, 2002.

Le mecaniche. Edizione critica e saggio introduttivo di Romano Gatto. Florence: Olschki, 2002.

Il Saggiatore. Edizione critica e commentata a cura di Ottavio Besomi e Mario Helbing. Padua: Antenore, 2005.

Galileo Galilei’s Notes on Motion. Electronic representation of Galilean Manuscript 72. Available from http://www.mpiwgberlin.mpg.de.

OTHER SOURCES

Artigas, Mariano, Rafael Martinez, and William R. Shea. “New Light on the Galileo Affair?” In The Church and Galileo, edited by Ernan McMullin. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Beretta, Francesco. “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-Office: Aspects judiciaires et théologiques d’une condamnation célèbre.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 88 (1999): 441–490.

———. “The Documents of Galileo’s Trial: Recent Hypotheses and Historical Criticism.” In The Church and Galileo, edited by Ernan McMullin. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Biagioli, Mario. Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

———. Galileo’s Instruments of Credit: Telescopes, Images, Secrecy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Blackwell, Richard J. Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.

Bucciantini, Massimo. Contro Galileo: Alle origini dell’affaire. Florence: Olschki, 1995.

———. Galileo e Keplero: Filosofia, cosmologia e teologia nell’età della Controriforma. Turin, Italy: Einaudi, 2003.

Camerota, Michele, and Mario Helbing. “Galileo and Pisan Aristotelianism: Galileo’s De motu antiquiora and the Quaestiones de motu elementorum of the Pisan Professors.” Early Science and Medicine 5 (2000): 319–365.

Camerota, Michele. Galileo Galilei e la cultura scientifica nell’età della Controriforma. Rome: Salerno, 2004.

Carugo, Adriano, and Alistair C. Crombie. “The Jesuits and Galileo’s Ideas of Science and of Nature.” Annali dell’Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze 8, no. 2 (1983): 3–67.

Clavelin, Maurice. Galilée copernicien: Le premier combat (1610–1616). Paris: Albin Michel, 2004.

Coyne, George V., SJ. “The Church’s Most Recent Attempt to Dispel the Galileo Myth.” In The Church and Galileo, edited by Ernan McMullin. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Drake, Stillman. Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

———. Galileo’s Notes on Motion. Florence: Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza, 1979.

———. Essays on Galileo and the History and Philosophy of Science. Selected and introduced by Noel M. Swerdlow and Trevor H. Levere. 3 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Fantoli, Annibale. Galileo, for Copernicanism and for the Church. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Translated by George V. Coyne. Vatican City: Vatican Observatory Publications, 2003.

Feldhay, Rivka. Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Galilaeana: Journal of Galilean Studies. 2004– . Promoted by the Institute and Museum of History of Science in Florence and edited by Massimo Bucciantini and Michele Camerota. Published annually and specifically devoted to investigating all aspects of the life, work, scientific findings, and fortunes of Galileo Galilei.

Galluzzi, Paolo. Momento: Studi galileiani. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1979.

———, ed. Novità celesti e crisi del sapere. Florence: Giunti Barbera, 1984.

Hammond, Frederick. “The Artistic Patronage of the Barberini and the Galileo Affair.” In Music and Science in the Age of Galileo, edited by Victor Coelho. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 1992.

Machamer, Peter, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

McMullin, Ernan, ed. The Church and Galileo. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Montesinos, José, and Carlos Solís, eds. Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001. La Orotava, Spain: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, 2001.

Naylor, Ronald H. “Galileo’s Theory of Motion: Processes of Conceptual Change in the Period 1604–1610.” Annals of Science 34 (1977): 365–392.

———. “Galileo’s Theory of Projectile Motion.” Isis 71 (1980): 550–570.

Palmerino, Carla Rita, and J. M. M. H. Thijssen, eds. The Reception of Galilean Science of Motion in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 2004.

Pesce, Mauro. L’ermeneutica biblica di Galileo e le due strade della teologia cristiana. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2005.

Redondi, Pietro. Galileo: Heretic. Translated by Raymond Rosenthal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Renn, Jürgen. “Proofs and Paradoxes: Free Fall and Projectile Motion in Galileo’s Physics.” In Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics, edited by Peter Damerow et al. New York and Berlin: Springer, 1992.

Renn, Jürgen, ed. Galileo in Context. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Shea, William R., and Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Stabile, Giorgio. “Linguaggio della natura e linguaggio della Scrittura in Galilei: Dalla Istoria sulle macchie solari alle lettere copernicane.” Nuncius 9 (1994): 37–64.

Wallace, William A. “Galileo and the Accademia dei Lincei.” In Novità celesti e crisi del sapere, edited by Paolo Galuzzi. Florence: Giunti Barbera, 1984.

———. Galileo and His Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

———. Galileo’s Logic of Discovery and Proof: The Background, Content, and Use of His Appropriated Treatises on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 1992.

———, ed. Reinterpreting Galileo. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

Westfall, Richard S. “Science and Patronage: Galileo and the Telescope.” Isis 76 (1985): 11–30.

———. “Galileo and the Jesuits.” In Metaphysics and Philosophy of Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Essays in Honour of Gerd Buchdahl, edited by Roger S. Woolhouse. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 1988.

Wisan, Winifred L. “The New Science of Motion: A Study of Galileo’s De motu locali.” Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 13 (1974): 103–306.

Michele Camerota