Four centuries later: how to close the “Galileo case”?

MICHAEL SEGRE

FOUR CENTURIES LATER:HOW TO CLOSE THE GALILEO CASE?

ESTRATTOda

PHYSISRIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI STORIA DELLA SCIENZA

VOL. XLVIII (2011-2012) – NUOVA SERIE – FASC. 1-2

Leo S. Olschki EditoreFirenze

VOL. XLVIII (2011-2012) NUOVA SERIE FASC. 1-2


LEO S. OLSCHKI EDITOREF I R E N Z E

ISSN 0031-9414

INDICE

Studi e ricerche

L. MIATELLO, Transformations of Geometrical Objects in MiddleEgyptian Mathematical Texts . . . . . . . . . . pag. 1

C. VILAIN, Galilee et la force centrifuge . . . . . . . . . » 31

M. SEGRE, Four Centuries Later: How to Close the Galileo Case? . . » 53

E. PROVERBIO, La produzione di vetro ottico in Francia e le esperienzedi Ruggiero Boscovich per la produzione di vetro al piombo – Par-te prima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 67

M. DUICHIN, Notomisti, filosofi, «cacciatori di teste»: Gall, Kant e i pri-mordi della frenologia . . . . . . . . . . . . » 103

D. BOCCALETTI, Raffaello Caverni and the Society for the Progress ofthe Sciences: An Independent Priest Criticized by the Lay Scien-tists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 127

Y. FONTENEAU – J. VIARD, Travail, force vive et fatigue dans l’œuvre deDaniel Bernoulli: vers l’optimisation du fait biologique . . . . » 145

S. BORDONI, Joseph John Thomson’s Models of Matter and Radiationin the Early 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 197

R. RASHED, Philosophy and Mathematics: Interactions . . . . . » 241

Note e discussioni

L. MONTEMAGNO CISERI, Notizie extra-ordinarie di un curioso speziale.Mostri e meraviglie nel Diario fiorentino di Luca Landucci . . . » 259

E. PROVERBIO, L’Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrisponden-za di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich . . . . . . . . . » 285

F. ZAMPIERI – A. ZANATTA – M. RIPPA BONATI, L’enigma della «suicidapunita»: un preparato anatomico di Lodovico Brunetti vincitoredella medaglia d’oro all’esposizione universale di Parigi del 1867 . » 297

G. CECCARELLI, Storie nella storia. Note a margine di un volume di sto-ria della psicologia italiana . . . . . . . . . . . » 339

*P

HY

SI

S*

Vo

l.X

LV

III

(20

11

-20

12

)N

uo

vaS

erie

*F

asc.

1-2

*

NOTES FOR AUTHORS

1. Submission of manuscripts. Manuscripts should be submitted to: «Physis», c/oDepartment of Social & Developmental Psychology – University of Rome ‘‘LaSapienza’’ – Via dei Marsi, 78 – Rome – Italy. Manuscripts will not bereturned. Authors of articles are reminded that for publication the journal willrequire the eventual submission of the final version of the paper on either aPC or Mac disk (using a non-obscure word-processing programme or RTFformat) in addition to a printed copy. Authors are requested to ensure that thelayout of their final copy conforms to the house style indicated below.

2. Languages. The languages of the journal are Italian, English, French, German, andSpanish. Previously unpublished materials should appear in their originallanguages (with a translation, if thought necessary). Each article must beaccompanied by an abstract of about 10-15 lines, in the same language as thatof the article. Articles in languages other than English must also beaccompanied by an abstract in English.

3. Preparation of manuscripts. «Physis» normally uses double-blind refereeing;authors should therefore identify themselves only on a detachable coversheet giving both their name and the full title of the paper. Only the title ofthe paper should appear at the top of the first page of the manuscript.Manuscripts must be typed double-spaced on good quality-paper, with widemargins on each side. Footnotes should be printed out separately after themain text. Diagrams and plates should be submitted separately with anindication of where they should be placed in the paper. Manuscripts shouldnot normally exceed 30 double-spaced pages in length.

4. Quotations. Long quotations will be set in a different style from the body of thearticle. It is advisable to indicate such quotations by means of a coloured line inthe margin. Brief quotations, however, should use quotation marks. Omissionsfrom quoted texts should be indicated by three ellipsis points between squarebrackets [...].

5. Footnotes and References. Bibliographic information should be given in footnotes(not parenthetically in the text). Footnotes are to be numbered consecutively,with superscript numerals placed after the punctuation, thus: ... Darwin agreed.15

References are to be cited as follows:– I. NEWTON, The Correspondence, ed. by W.H. Turnbull, J.F. Scott, A.R. Hall,L. Tilling, 7 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953-1978, vol. I, p. 100.– A.R. HALL, The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution, inCritical Problems in the History of Science, ed. by M. Clagett, Madison, TheUniversity of Wisconsin Press, 1962, pp. 3-24, on p. 20.– T.S. KUHN, The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science, «TheBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science», XXXI, 1980, pp. 181-192, onp. 190.– A.R. HALL, The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution, cit. innote 4, p. 10.– Ibid., p. 11.

6. When a paper has been accepted for publication, authors will receive one set ofgalley proofs. Authors will receive 30 offprints free-of-charge and a copy of thejournal.


pubblicata dallaDOMUS GALILÆANA DI PISA

in collaborazione conSEMINARIO DI STORIA DELLA SCIENZA DELL’UNIVERSITA DI BARI

DIPARTIMENTO DI PSICOLOGIA DEI PROCESSI DI SVILUPPO E SOCIALIZZAZIONE

DELL’UNIVERSITA DI ROMA «LA SAPIENZA»

DIREZIONE E REDAZIONE(EDITORS)

Direttore responsabile (Senior Editor): Vincenzo Cappelletti.Direttore (Editor): Guido Cimino.

Comitato direttivo (Editorial Board): Nino Dazzi, Mauro Di Giandomenico, PaoloFreguglia, Carlo Maccagni, Giuliano Pancaldi.

Responsabile delle recensioni (Book Reviews Editor): Marta Buroni.

Redazione (Editorial Office): Marta Buroni, Silvia Degni, Barbara Olson, Antonino Trizzino.

CONSIGLIO SCIENTIFICO(ADVISORY EDITORS)

Evandro Agazzi, Giulio Barsanti, Enrico Berti, Jed Buchwald, Paolo Casini, CatherineChevalley, Salvo D’Agostino, Jean Dhombres, Francois Duchesneau, Maria Rosaria Egidi,Dietrich von Engelhardt, Paolo Galluzzi, Enrico Giusti, Robert Halleux, John L. Heilbron,Gerald Holton, Eberhard Knobloch, Geoffrey Lloyd, Alfonso Maieru, Alberto Pasquinelli,Luigi Pepe, Marcello Pera, Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Andre Robinet, Paolo Rossi,A.I. Sabra, William R. Shea, Raffaella Simili, Maurizio Torrini, Cesare Vasoli, L. PearceWilliams, Bruno Zanobio.

Direzione: Domus Galilæana, Via S. Maria 26, 56100 Pisa - Tel. +39.050.23.726Redazione: Dipartimento di psicologia dei processi di sviluppo e socializzazione, Universitadi Roma «La Sapienza», Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma - Tel. +39.06.49.91.76.62 -Fax 06.49.91.76.52 - e-mail: [email protected]

Amministrazione: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, Viuzzo del Pozzetto 8, 50126 Firenze -e-mail: [email protected] - Conto corrente postale 12.707.501 - Tel. +39.055.65.30.684 -fax +39.055.65.30.214

2011-2012: ABBONAMENTO ANNUALE (2 fascicoli) – ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION (2 issues)

ISTITUZIONI – INSTITUTIONS

La quota per le istituzioni e comprensiva dell’accesso on-line alla rivista.Indirizzo IP e richieste di informazioni sulla procedura di attivazione dovranno essere inoltrati a

[email protected]

Subscription rates for institutions include on-line access to the journal.The IP address and requests for information on the activation procedure should be sent to

[email protected]

Italia: E 100,00 - Foreign E 130,00

PRIVATI – INDIVIDUALS

solo cartaceo - print version only



VOL. XLVIII

NUOVA SERIE

2011-2012

LEO S. OLSCHKI EDITORE

F I R E N Z E







Direttore responsabile (Senior Editor): VINCENZO CAPPELLETTI.Direttore (Editor): GUIDO CIMINO.

Comitato direttivo (Editorial Board): NINO DAZZI, MAURO DI GIANDOMENICO, PAOLO

FREGUGLIA, CARLO MACCAGNI, GIULIANO PANCALDI.

Responsabile delle recensioni (Book Reviews Editor): MARTA BURONI.

Redazione (Editorial Office): MARTA BURONI, SILVIA DEGNI, EMANUELA IMPERIALI, BARBARA

OLSON, ANTONINO TRIZZINO.


EVANDRO AGAZZI, GIULIO BARSANTI, ENRICO BERTI, JED BUCHWALD, PAOLO CASINI,CATHERINE CHEVALLEY, SALVO D’AGOSTINO, JEAN DHOMBRES, FRANCOIS DUCHESNEAU,MARIA ROSARIA EGIDI, DIETRICH VON ENGELHARDT, PAOLO GALLUZZI, ENRICO GIUSTI,ROBERT HALLEUX, JOHN L. HEILBRON, GERALD HOLTON, EBERHARD KNOBLOCH, GEOFFREY

LLOYD, ALFONSO MAIERU, ALBERTO PASQUINELLI, LUIGI PEPE, MARCELLO PERA, GIOVANNI

PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, ANDRE ROBINET, PAOLO ROSSI, A.I. SABRA, WILLIAM R. SHEA,RAFFAELLA SIMILI, MAURIZIO TORRINI, CESARE VASOLI, L. PEARCE WILLIAMS, BRUNO

ZANOBIO.

Direzione: Domus Galilaeana - via S. Maria 26 - 56100 Pisa - Tel. +39.050.23726Redazione: Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione -

Universita di Roma «La Sapienza» - Via dei Marsi, 78 - 00185 Roma - ItalyTel. +39.06.49917662 - Fax: +39.06.49917652 - E-MAIL: [email protected]


VOL. XLVIII (2011-2012) - NUOVA SERIE

FASC. 1-2

SOMMARIO

Studi e ricerche




E. PROVERBIO, La produzione di vetro ottico in Francia e le esperienze diRuggiero Boscovich per la produzione di vetro al piombo – Parte prima » 67

M. DUICHIN, Notomisti, filosofi, «cacciatori di teste»: Gall, Kant e i pri-mordi della frenologia . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 103

D. BOCCALETTI, Raffaello Caverni and the Society for the Progress of theSciences: An Independent Priest Criticized by the Lay Scientists . . » 127


S. BORDONI, Joseph John Thomson’s Models of Matter and Radiation inthe Early 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 197

R. RASHED, Philosophy and Mathematics: Interactions . . . . . . » 241

Note e discussioni


E. PROVERBIO, L’Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrispondenzadi Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich . . . . . . . . . » 285

F. ZAMPIERI – A. ZANATTA – M. RIPPA BONATI, L’enigma della «suicidapunita»: un preparato anatomico di Lodovico Brunetti vincitore dellamedaglia d’oro all’esposizione universale di Parigi del 1867 . . . » 297

G. CECCARELLI, Storie nella storia. Note a margine di un volume di storiadella psicologia italiana . . . . . . . . . . . . » 339

FOUR CENTURIES LATER:HOW TO CLOSE THE GALILEO CASE?*

MICHAEL SEGRE

University of Chieti-Pescara

ABSTRACT — The ‘‘Galileo case’’ is still open: John Paul II’s 1979 initiative to ‘‘rec-ognize wrongs from whatever side they come’’ was carried out in an unsatisfactory manner.The task would have been easy had the Pontifical Study Commission created for that pur-pose concentrated on the 1616 decree alone and declared it not in line with the hermeneu-tical guidelines of the Council of Trent, in agreement with Galileo and not with Saint RobertBellarmine. A possible avenue to closing the ‘‘Galileo case’’ on the part of the Church ofRome could, thus, be to change its current defensive attitude and declare itself no longerwhat it was in 1616, since another such ‘‘case’’ is, hopefully, no longer conceivable.

THE ‘‘GALILEO CASE’’ IS STILL OPEN

I imagine that the title of this article will surprise some readers. Formany and, above all, for the Roman Catholic Church, the address PopeJohn Paul II made on October 31, 1992 concerning Galileo has put anend to the ‘‘misunderstandings’’ between science and Catholicism follow-ing the ‘‘Galileo affair.’’ 1 I will try to explain why I consider the ‘‘case’’ stillopen and make a few suggestions as to how it could be closed for good.

* Paper presented at the meeting Dall’astronomia alla cosmologia. Quattrocento anni dal SidereusNuncius di Galileo Galilei (November 19th, 2010), Pisa, Domus Galilaeana. I am indebted to JosephAgassi, Annibale Fantoli and Maurice Finocchiaro for having read and commented on early drafts ofthis article and contributed to its improvement, and to Gail McDowell for having improved myEnglish.

1 JOHN PAUL II, 1992, delivered in French. An English translation of his address was publishedby the Weekly Edition of «L’Osservatore Romano».

The two cornerstones of the ‘‘case’’ are:1) In 1616, a panel of theologians at the Holy Office decreed Coper-

nicanism: 2 ‘‘Foolish and absurd and in philosophy, and formally hereticalsince it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture,according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the com-mon interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doc-tors of theology.’’

2) In 1633, the Roman Inquisition condemned Galileo to lifelonghouse arrest for having violated the above decree.

Before starting the discussion, one caveat: the topic at stake is complexand therefore, whether the Church has righted its wrongs to Galileo or notis a matter for anybody’s conjecture. Of fundamental importance, thus,are the questions that are posed and coherence in attempting to answerthem. Let me begin by recounting the major progressive steps that havebeen made during the four intervening centuries.3 As early as 1742, thecongregation of the Holy Office under the pontificate of Benedict XIVgranted permission for the collection and the publication of most of Ga-lileo’s works, including the Dialogue, albeit with a number of qualifica-tions and disclaimers. In 1757, the general ban on books teaching the Co-pernican theory was lifted, although the Dialogue and other works,including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, remained on the Index. Theseworks were only omitted from the Index in 1835. In 1893, in his encyclicalProvidentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII quoted passages from St. Augustinewhich had been invoked by Galileo concerning the relationship betweenBiblical interpretation and scientific investigation, implying that Galileowas right in matters of hermeneutics.

Despite all this progress, Galileo’s condemnation remained a thorn inthe Roman Catholic Church’s side. Tension was particularly felt after theSecond Vatican Council recognized the autonomy of worldly values (i.e.,of science) in its superb pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes, on TheChurch in the Modern World.4 It is in the wake of that Council that, in1979, Pope John Paul II expressed the hope that:

54 MICHAEL SEGRE

2 The decree was more detailed and treated separately, with slightly different assessments, thecentrality of the Sun and the motion of the Earth. For a full English translation, see FINOCCHIARO,1989, pp. 146-147.

3 For a detailed history of the ‘‘Galileo case,’’ see FINOCCHIARO, 2005.4 ‘‘Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,’’ Gaudium et spes, 1965. An

English translation can be found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html (consulted on January 5, 2011).

Theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collab-oration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal recognition ofwrongs from whatever side they come, will dispel the mistrust that still opposes,in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith, between the Churchand the world.5

A sincere admission of wrongs would have definitely closed the ‘‘case.’’So, on May 1, 1981, the then-Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal AgostinoCasaroli asked the (eighty-year-old) Cardinal Gabriel-Marie Garrone tocoordinate the work of an Interdisciplinary Study Commission with theaim:

To rethink the whole Galileo question, with complete fidelity to historicallydocumented facts and in conformity to the doctrines and the culture of the time,and to recognize honestly [...] rights and wrongs from whatever side they come.6

The above statement amounts to an acknowledgement of errors. Hasthe Church fulfilled it?

A SLOPPY ‘‘RETHINKING’’

The Interdisciplinary Study Commission which was thus constitutedworked officially between 1981 and 1992. A well-documented book bytwo Catholic scholars, Mariano Artigas and Melchor Sanchez de Toca,published in 2008, reports the work of the Commission in detail.7 A highlyrespectable team, which was well aware of the challenge, carried out itstask with astounding organizational and intellectual thoughtlessness. Some

5 JOHN PAUL II, 1979. On this occasion, too, the speech was delivered in French.6 ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA, 2009, pp. 91-92 (my translation). In SEGRE, 1997, pp. 499-

501, I had published a later letter dated 3 July from Casaroli to mons. Paul Poupard, with the samecontents: this was the only document related to the creation of the commission which I was able toobtain at that time and Casaroli’s letter to Garrone indicates that steps had been undertaken earlier. Ialso take the opportunity to correct a small mistake in my transcription (p. 500): ‘‘in conformita alladottrine’’ should read ‘‘in conformita alle dottrine;’’ likewise, the translation (p. 501) should read ‘‘inconformity to the doctrines’’ (plural). Garrone (1901-1994) was born in France in 1901 and createdCardinal in 1967. Until 1980, he had been Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education. Pou-pard was born in 1930, also in France. In 1981, he was acting president of the Secretariat for Non-Believers. In the letter of July 3, 1981, Casaroli asked him to coordinate, within the Commission, theworking group for cultural questions. Poupard was created Cardinal in 1985.

7 ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA, 2008; Italian translation: ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA,2009.

55How to Close the Galileo Case?

of the Commission’s members were elderly prelates with heavy responsi-bilities that prevented them from partaking in the Commission’s work– among them Cardinal Garrone, who also suffered from poor health.The Commission included no historians of science and no philosophersof science, although, occasionally, renowned historians of science, suchas William Wallace, Robert Westfall and Olaf Pedersen, were called onto collaborate. However, since it was not properly coordinated, the Com-mission failed to pose key questions – and thus, it failed to answer any. Itsenterprise came to be a routine research which could have taken placeanywhere outside the walls of the Vatican and no substantial results wereachieved as far as ascertaining ‘‘wrongs from whatever side they come.’’ Adecade elapsed; Church leaders were under pressure to produce conclu-sions.

How does one produce a conclusion under such conditions? One wayor another, the duty was put on the shoulders of a Dominican, Father Ber-nard Vinaty. He did what he could, which is not much: his drafts containsome trivial mistakes.8 In any case, asking one single individual to producea more or less ad hoc resolution to a controversy which has lasted morethan three centuries is asking too much; no wonder the conclusion was un-satisfactory.

AN UNSATISFACTORY CONCLUSION

The Commission officially ended its work in 1992 with two speeches,the first by Cardinal Paul Poupard, then president of the Pontifical Coun-cil of Culture and a member of the Commission, and the second by thePope. Vinaty’s drafts ended up as the basis of Cardinal Poupard’s speech;no documents reveal who stood behind the Pope’s address. One thing,however, is clear: the conclusion, much like the work of the Commission,was carried out rather sloppily. I have analyzed these speeches in severalarticles and will briefly summarize a few points from them.9 Poupard’sspeech presenting the results of the Commission’s work, besides some fac-tual errors, says two things as far as wrongs are concerned:

56 MICHAEL SEGRE

8 Without judging Vinaty’s competence, his mistakes are important since his report is thesource of Poupard’s incorrect paraphrasing of Bellarmine. See note 10 below and ARTIGAS and SAN-

CHEZ DE TOCA, 2008, pp. 177, 190; 2009, pp. 225, 241-242.9 SEGRE, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004.

1) Certain theologians among Galileo’s contemporaries failed to in-terpret the Scriptures properly. This assertion marks progress, albeit mini-mal. It admits that somebody in the Church had made a mistake, without,however, naming any names. It only adds that Galileo’s judges had made amistake which caused him much suffering. The only contemporary theo-logian mentioned by name in Poupard’s speech is the highest contempor-ary theological authority, Cardinal (later saint) Robert Bellarmine. Pou-pard says that he was a ‘‘key person of the whole affair.’’

2) In his well-known letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Cardinal Bel-larmine had stipulated a condition for interpreting the Scriptures: theEarth’s motion had to be proven.10 Poupard implies that Galileo waspartly responsible because he did not succeed in proving the Earth’s mo-tion. Vinaty seems to be the source of this idea.11

Thus, Poupard suggests that the motion of the Earth can be provenand it was indeed proven some 150 years later; but Galileo did not haveadequate instruments to do so. Poupard may be committing two ana-chronisms. First, was Galileo, as Poupard assumes, obliged to accountto Bellarmine regarding his scientific activities? Second, Poupard neglectscenturies of studies in the philosophy of science which show that the con-cept of demonstration in science is a highly ambiguous one, and it was al-ready so in Galileo’s and Bellarmine’s time. For Bellarmine – a theologianand not a scientist – a ‘‘demonstration’’ could have had a different mean-ing from what science might request. It could consist of:

a) A deduction from basic, unquestionable principles obtainedthrough common sense, as in Aristotelian philosophy.

b) A deduction from axioms. The latter, however, are part of geo-metry, and geometry, in Aristotelian thought, was considered a mere in-strument – not a true description. Ptolemy himself, the most influentialastronomer in antiquity and the Middle Ages alike, considered hisastronomical model an instrument and up until Galileo’s time, Catholictheologians were quite happy to accept an instrumental presentation ofCopernicanism. The difficulty lay in the fact that Galileo had a realist’s

10 FINOCCHIARO, 1989, pp. 67-69. Poupard makes a coarse mistake by paraphrasing Bellarmineincorrectly and saying that the latter, in his letter to Foscarini, called for circumspection because ofthe possibility that the proof might be forthcoming. Bellarmine, however, said that circumspectionwould be called for only if he was presented with what he would regard as a ‘‘true demonstration.’’ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA call this a ‘‘small error’’ (see note 8 above). This is, however a funda-mental mistake indicating a basic lack of understanding of the context. For an analysis of Poupard’sspeech with its imprecisions, see FANTOLI, 2002.

11 ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA, 2008, p. 178; 2009, p. 226.


view of science; that is, he held that science describes the truth and he re-jected the view of science as a merely instrumental, mathematical tool.

Only a demonstration based on common sense would have, in theory,satisfied Bellarmine. Since the Copernican theory contradicts commonsense, it could not be demonstrated. Furthermore, today it is widelyagreed that a scientific theory cannot be demonstrated, but can at mostbe refuted,12 and that the ‘‘optical and mechanical proofs for the motionof the Earth’’ mentioned by Poupard, like the stellar parallax or Foucault’spendulum, are not free of conventional elements. In any case: at best theysupport Newton’s theory, which is superseded, and therefore, at the most,they are only approximately true. Galileo’s argument that the movementof the Earth was the cause of tides was, of course, bound to fail as well:Maurice Finocchiaro argues that even Galileo himself felt the argumentfell short of satisfactory demonstration.13 It was, however, a reasoning ofa different type from a logical deduction based on a basic, unquestionableprinciple.

Getting to the point, one elementary duty of an interdisciplinary studycommission charging Galileo with lack of proofs should have been to jus-tify Bellarmine’s demand that Galileo provide arguments that were accept-able to the Catholic Church, then and now, as well to document itself onthe concept of proof, in Galileo’s time and in science today. This is parti-cularly important, in that it is the key point of the conclusions. To reachPoupard’s conclusions one did not need ten years of enquiries by an inter-disciplinary commission. Moreover, as the Catholic historian AnnibaleFantoli points out, proofs or lack thereof were irrelevant to the 1616 de-cree, which explicitly concerned both philosophy and theology, because atheological judgment alone would have left the way open to a future her-meneutic in favor of Copernicanism.14 Banning Copernicanism on the phil-osophical level as well ruled out any possible proof a priori. Emphasizingthe importance of ‘‘proofs,’’ thus, drives the argument away from JohnPaul II’s central question, namely, what was wrong and who was respon-sible for it?

Thus, the discussion of Poupard’s speech shows that it comprises di-version tactics, which were contrary to the mandate of the Commission.

58 MICHAEL SEGRE

12 After POPPER, 1995. First published in German in 1934 (officially dated 1935).13 FINOCCHIARO, 1986, p. 250.14 FANTOLI, 2010, p. 253. Fantoli’s book is one of the most detailed, reliable and judicious

studies of the Galileo ‘‘case’’ I have read. It has been published in several editions, in Italian andEnglish.

The Pope’s concluding speech displays the same diversion tactic. PopeJohn Paul II laments a lack of understanding on the part of Church theo-logians without naming them, either. Echoing Leo XIII, he says Galileo’sLetter to the Grand Duchess Christina ‘‘is like a short treatise on biblicalhermeneutics,’’ adding, ‘‘Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself tobe more perceptive in this regards than the theologians who opposedhim.’’ Therefore, if we are looking for wrongs, something must have beenwrong with the theological interpretation of Galileo’s opponents, includ-ing Bellarmine. Here, nevertheless, the Pope’s speech becomes vague: heimplies that Bellarmine and Galileo were more or less on the same side.The Pope’s 1992 speech does not square with his 1979 expression ofhis wish to conclude matters accurately and sincerely. Instead of clearingthings up, it increases ambiguity.

ANSWERING UNASKED QUESTIONS TO AVOID CENTRAL ISSUES

The tactic of drawing attention to secondary issues and creating con-fusion has a long history among Church apologists. It may have begunwith Bellarmine himself, who demanded proofs from Galileo as an unfeas-ible condition to reconsidering the Scriptures, possibly as a mere excuse toreject Copernicanism.15 More recently, William Shea and Mariano Artigasended their book Galileo Observed: Science and the Politics of Belief by ar-guing against my claim that John Paul II’s wish to recognize responsibil-ities remains unfulfilled, as follows:

Can we say therefore that the Galileo ‘‘myth’’ has been laid to rest as the Popewished? Michael Segre doubts this because the problem is not merely one ofknowing who was right or wrong but the right to hold and defend one’s own opin-ions. ‘‘What the Church should do, if it wishes to reconcile its teaching withscience,’’ writes Segre, is ‘‘to grant that Galileo had the right to state his scientificviews, even if they were mistaken and despite any damage they may have causedto the church.’’ For the real issue is ‘‘Freedom of thought, inquiry, and expres-

15 Joseph Agassi points out that Alastair Crombie may have been the first respected English histor-ian who, over half a century ago, revived the idea that the clarification of the ‘‘case’’ depends on whetherGalileo’s science was right. Rather than observing that today Copernicus is deemed in error since, by gen-eral consensus, the Sun is not the center of the universe, Crombie mentions that, thanks to generalrelativity, the decision regarding the question of the center of the universe is arbitrary. This, by theway, makes both Galileo and Bellarmine wrong. Yet Crombie implicitly contradicts himself by blamingGalileo and not Bellarmine for the error of assuming that the center of the universe is fixed. See AGASSI,1981, p. 323; CROMBIE, 1969, p. 226. Crombie’s work was first published in 1952.

5


sion, rather than Galileo’s failure to prove the motion of the earth.’’ [...] We areback to the contemporary demand that apologies be given, as if this could be therole of someone who lives almost four hundred years after the event. Freedom ofexpression is a right that was won over a long period of time, and we should per-haps be more anxious to see that it is maintained and extended than to profferapologies for people long dead. Science and religion should learn from eachother, not indulge in endless recrimination about the past.16

Much as I am grateful to the authors for using my assertions as a spring-board to further questions, the issue they raise is different from the oneposed by John Paul II: they ask whether it is proper to request apologiesfrom the Church for events that happened almost four centuries ago (a re-quest I have never put forward, nor did I treat the Galileo ‘‘myth’’ in thiscontext). They even unintentionally contradict John Paul II, for it was hewho requested ‘‘loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come’’(Artigas and Sanchez de Toca, likewise, unintentionally contradict JohnPaul II’s initiative by lamenting that the question at stake was too complex).Bellarmine’s times, Shea and Artigas rightly argue, were different and onecannot judge the past by contemporary standards. Moreover, theyask, ‘‘Was the Church wrong in Theology?,’’ agreeing that ‘‘it seems evidentnowadays that the Roman authorities made a mistake when they con-demned Copernicanism.’’17 Yet, immediately afterward they turn to thehoary question: was Galileo’s science right, sticking to the old argument:‘‘a physical proof that the Earth moves around the Sun and rotates on its axiswas only found after Galileo’s condemnation.’’

Shea and Artigas also agree that ‘‘Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIIIcannot be completely excused if we consider two other aspects of the prob-lem.’’ 18 These are:

1) Church Fathers made ‘‘a number of considerations that openedthe door to interpreting the Bible in a way that allowed the Earth andnot the Sun to be in motion.’’

2) ‘‘The Council of Trent had declared that Scripture should be in-terpreted in conformity with the consensus reached by the ChurchFathers, but had wisely added ‘in matters of faith and morality.’ ’’

These ‘‘two other aspects’’ imply that, indeed, Bellarmine and UrbanVIII were wrong, not only from today’s point of view but also within the

60 MICHAEL SEGRE

16 SHEA and ARTIGAS, 2006, pp. 191-192.17 Ibid., p. 111. Italics by the authors.18 Ibid.

context of the 17th century. Immediately afterward, however, Shea and Ar-tigas add:

Cardinal Bellarmine was aware of the problem and anticipated an argumentby arguing that Copernicans might make: ‘‘Nor may it be replied that this is not amatter of faith, since if it is not so with regard to the subject matter, it is withregard to the speaker. Thus that man would be just as much heretic who deniedthat Abraham had two sons and Jacob had twelve, as one who denied the virginbirth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouth of theprophets and apostles.’’ 19

What was, then, the correct interpretation in the historical context?According to Shea and Artigas, the issue was ‘‘more complex than issometimes believed.’’ 20 Is it really so complex? The 1546 hermeneuticalguidelines of the Council of Trent forbade an interpretation of the textas follows:

No one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and moralspertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scripturesin accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary tothat sense of holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge to their true senseand interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teach-ing of the holy Fathers.21

These guidelines were written primarily to prevent novel interpreta-tions such as those the Protestants were inclined to make; admittedly, theyare not particularly clear. Galileo claimed that the motion of the Eartharound the Sun was not a matter of faith and morals and was not contraryto the teaching of the holy Fathers. Bellarmine claimed, on the contrary,that it was a matter of faith. According to Fantoli, Bellarmine went wellbeyond the contemporary hermeneutical regulations decreed by theCouncil of Trent and even Artigas and Sanchez de Toca grudgingly agree:‘‘probably Bellarmine was more rigid than the Council of Trent itself.’’ 22

Fantoli further remarks that, by considering Copernicanism a matter offaith, ‘‘the discussion was finished’’ and no further proof in favor of Co-pernicanism could hold, thus practically silencing Galileo. In any case, at-

19 Ibid., pp. 111-112.20 Ibid., p. 112.21 FINOCCHIARO, 1989, p. 12.22 FANTOLI, 2003, p. 144; ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA, 2008, p. 216, 2009, p. 275.


tempting to answer such a question should have been the task of the In-terdisciplinary Pontifical Commission; even if unanswerable, considerableprogress would have been made if this had been frankly and clearly statedin its conclusion. Nevertheless, this is not a request that historians who dis-agree with me should prove that Bellarmine was right.

As far as freedom of expression is concerned my – lay – reading of theTrent guidelines indicates that Galileo had the right to be wrong in hisscientific arguments. Even Pope John Paul II raises this issue in his 1992address, admitting: ‘‘Thus the new science, with its methods and the free-dom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine theirown criteria of Scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know howto do so.’’ Freedom of expression as a right may have been won over a longperiod of time, but it was already an issue in Galileo’s time, as attested byGalileo himself and by contemporary documents such as the letter, writtenas early as in 1597, by Kepler to Galileo suggesting: ‘‘If your Italy seemsless advantageous to you for publishing and if your living there is an obsta-cle, perhaps our Germany will allow us to do so.’’23 Campanella’s A De-fense of Galileo, written in 1616, raises the same issue.

As far as science is concerned, Galileo was mistaken in any case, sincescience may ultimately be no more than an infinite series of mistakes. Gali-leo may also have been mistaken on the metaphysical level for holding a de-batable, realist’s view of science. It is precisely his right to be mistaken onscientific matters that I claim, echoing Galileo who, in his Letter to theGrand Duchess Christina, implicitly claimed this right without thereby invit-ing censure of the Church. Granting that Galileo had the right to statescientific views, even if they were mistaken and despite any damage theymay have caused to the Church, would no doubt contribute to reconcileChurch and science.

HOW COULD THE ‘‘CASE’’ BE CLOSED?

As a non-Catholic layman in theology who acclaimed John Paul II’s1979 initiative and has the Catholic Church at heart, I am certainly not

62 MICHAEL SEGRE

23 GALILEI, 1968, vol. 10, pp. 69-71. Translation from KOESTLER, 1959, p. 359. FANTOLI, 2002,p. 16, criticizing Pope John Paul II, agrees with Shea and Artigas as far as freedom of research isconcerned: ‘‘Most theologians of that epoch,’’ he says, ‘‘were not at all aware of the existence of a‘new Science.’ They were even less aware of ‘its methods’ nor did they feel themselves obligatedto concede to it the ‘freedom of research.’ ’’

in a position to tell the Church prelates what to do. I only take the liberty,as a neutral and disinterested observer, to respectfully point out some av-enues that might help. The main avenue would have been, of course, theone suggested by John Paul II: to recognize wrongs from whatever sidethey come; namely, identify the people who were responsible and criticizetheir errors. There were many actors involved in the ‘‘Galileo case.’’ Themain ones were Galileo himself, Cardinal Bellarmine and Popes Paul Vand Urban VIII, the latter, let us remember, was Galileo’s former friend,who insisted that Galileo should be humiliated and somehow condemned,in order to save his own face. There are also the theologians who were onthe panel that declared the Copernican system heretical, Galileo’s judgesand many other theologians and intellectuals who took one side or theother.

The whole issue would become simpler if one concentrated on the firstpart of the ‘‘case,’’ which is the source of the trouble: the banning of Co-pernicanism in 1616. Having made this filtering and dealt with the source,a great part of the mistrust will necessarily be dispelled by itself. The 1616decree does not specify any additional grounding. Bellarmine’s letter toFoscarini (indirectly addressed to Galileo: ‘‘[...] your Paternity and Mr.Galileo are proceeding prudently’’), which is in line with the decree, how-ever, does delve into this aspect. Investigating and frankly attempting tounderstand what the relationship was between the Trent hermeneuticalguidelines, Bellarmine’s views and the 1616 decree, would certainly help.

There is, nevertheless, an enlightening sentence in the book by Artigasand Sanchez de Toca: ‘‘A statement of the Pope or of Cardinal Poupardcriticising Bellarmine, Paul V, Urban VIII or the Cardinals who con-demned Galileo would sound excessively presumptuous.’’ 24 This contra-dicts, again, John Paul II’s expression for his wish to recognize wrongsfrom whatever side they come and could have been one of the causes ofthe inconsistency between the 1979 and 1982 speeches. Admitting an er-ror of Saint Robert Bellarmine seems against Church decorum. I do un-derstand this difficulty and am not qualified to judge it. Allow me onlyto say, always as a neutral observer, that admitting that Cardinals, Popesand even saints, as human beings, are not immune to mistakes would, inthe long run, be considered an expression of strength on the part of theChurch.

24 ARTIGAS and SANCHEZ DE TOCA, 2008, p. 210, 2009, p. 268. The 2008 Spanish edition mis-takenly mentions Paul VI; the 2009 Italian translation corrects to Paul V.


According to a lay interpretation of the ‘‘case,’’ Bellarmine’s motiva-tion may have been neither theological nor scientific, but political: hecared that the Church not lose its control of knowledge and, as JosephAgassi points out, he rightly requested assurances from Galileo. Whatwould have happened if the Church had accepted Copernicanism and,later, Copernicanism had been found wrong? Agassi wonders how Gali-leo could ‘‘throw the Church leaders into a panic and make them act insuch a hurry and in so confused a manner?’’ 25 What Bellarmine may havewanted was different from banning Copernicanism: he found it intoler-able that the Church should follow Galileo with no assurance that hewould not change his mind and make the Church look foolish.26 Galileo,too, cared for the Church’s decorum. He did not pretend that theChurch adopt Copernicanism, but endeavored a thoughtful considera-tion, fearing that a rushed decision on the Church’s part would exposeit even more to a possible change of mind later, thus making it appearfoolish. Unfortunately, this is what happened.

If, nevertheless, the Catholic Church is still not in the position to admitthe error of a saint, it can recognize, in general but explicitly, that Galileo’stime was indeed different from and incommensurable with our own, butthat today the circumstances have changed. The Church, however, is nolonger what it was, science is no longer a religious monopoly and a second‘‘Galileo case’’ is unthinkable. Recognizing this and dropping a defensiveattitude could close the ‘‘case’’ once and for all. Catholicism, like the othermonotheistic faiths, can, thanks to its hermeneutical apparatus, adapt toscience. Galileo says this explicitly in his Letter to Castelli and he repeatsit in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina: ‘‘the Holy Scripture andnature both equally derive from the divine Word, the former as the dicta-tion of the Holy Spirit, the latter as the most obedient executrix of God’scommands.’’ 27 If both ways of seeking the truth proceed in parallel at arespectful distance from each other, controversies are reduced to a civ-ilized discussion around a table where the judges could be specialists suchas ethics scholars. If one could not do this in Galileo’s time, let us reaffirmthat we can do it today.

64 MICHAEL SEGRE

25 AGASSI, 1981, p. 330.26 Ibid., p. 245.27 Quotation from the Letter to Castelli, FINOCCHIARO, 1989, p. 50. One can find more or less

the same wording in the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, ibid., p. 93.

REFERENCES

AGASSI J., 1981, Science and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science, Dordrecht, Reidel.

CAMPANELLA T., 1994, A Defense of Galileo, ed. by R.J. BLACKWELL, Notre Dame, Ind., Uni-versity of Notre Dame Press.

ARTIGAS M. and SANCHEZ DE TOCA M., 2008, Galileo y el Vaticano: Historia de la Comision Pon-tificia de Estudio del Caso Galileo (1981-1992), Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.

— 2009, Galileo e il Vaticano. Storia della Pontificia Commissione di Studio sul Caso Galileo(1981-1992), Venice, Marcianum Press.

FANTOLI, A., 2002, Galileo and the Catholic Church: A Critique of the ‘‘Closure’’ of the GalileoCommission’s Work, Vatican city, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

— 2003, Galileo. For Copernicanism and For the Church, 3rd ed., Vatican city, Libreria EditriceVaticana.

— 2010, Galileo. Per il copernicanesimo e per la Chiesa, 3rd ed., Vatican city, Libreria EditriceVaticana.

FINOCCHIARO M.A., 1986, The Methodological Background to Galileo’s Trial, in W. WALLACE

(ed.), Reinterpreting Galileo, Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press,pp. 241-272.

— 1989, The Galileo Affair. A Documentary History, Berkeley, University of California Press.

— 2005, Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992, Berkeley, University of California Press.

CROMBIE A.C., 1969, Augustine to Galileo, Vol. 2, Science in the Later Middle Ages and EarlyModern Times 13th-17th Century, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.

GALILEI G., 1890-1909, Le opera. Edizione nazionale, A. FAVARO (ed.), 20 vols., Florence,G. Barbera; reprint 1968.

KOESTLER A., 1959, The Sleepwalkers. A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe,London, Hutchinson.

JOHN PAUL II, 1979, Deep Harmony Which Unites the Truths of Science with the Truths ofFaith. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, «L’Osservatore Romano. WeeklyEdition in English», 26 November, pp. 9-10.

— 1992, Faith Can Never Conflict with Reason. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,«L’Osservatore Romano. Weekly Edition in English», 4 November, pp. 1-2.

POPPER K.R., 1995, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Routledge.

POUPARD P., 1992, ‘‘Galileo case’’ is Resolved: Study Commission Reports on Findings of its In-vestigation, «L’Osservatore Romano. Weekly Edition in English», 4 November, p. 8.

SEGRE M., 1997, Light on the Galileo Case?, «Isis», 88, pp. 484-504.

— 1999, Galileo: A ‘‘rehabilitation’’ that has never taken place, «Endeavour», 23/1, pp. 20-23.

— 2001, Hielt Johannes Paul II. sein Versprechen?, in M. SEGRE and E. KNOBLOCH (eds.), Derungebandigte Galilei, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 107-111.

— 2003, Zwischen Trient und Vatikanum II: Der Fall Galilei, «Berichte zur Wissenschafts-geschichte», 26, pp. 129-136.

— 2004, Il Caso Galileo: una questione chiusa?, «Nuncius» 19/2, pp. 733-747.

SHEA W.R. and ARTIGAS M., 2006, Galileo Observed: Science and the Politics of Belief, Saga-more Beach, Science History Publications.


Direttore responsabile: prof. VINCENZO CAPPELLETTI

Reg. Tribunale Firenze Nº 4026 del 6 novembre 1990

CITTA DI CASTELLO . PG

FINITO DI STAMPARE NEL MESE DI DICEMBRE 2013

NOTES FOR AUTHORS

1. Submission of manuscripts. Manuscripts should be submitted to: «Physis», c/oDepartment of Social & Developmental Psychology – University of Rome ‘‘LaSapienza’’ – Via dei Marsi, 78 – Rome – Italy. Manuscripts will not bereturned. Authors of articles are reminded that for publication the journal willrequire the eventual submission of the final version of the paper on either aPC or Mac disk (using a non-obscure word-processing programme or RTFformat) in addition to a printed copy. Authors are requested to ensure that thelayout of their final copy conforms to the house style indicated below.

2. Languages. The languages of the journal are Italian, English, French, German, andSpanish. Previously unpublished materials should appear in their originallanguages (with a translation, if thought necessary). Each article must beaccompanied by an abstract of about 10-15 lines, in the same language as thatof the article. Articles in languages other than English must also beaccompanied by an abstract in English.

3. Preparation of manuscripts. «Physis» normally uses double-blind refereeing;authors should therefore identify themselves only on a detachable coversheet giving both their name and the full title of the paper. Only the title ofthe paper should appear at the top of the first page of the manuscript.Manuscripts must be typed double-spaced on good quality-paper, with widemargins on each side. Footnotes should be printed out separately after themain text. Diagrams and plates should be submitted separately with anindication of where they should be placed in the paper. Manuscripts shouldnot normally exceed 30 double-spaced pages in length.

4. Quotations. Long quotations will be set in a different style from the body of thearticle. It is advisable to indicate such quotations by means of a coloured line inthe margin. Brief quotations, however, should use quotation marks. Omissionsfrom quoted texts should be indicated by three ellipsis points between squarebrackets [...].

5. Footnotes and References. Bibliographic information should be given in footnotes(not parenthetically in the text). Footnotes are to be numbered consecutively,with superscript numerals placed after the punctuation, thus: ... Darwin agreed.15

References are to be cited as follows:– I. NEWTON, The Correspondence, ed. by W.H. Turnbull, J.F. Scott, A.R. Hall,L. Tilling, 7 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953-1978, vol. I, p. 100.– A.R. HALL, The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution, inCritical Problems in the History of Science, ed. by M. Clagett, Madison, TheUniversity of Wisconsin Press, 1962, pp. 3-24, on p. 20.– T.S. KUHN, The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science, «TheBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science», XXXI, 1980, pp. 181-192, onp. 190.– A.R. HALL, The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution, cit. innote 4, p. 10.– Ibid., p. 11.

6. When a paper has been accepted for publication, authors will receive one set ofgalley proofs. Authors will receive 30 offprints free-of-charge and a copy of thejournal.







Direttore responsabile (Senior Editor): Vincenzo Cappelletti.Direttore (Editor): Guido Cimino.

Comitato direttivo (Editorial Board): Nino Dazzi, Mauro Di Giandomenico, PaoloFreguglia, Carlo Maccagni, Giuliano Pancaldi.

Responsabile delle recensioni (Book Reviews Editor): Marta Buroni.

Redazione (Editorial Office): Marta Buroni, Silvia Degni, Barbara Olson, Antonino Trizzino.


Evandro Agazzi, Giulio Barsanti, Enrico Berti, Jed Buchwald, Paolo Casini, CatherineChevalley, Salvo D’Agostino, Jean Dhombres, Francois Duchesneau, Maria Rosaria Egidi,Dietrich von Engelhardt, Paolo Galluzzi, Enrico Giusti, Robert Halleux, John L. Heilbron,Gerald Holton, Eberhard Knobloch, Geoffrey Lloyd, Alfonso Maieru, Alberto Pasquinelli,Luigi Pepe, Marcello Pera, Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Andre Robinet, Paolo Rossi,A.I. Sabra, William R. Shea, Raffaella Simili, Maurizio Torrini, Cesare Vasoli, L. PearceWilliams, Bruno Zanobio.

Direzione: Domus Galilæana, Via S. Maria 26, 56100 Pisa - Tel. +39.050.23.726Redazione: Dipartimento di psicologia dei processi di sviluppo e socializzazione, Universitadi Roma «La Sapienza», Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma - Tel. +39.06.49.91.76.62 -Fax 06.49.91.76.52 - e-mail: [email protected]

Amministrazione: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, Viuzzo del Pozzetto 8, 50126 Firenze -e-mail: [email protected] - Conto corrente postale 12.707.501 - Tel. +39.055.65.30.684 -fax +39.055.65.30.214

2011-2012: ABBONAMENTO ANNUALE (2 fascicoli) – ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION (2 issues)

ISTITUZIONI – INSTITUTIONS

La quota per le istituzioni e comprensiva dell’accesso on-line alla rivista.Indirizzo IP e richieste di informazioni sulla procedura di attivazione dovranno essere inoltrati a

[email protected]

Subscription rates for institutions include on-line access to the journal.The IP address and requests for information on the activation procedure should be sent to

[email protected]


PRIVATI – INDIVIDUALS

solo cartaceo - print version only


VOL. XLVIII (2011-2012) NUOVA SERIE FASC. 1-2


LEO S. OLSCHKI EDITOREF I R E N Z E

ISSN 0031-9414

INDICE

Studi e ricerche




E. PROVERBIO, La produzione di vetro ottico in Francia e le esperienzedi Ruggiero Boscovich per la produzione di vetro al piombo – Par-te prima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 67

M. DUICHIN, Notomisti, filosofi, «cacciatori di teste»: Gall, Kant e i pri-mordi della frenologia . . . . . . . . . . . . » 103

D. BOCCALETTI, Raffaello Caverni and the Society for the Progress ofthe Sciences: An Independent Priest Criticized by the Lay Scien-tists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 127


S. BORDONI, Joseph John Thomson’s Models of Matter and Radiationin the Early 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 197

R. RASHED, Philosophy and Mathematics: Interactions . . . . . » 241

Note e discussioni


E. PROVERBIO, L’Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrisponden-za di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich . . . . . . . . . » 285

F. ZAMPIERI – A. ZANATTA – M. RIPPA BONATI, L’enigma della «suicidapunita»: un preparato anatomico di Lodovico Brunetti vincitoredella medaglia d’oro all’esposizione universale di Parigi del 1867 . » 297

G. CECCARELLI, Storie nella storia. Note a margine di un volume di sto-ria della psicologia italiana . . . . . . . . . . . » 339

*P

HY

SI

S*

Vo

l.X

LV

III

(20

11

-20

12

)N

uo

vaS

erie

*F

asc.

1-2

*

Documents

Four centuries later: how to close the “Galileo case”?