Jules Speller, Galileo’s Inquisition Trial Revisited
(Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 2008)
Reviews and other comments / Comptes rendus et autres commentaires
'[…] La magistrale révision du procès qu'a entreprise Jules Speller nous propose une nouvelle
interprétation qui est à même d’éclaircir des points restés obscurs, et il n’est pas exagéré de voir dans le
Galileo’s Inquisition Trial Revisited de Jules Speller un livre qui servira désormais de référence pour
l’étude du fameux procès. […]'
Compte rendu de la plume du Père Jean-Jacques Flammang SCJ, in: Die Warte/Perspectives, No.
11/2216, 10 avril 2008, p.11.
'[…] So let me end by stressing the book’s merits. Substantively, it elaborates an original and well-argued
account of Galileo’s trial that must be taken into consideration by all serious students of the topic: Pope
Urban’s complaint against the Dialogue relating to hypothetical treatment and divine omnipotence, and the
dynamics of the proceedings relating to the pro-Galilean and anti-Galilean factions in the hierarchy.
Methodologically, its analysis of the relevant documents reaches an unprecedented level of depth and
subtlety, which other scholars must learn to emulate from now on. It displays an unparalleled command of
the secondary sources, and so hopefully others will no longer neglect the history of the historiography of
Galileo’s trial. Finally, it exhibits superior knowledge of Inquisition laws and practices, beginning with a
chapter that synthesizes classic Inquisition manuals and theological treatises as well as recent scholarly
accounts, and utilizing them later to clarify the trial proceedings.'
Review by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1) (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), in: Early Science and
Medicine, 14 (2009), pp. 577-8.
(1)
The leading specialist of the 'Galileo Affair'
'[…] The book begins with a chapter on the procedures of the Inquisition that is useful for anyone
venturing opinions on Galileo’s treatment. Then we are taken chapter by chapter from the condemnation of
Copernicanism in 1616 to Galileo’s abjuration in 1633, by way of detailed examination of the documents
and exhaustive criticism of most of the major scholars who have written on the trial in the last century or
so. […]'
'[…] this very useful book […]'
Review by W. R. Laird (Carleton University), in: Renaissance Quarterly, Spring 2009, Vol. 62,
No. 1, p. 213.
'[…] It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the author’s impressive efforts evident in the
abundance of the references to primary and secondary sources as well as the detailed critical analysis of
these sources across seventeen densely-packed chapters […].'
'[…] Summing up, the Speller thesis of an original charge of heresy, dropped at the end by the efforts of
the moderate faction of the Cardinal Nephew [Francesco Barberini], seems to me to be open to serious
question. It is, however, well worth taking into careful consideration for a further inquiry into the many
still-unresolved issues that surround Galileo’s trial and condemnation. Speller’s book is one from which
any Galileo scholar could profit.'
Review by Annibale Fantoli (University of Victoria), in: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol.
40, Part 3, August 2009, No. 140, pp. 359-60.
2
'This is an extraordinarily detailed and sophisticated analysis of Galileo’s trial before the Roman
inquisition in 1633 […].'
'Throughout the text Speller engages the views of other scholars, notably Stillman Drake, Annibale Fantoli
and Francesco Beretta. […]'
'[…] Speller thinks that many of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies evident in the trial proceedings can
be accounted for by recognising that there were these different factions [Urban’s and Galileo’s, the latter
led by Urban’s nephew Cardinal Francesco Barberini] in the inquisition. In this respect, we might
understand how it is that passages of the final sentence against Galileo contain the incorrect view that
Copernican astronomy had been declared (in 1616) in some solemn way to be heretical.'
'[…] One of the strengths of the book is the detailed analysis of important texts (often citing the original
Italian or Latin). […]'
Review by William E. Carroll (Blackfriars, Oxford), in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 60,
Issue 04, October 2009, p. 840.
'The monograph under discussion – let it be stressed at once: remarquably well-documented and relying on
a detailed and subtle analysis of the documents available – offers a new view of Galileo’s trial […].'
'[…] Speller’s monograph is imbued with the desire to give a 'wholly rational' reconstruction of the events
whose protagonists were Urban VIII and Galileo in the year 1633 (Speller 2008: 16). And – in my opinion
– it carries out this plan outstandingly, providing the reader with an original study devoted to the "Galileo
affair". […]'
Review by Tadeusz Sierotowicz (Papal Academy of Theology and Copernicus Center of
Interdisciplinary Research in Cracow, as well as Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose Bolzano
(Italy)), in: Zagadnienia filozoficzne w nauce, 2009, Vol. 45, pp. 167 and 173.
'[…] In this labyrinth steps Jules Speller’s Galileo’s Inquisition Trial Revisited, offering the reader a new
thread. […].'
'The dual poles of attraction Speller describes, between the Barberini [Maffeo B., alias Urban VIII, and
Francesco B.], do go some way to making sense of the lurching and staggering trial process, which has, in
different ways and for different reasons, so bemused and frustrated previous commentators.'
Review by Nick Wilding (Georgia State University), in: Isis 100, December 2009, pp. 912-3.
'[…] this book is an attempt to assess the various interpretations that have been offered in recent years. The
author raises a number of interesting questions about the way Galileo’s trial has been examined by
scholars who often had a tacit agenda, […]. Speller draws attention to the weakness of efforts to generalize
from the very special, indeed unique, case of Galileo, and he is particularly sensitive to the context in
which the trial arose. The book is well documented and often provides information that is essential to an
understanding of the reasons why, for instance, Pope Urban VIII was so incensed when his argument about
the nature of God’s creative power was presented by Galileo in a way that he considered inadequate. The
matter is of course complex, but thanks to Speller we are better informed about the fact that the pope's
view, which is presented in the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632), had already appeared in
a work published by his personal theologian, Agostino Oreggi. […]'
Review by William R. Shea (University of Padua), in: The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 96,
Number 3, July 2010, pp. 567.
3
'[…] [I]t is well worth drawing attention to the thesis defended in Jules Speller’s […] monograph. This
author thinks that the principal motive of Pope Urban VIII’s action, which in 1633 resulted in Galileo’s
condemnation, was the pope’s conviction that Galileo regarded the Copernican system as absolutely true
which meant that he was a heretic [negating God’s omnipotence or His omniscience]. […]'
'Speller reviews the entire trial documentation and reports the events related to the proceedings, showing
how [his] hypothesis concerning Galileo’s trial allows a coherent view of these events. In addition, the fact
that the argument of Urban VIII is introduced into the Dialogue also confirms Speller’s thesis – in fact,
this argument is linked to Galileo’s theory of the tides, and the pope regarded the latter as the decisive
argument in favor of the Copernican view of the universe […]. Although it is, of course, difficult to defend
the thesis that the argument of Urban VIII is the only motive of Galileo’s trial – Speller’s thesis that it was
its fundamental thread may not be far removed from the truth. […]'
Tadeusz Sierotowicz, in a paper found on Internet, entitled: BAJKA O DŹWIĘKU Z WAGI
PROBIERCZEJ JAKO ARGUMENT AB EXEMPLA GALILEUSZOWE ĆWICZENIA Z
RETORYKI (1) (2009), pp. 19-20.
(1)
A first version of this essay has been published in Forum Artis Rhetoricae 15-16 (2009).
'[…] although I have studied the most recent literature and have taken it into account to some extent, it has
not been engaged directly and explicitly, and parts of it may not have been fully assimilated. This is
especially true of the work of Annibale Fantoli, whose account of the original trial reaches new heights of
comprehensiveness, balance, and interpretive detail; of Francesco Beretta, whose account of the legal and
theological aspects attains an unprecedented level of documentation and erudition; of Antonio Beltrán
Marí, whose discussion of evaluative issues achieves an unmatched level of synthesis, sophistication, and
argumentation; and of Jules Speller, whose reexamination of the trial displays unsurpassed depth and
subtlety of textual analysis as well as unsurpassed acquaintance with and utilization of the history of the
historiography of the trial. '
'There is no doubt that the exact content, structure, origin, and consequences of Urban’s argument remain
an open question that deserves further exploration, although a significant contribution has now been made
by Speller (2008).'
'Speller (2008, 285-298) deserves credit for having pointed out this twofold aspect of the report [= the
"summarium processus causae" entitled Contro Galileo Galilei].'
'Insufficient attention has been paid to the double character of the alleged heresy attributed to Galileo, and
to the probabilistic character of the proscribed methodological hermeneutical principle. However, Speller
(2008, 250, 332-334) has shown some appreciation.'
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs,
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 280 (Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New
York, 2010), pp. xlii-xliii, 144n33, 151n57, and 152n66.