GALILEI Galileo – Dialogo… Sopra I Due Massimi Sistemi Del Mondo Tolemaico E Copernicano – 1632




GALILEI Galileo – Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo matematico sopraordinario nello studio di Pisa. E Filosofo, e Matematico primario del Serenissimo Gr. Duca di Toscana. Dove de i congressi di quattro giornate si discorre sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo Tolemaico, e Copernicano, proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni Filosofiche, e Naturali tanto per l’una, quanto per l’altra – 1632. Fiorenza, per Gio. Batista Landini. Mute vellum; octavo, 21 cm; pp. (8) 454 (32); parchment of the front plate and spine missing 95%, more recent endpapers (probably from the eighteenth century), very slow binding, papers a little “dry” and fragile, first four leaves partially detached, humidity halos, invasive holes and walkways of woodworm that in some parts compromise entire words, booklet from pages 241 to 272 protruding from the body of the text, a copy that needs complete restoration (stitching, binding, paper integration). The famous frontispiece by Stefano della Porta is missing (which, as is known, was inserted during printing, so the first prints did not include it ab origine), title page with letterpress mark in woodcut, present the errata at leaf FF6, missing instead the usual correction on page 92, various diagrams in the text (of which the one on page 192 with the handwritten integration of the letter H). First famous edition of the treaty – in the form of a dialogue between Simplicio, Sagredo and Filippo Salviati – which earned Galileo the famous condemnation by the Inquisition. It is in fact an overcoming / denial of the Ptolemaic system in favor of the Copernican one, naturally therefore disliked by the Roman Church. This particular copy – albeit in a bad state of conservation – shows at the same time two peculiarities that suggest it may be part of the first printed copies of this work: on the one hand the lack of Della Porta’s frontispiece, which was notoriously included in the latest copies of the work in that the printing of the volume began well before the engraving was ready to be inserted in the book; on the other hand – and much more relevant – the famous text integration on page 92 is missing (often present in the form of a printed sheet of paper applied in the margin, the integration was rarely handwritten), this may lead to believe that the the aforementioned lack is due to a possible distraction in relation to one of the first printed copies, ie when an accurate correction may not yet have been made. Coming from a private collection