Hello, and welcome to Western SIV, episode two hundred and eighty Galileo's Trial and the fallout. Now that we have covered how this thing that we call the Inquisition came into being and how it functions structurally, we can return to our Galileo story. It would be Galileo's work Dialogue that would get him into
hot water with the Inquisition specifically and the Church in general. The question was was the dialogue Copernican or did it merely suggest Copernicanism as one possibility amongst many. As you might recall, the Pope was fine with the former, but not the latter. Today we find out that the Pope would not at all be pleased with Galileo's publication, leading to something quite unusual kind of a trial, kind of before the Inquisition. The publication of Galileo's book was completed on
February the twenty first, sixteen thirty two. However, the Bubonic plague was raging at the time, and as a result, it took until May before two copies of the Dialogue made its way to Rome. Within days, authorities were trying to seize every copy in Rome, and the book had been referred to a special commission of theologians, who were to decide if there were grounds for bringing it before the inquisition. The word in Rome was that opposition was
coming from two quarters, the Jesuits. One copy had in fact been given to a Jesuit, and from the Pope himself. The Pope's complaint was that Galileo had failed to conclude, at the end of his book the argument that he had insisted upon that one cannot prove the truth of Copernicanism because God's power is such that he can achieve any natural effect by numerous different means, many
of them beyond our comprehension. Galleo had made only a cursory reference to this argument, mocking the Pope by giving it to Simplicio, who, in the dialogue, is always wrong. There was also criticism of the fact that the preface, the text of which had been established through prolonged negotiations, had been printed in italics, thus distinguishing it from the rest of the book. The Pope, for his part, was furious, for, at least from his
perspective, being caught off guard suddenly. It seems that he felt Galleo should have provided him with a copy prior to publication. Though that was not in the original agreement. The Florentine government immediately sprang to Galleo's defense. Galleo was a government employee, the book was dedicated to the Grand Duke, and of course the Grand Duke himself was already implicated, having pressed hard for the book's publication. But it was clear from the beginning that the Pope was not going
to be satisfied with having the book prohibited. He wanted to see Galleo tried for heresy, and was thought unwise to discuss the case with him because he was Galileo's most difficult opponent. Indeed, the Pope became literally enraged whenever the matter was raised. In early September, there were hopes that the matter would be resolved if the book was withdrawn and corrected, though the ambassador, having
felt the full force of the Pope's fury, was predicting disaster. But matters took a turn for the worse when the records of the inquisition relating to the condemnation of Copernicanism in sixteen sixteen were reviewed, and there they found that Galileo had been forbidden to enter into any discussion of Copernicanism in the future. Also rediscovered was the old charge that Galileo had been, and perhaps still was,
teaching heretical doctrines to his students in Florence. Moreover, the Committee of Theologians had now met and ruled that the dialogue amounted to a defense of Copernicanism. On this there was general agreement, and as Francisco Babarini pointed out, Galileo himself expressed so brilliantly that he could hardly defend himself by claiming not at to full command of his own language. The Special Commission reported in mid September,
and the decision was taken to summon Galileo to Rome for trial. Galileo was left with no choice but to write to Francesco Babardini in October, pleading that in view of his age and his illness, he be spared from the journey to Rome. But the Pope was adamant Galileo must come to Rome sickness or health. A delay due to weather or even the ongoing plague would not be
permitted. In the end, Rome was willing to concede a month's delay, but not a moment more, and so Galileo left Florence on January the twentieth, sixteen thirty three, and arrived in Rome twenty five days later. He was not imprisoned, but the Pope made it clear that Galileo's liberty was only a concession to the Florentine Duke. Galileo reported to the Inquisition on the twelfth
of April and was held there until his release on April thirtieth. He was now completely isolated and alone, and at night he cried out in pain. At first, he held to his line that although he had discussed Copernicanism in the dialogue, he had not defended a claim that the Inquisition thought was simply untrue. Moreover, he denied any knowledge of the injunction read to him in
sixteen sixteen. But this didn't work either, especially with the Inquisition, who had the document in their hands, and so on the twenty seventh of April, Vincenzo Maculano, the Inquisition's Commisar General or prosecutor as you might think, held an informal meeting with Galileo to discuss the path to move forward. We know that Maculano threatened Galileo with quote greater rigor end quote in the proceedings, and that Galileo was concerned to reach a deal, and actually so was Makulano,
presumably in order not to damage relations between Rome and Florence. Makulano had apparently devised a strategy that impressed the cardinals in charge and that simply did not rely on engaging in a debate with Galleo. But what was this strategy. Historians can't be sure, but he probably explained to Galileo that if he continued to deny the charge, he might be tortured. This was standard procedure in
a case where it was important to establish the suspect's private views. Although Galleo might have been able to claim an exemption on the grounds of age and infirmity, He probably advised Galleo that if he cooperated, he could avoid both torture and incarceration. In one of the inquisition's dungeons, he may have encouraged him to hope that even if the book was going to be banned, he himself
need suffer no punishment. Certainly, Galileo kept this hope alive. Presumably Galleo, for his part, insisted that the book had been approved by the censors and that he had this part of the Florentine government, pointing out that the special treatment that he was receiving was evidence enough that the inquisition did not suspect him of any serious heresy. Back and forth, back and forth the arguments must have gone, Galileo still protesting his innocence, and his inquisitor emphasizing the
consequences of sticking to his position. In the end, it seems Galileo gave in. But why the obvious arguments that Maculano could produce were all the ones that would have occurred to Galleo already, which is precisely why the cardinals had initially been skeptical when Makolano proposed that he'd be given permission to meet informally with Galileo. There's really only one possible explanation that I've read, and that is
that Makolano must have threatened Galleo with more charges. But what charges could those have been? The old charges that he had encouraged his pupils to think of God as material and to deny miracles had been rediscovered when the file on Galileo had been brought out of storage, But these were really old, and given the fact that most of the witnesses were gone, and many of them deceased, it would have been almost impossible to proceed with them. So here we
have a puzzle. Unfortunately, a couple of historians have done some more recent work on Galileo and have found a potential solution in the Vatican documents. In the papers of the Congregation of the Index, there's actually an anonymous, undated report surveying the evidence that Galleo was guilty when he wrote the Essayer because he had denied transubstantiation. This was a report that actually didn't come out in our
time until the year two thousand and one. From the handwriting, we can tell that the author of this anonymous report was none other than Melchior INChO Fair, a Jesuit who had been appointed to the Special Commission to review Galleo's Dialogue in July of sixteen thirty two. He was also one of the theologians who
reported to the Holy Office on its content. These reports, it seemed, had been submitted on the twenty second of April sixteen thirty three, after Galileo's condemnation, INChO Fair was to publish a semi official attack on Copernicanism called the Summary Treatise. This was ready for publication by the end of July sixteen thirty three, and so work on it must have been ongoing when Galileo's trial was
in progress. And remember from our discussions of the inquisition, a trial wasn't a one day affair with a jury like we imagine in the movies today. A trial could be a series of days over a long period of time for inquisitors met with Galileo. Arguments could be had, evidence might be exchanged. So when you use the word trial, that's what I'm talking about. Now.
It seems that this INChO Fair had been engaging in a research project on Galileo for nearly a year, and now is time for the proverbial chickens to come to roost. Our best guess is that Makulano brought INChO fairs denunciation when he met informally with Galileo in April. He told Galileo that if he refused to cooperate, they would now act on INChO Fair's denunciation. This would mean, at the very least, further investigations, a prolonged imprisonment, and a
lengthy trial. It might well result in conviction on a charge whose seriousness no one could doubt transubstantiation, being an absolutely fundamental doctrine distinguishing Catholics from Protestants, and something that the Catholic Church was now clinging to like a life raft.
Leo and Makulano reached a deal. Galileo would cooperate and injo Fare's denunciation of the Assayer would be left to simply sit in the files, and that is where it sat, in fact, until it was rediscovered in two thousand and one. The deal that they reached was actually highly favorable to Galleo. Proceeding with a charge against the Assayer would have been difficult. The book had been licensed and actually even praised by the second in command of the Pope, Riccardi.
It bore the papal arms on its front piece, and had been read aloud to the Pope during meal times. In order to get Makulana to drop this charge, Galleo didn't have to concede very much. He agreed only that anybody reading the dialogue could easily form the impression that it had been written in defense of Copernicanism. He did not concede that this was his actual intention. In fact, he agreed to plead guilty, not to defending comperticanism, but
to a lesser charge of appearing to do so. Galileo was he now admitted guilty of carelessness, he supposed, and he was prepared to confess this to the court. He asked only a little time to work out how best to frame his confession in order to minimize his guilt. Makulano, for his part, had achieved exactly what he went in for. He had made no binding commitment as to the punishment Galleo was to receive, but he had set things
up so Galleo could be released without undermining the authority of the tribunal. Makulano drew up Galleo's confession three days later. In it, Galleo said that well, upon rereading his dialogue, he was surprised at what he found there. While that might sound bizarre to us, given that you know well he wrote it clearly at this point Galileo is simply backtracking as little as possible to try to save himself. Galleo now claimed he had been led astray by intellectual ambition
and had come to make the weaker arguments seemed the stronger. For my part, I think this is Makulano pretty much just putting words in Galileo's mouth. Will never know, as I mentioned before, what Galileo and Maculano specifically agreed to in their informal meeting, Given that it was informal, and so no one took notes, at least none that we have. So it was that on April thirtieth, sixteen thirty three, Galileo was released back into the care
of the Florentine ambassador. The Pope was now poised to condemn not merely the Dialogue, but Galleo himself. That being said, said Ambassador. Nicolini withheld this final piece of information from Galileo for fear that if he heard it it might cause a relapse in his health. Finally, on the twenty first of June, Galleo was required to report to the Inquisition. There he was once
more interrogated. He denied ever having been committed to Copernicanism, although he said that before sixteen sixteen that he had thought that either Copernicus or Ptolemy might be right. He insisted that the Dialogue should not be read as a defense of Copernicanism. Then the Inquisition switched tex and decided to threaten him with torture. That he would be held in the prison overnight. The next day things changed. Galleo appeared, this time dressed in the white robes of a penitent.
He showed up before the Congregation of the Inquisition at a local monastery. There he was declared guilty of having given grounds for vehement suspicion of having held Copernican doctrines, and thus Galileo was guilty of heresy now giving grounds for quote vehement suspicion end quote was a perfectly normal charge in Renaissance law. It was used
in cases where the evidence fell short of being conclusive. In this case, Galileo had confessed not to being a Copernican, but to having presented arguments in favor of Copernicanism with insufficient care. His sentence was read to him and he was required to abjer Copernicanism. A copy of his book, now banned, was burnt in front of him. He was sentenced to the prisons of the Holy Office at the pleasure of the Pope, but on the friday he was
transferred to the Via Medici, where he stayed. In sixteen sixteen, in which he had been visiting to take exercise the Florentine ambassador Nicolini traveled with him and found him forlorn and despondent. He had not foreseen any punishment beyond the banning of his book. Two weeks later, Galileo was still profoundly shocked and
dismayed, stepping back for a moment and looking at a macro level. It wasn't long thereafter that inquisitors throughout Italy were summoning local professors together to read aloud Galileo's condemnation. This served two purposes. First, it put everyone on notice that could Ernichanism was officially condemned, so don't try it, and Galileo's book was banned. You were no longer legally allowed to read it, or possess it, or, worst of all, teach it. Second, of course,
this helped to intimidate others. Fear, after all, only works to control people if they know what to be afraid of. Abroad, papal nuncios were instructed to make the same announcements. Galileo had to remain in Siena until the plague receded and it was safe to travel. This did not happen until December sixteen thirty three. That did not happen until December sixteen thirty three,
Then the Pope gave him permission to return to his villa outside Florence. His movements were to be restricted, not that it mattered, Galileo would scarcely ever leave his home again. Moreover, he was also to be restricted to one or two visitors at a time, no more, but the first person to come to see him was the Grand Duke, somewhat of a show of solidarity.
Eventually Galleo was given permission to travel to Florence to consult his doctors, but until the end of his life he was to remain officially at least a prisoner to the Inquisition, perhaps their most high ranking, high profile prisoner in history. In sixteen thirty six, Galleo arranged for his works to be translated into Latin and published for a European wide audience, except the Dialogue, of
course. Then, in sixteen thirty eight, when he only had three years left to live, he was told that if he ever discussed Copernicanism again, he would spend the rest of his life behind bars, as if he needed reminding. Within a few weeks of Galleo's arrival in Siena, work began on a Latin translation of the Dialogue, which was eventually publish in Strasburg in sixteen
thirty five. The project originated with Eli di'otti, a French Protestant who had long been a friend of Galileo's, and he recruited Matthias Berenger, a German
Protestant who had earlier translated Galileo's book on the Sector into Latin. Barringer repeatedly claimed that he had been invited by Galleo himself to undertake the translation, and it used to be argued that Galileo had contacted di'adatti as soon as he arrived in Siena to ask him to ensure publication an interpretation of the facts, which implied, I don't think it really implied, but indicated that Galileo was blatantly
and instantly in breach of the recantation in which he had promised never to do anything that might imply support for Copernicanism. Now, fortunately, it seems that this story, though attractive when we look back on Galileo, must be wrong, as the Adade began to organize the translation before hearing news of Galleo's condemnation. But Berringer he was so convinced that he was acting on Galleo's request.
That we must assume that Deodatde misled him, just as he failed to warn him in advance that the book he was about to translate was not a short pamphlet but a substantial volume. But whether or not Galileo asked the Adatte to arrange the translation, whether or not he specifically asked for Bearinger to carry out the work, he certainly collaborated in the project, as he is the only possible source of a correction which appears in the Latin edition, one that we
know he wanted to introduce into any future edition. Galleo also thanked his Protestant allies for their work. It thus seems fair to say that he was more or less immediately in breach of the recantation. We can be sure that as soon as he reached Siena, Galleo got back to work on the book he had been promising to write since at least sixteen oh nine. The Two Sciences
not published until sixteen thirty eight. Although this text makes no reference to Copernicanism, the second of the New Sciences, the science of local motion, was central to the Dialogue's refutation of the standard arguments against Copernicanism. We've already seen the galleos first intellectual innovation was to imagine a ball sliding forever across a perfectly
smooth sheet of ice. On the basis of this conceptual model, he reached the conclusion that movement would continue indefinitely in the absence of any countervailing force. Since fifteen ninety or so, he had begun working on his new science of movement, which he would not publish until sixteen thirty eight. The new science was concerned with the acceleration of falling bodies, the isynchronity of the pendulum,
the parabolic path of the projectile. All of these discoveries, which constitute, frankly the foundation of modern physics, contained both an experimental and theoretical or deductive component. In the published work, theory is made as far as possible to predominate over experiment. The book involves the construction of models, both theoretical and working, which are idealized in exactly the same weight as his first model of
unimpeded motion. In fact, it seems like Galleo's first great innovation was to treat nature as if it was an artificial object. When Galleo says that the book of Nature is written in the language of math. He means it. He means that real nature embodies principles derived from idealized nature. Here he's writing, quote, what happens in the concrete happens in the same way in the
abstract. It would be novel. Indeed, if computations and ratios made in abstract numbers should not thereafter correspond to concrete gold and silver, coins, and merchandise. Just as the computer who wants his calculations to deal with sugar, silk, and wool must discount the boxes, bales and other packings, so the mathematical scientist, when he wants to recognize in the concrete the effects which
he has proven in the abstract, must deduct the material hinderances. And if he's able to do so, I assure you there are things that are in no less agreement than arithmetical computations. The errors then lie not in the abstractness or concreteness, not in the geometry or physics, but in a calculator who does not know how to make a true accounting end quote. Yaleo's study of motion is the study of an idealized nature. It is the study of a
theoretical universe. He does this to eliminate pesky things like friction and resistance, and in this way he reduces our real world to mathematical purity. Yaleo never set out to become the founder of a new physics or a new astronomy. He did both because he discovered a new way of thinking that he loved. He simply looked at the world differently. For example, when Galileo was considering problems such as how far can you extend a beam before it breaks under its
own weight, he started to invent a new abstract science of materials. Real beams in Galileo's world are made of wood in marble. They have cracks, fissures, imperfections, and flaws. But Galleo's beams, when he does these mathematical computations, are imaginary. They're perfect, uniform through and through the core of galleos thinking is that weight increases with volume, and resistance increases with the
surface area. Hence, an object which is twice as big in every direction generates four times as much friction falling through the air, but is eight times heavier. He writes quote for who does not see that a horse falling from a height of three or four brochi will break its bones, while a dog falling from that same height, or a cat from eight or ten or even more, will suffer no harm. Thus a cricket might fall without damage from a tower, or an ant from the moon. Small children remain unhurt in
falls that would break the legs or heads of their elders. And just as smaller animals are proportionately stronger or more robust than larger ones, so smaller plants would sustain themselves better. I think you both know that if an oak were two hundred feet high, it could not support branches spread out similarly to an
oak of average size. Only by a miracle could nature form a horse the size of twenty horses, or a giant ten times the height of man, unless she greatly altered the proportions of the members, especially those of the skeleton, thickening the bones far beyond their ordinary symmetry. End quote. In the end, Galleo was a great scientist because he was able to innovate in several seemingly unconnected fields. On April first, sixteen thirty four, the papacy grew
tired of constant Florentine requests for Galleo's release. On April the first, sixteen thirty four, the Papacy grew tired of constant Florentine requests for Galleo's release from home confinement, so it issued a blunt warning. If they asked again, Galileo would be turned over to the Inquisition and spend the rest of his life in prison. Unfortunately for Galleo, the same day he got bad news.
He found out his favorite daughter had died of dysentery. Without her he turned to his son for support in his old age, and the two seemed to have enjoyed a rather close relationship during his last years. In sixteen thirty eight, an inquisitor visited Galileo and found him on the verge of death. He
wrote, I found him totally without sight and completely blind. He has a very severe hernia, constant pain in his guts, and a wakefulness such that, according to his own word and reports of those who live with him, in twenty four hours he never sleeps for a whole hour. In other respects, he is so reduced that he looks more like a corpse than a living
person. His studies have been brought to a halt by his blindness, though he sometimes has something to read, and he has a few visitors because being in such poor health, all he normally has to talk to anyone about who does visit him is the dreadful pain he is in and the conditions he suffers from. Realizing his time was nearly at an end. Galileo made preparations for
the publications of his final book, The Two Sciences. But the big question is, of course, when anybody talks about Galileo, is was he Catholic, a Copernican, or some combination of the two. It's hard to say, given the lack of resources. Certainly, Galileo, by his own admission, was an atomist. He believed the universe was made up of atoms. Of course, that does not mean that he believed universe had no creator, etc. Etc. Even though that is how many at the time interpreted such
beliefs. The only decisive document we have on the subject is a letter from Castelli to Galileo in sixteen thirty nine. Castelli and Galileo had been friends at that point for about thirty five years, so we can trust its authenticity. Of course, I wish it was a letter from Galileo to Castelli, and not the other way around. But this is the best piece of evidence that
we have. Castelli evidently has heard news of Galileo that has made him quote weep with joy end quote, for he has heard that Galileo has given his soul to Christ. Castelli immediately refers to the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, even those who were hired in the last hour of the day receive payment for the whole day's work. Then, having discussed the prophecies of a
sister Elizabeth, he evidently now thinks Galleo is a believer in miracles. He turns to the crucifixion, and in particular to the two thieves crucified on other side of Christ. One confessed Christ as his savior and was saved, the other did not and was damned. Soon Castilli writes, he hopes to come to Florence and they'll be able to talk about these things, which are the
only ones that count for the salvation of our souls. Castelli's invocation of the parable of the laborers and the vineyard and of the two thieves crucified alongside Christ, is clear and completely unambiguous. He believes Galleo is coming to Christianity at the last moment, but not too late to save his soul. There is no conceivable interpretation of this letter which is compatible with the general held view that
Galileo was throughout his entire career a believing Catholic. Every indication from this letter is that this is a late, final seconds transition for the great scientist. The laborers did not merely put off starting work until the last moment. They weren't hired until the eleventh hour. The thief crucified alongside Christ had no knowledge that Christ was or even claimed to be the Messiah until death was upon him. These texts, as generations of theologians have recognized, are about last minute
conversions, about the amendment of a misspent life. Hence, Castelli here is making the clear inference that Galileo is converting at the last moment. Castelli allows himself to discuss Galleo's unbelief only because he's been given to understand that he is now, at long last, a believer. There are no further letters like this one. There are certainly a few phrases in Galileo's letters at the time asking for prayers to be said for him, for example, which may hint
at a temporary piety. But it's perfectly possible that Castelli and his informants had been taken in by a trick, that Galileo simply hoped to improve his condition by making a display of piety. Castelli's letter cannot tell us what really happened to Galileo in May of sixteen thirty nine, But what is clear is what Castelli had always understood about his close friend, and that is he was not a believer. And if anyone was in a position to know if Galileo was
or was not a Catholic, it was Castelli. Now this is not to suggest that Galileo was an atheist or even agnostic. He just might not have been an orthodox Catholic. For the time, Galleo believed probably there was no evidence of a providential hand guiding the creation or order of the heavens. To him, it was all mathematics. If God were a mathematician, then this
all made sense. But it did not make any logical sense to Galileo that God designated Earth as the center of the universe, when all objective evidence pointed to the contrary. At the end of the day, the most important thing I can tell you about Galileo and his relationship to Western history is that Galileo was the first modern scientist. Arguably, he was the first true scientist in
Western history. He constructed a new generation of technical and scientific instruments, instruments that could measure to degrees of specificity far beyond what had previously been imagined as possible. Moreover, by the time of Galileo's death, Europeans had started to consider the possibility that the word world might only mean our planet at not the
universe as a whole. This was something quite unique. Indeed, Galileo invented the telescope, or at least the first good telescope, and then he used it to expand our knowledge. That is a concept that was very alien to the medieval world. Frankly, if you want to argue a point in history where the medieval world dies once and for all, it might very well be
that moment when Galileo first turned his improved telescope to the stars. The primary thrust of Galleo's new science was to argue that knowledge must be grounded in sensory experience. To us today this is obvious, but in the fifteenth century, it was absolutely revolutionary. Moreover, Galileo observed and argued that abstractions could and often did, go against the event of our senses. That is, when in doubt we need to trust the math. Well, this all seems so
clear to us. Let us recall a few things. One, Galileo was willing to be different. He held to his convictions until the end, even though most, if not everyone, disagreed with him. I've never had an entire continent disagree with me, so I have no idea how hard it is under those circumstances to stick to your guns. But my guess is pretty hard. Two. We live in a world of rapid change today, but Galileo's world was mired in the past. Sure, Copernicanism would be generally accepted,
but not until the sixteen sixties. Outwardly, Galleo's path is easy to trace. For the first half of his life he was an obscure mathematician who published little and nothing of importance. But during this time he made most of his great discoveries in physics, discoveries that he was only to publish at the end of his life. The second and shortest period of Galileo's life began in sixteen oh nine, when he turned a telescope toward the sky. He discovered new
worlds and transformed astronomy. It was this revolution which gave rise to our modern conviction that what scientists do is make discoveries. Relying on these new discoveries, Galleo set out to convince the world that the Earth was flying through space, that the Earth was in fact merely one of the planets, and the Sun merely one of the stars. These arguments were condemned in sixteen sixteen, bringing the second period of his life to an end. Galileo puzzled often over the
hostility his work engendered, and suggested a psychological explanation. The difficulty, he thought, was not simply his copernicanism, which implied we cannot trust our own senses in that the world around us seems to be standing still, but is
in fact traveling at immense speed through space. The hostility, he suggested, lay in his sustained efforts to deny the validity of a traditional distinction between a sublunary realm, the world of change, of death of life, and the superlunary realm, the world of perfection, of permanence of I guess immortality. As far as Galileo was concerned, the Earth and the Moon are heavenly bodies just like other heavenly bodies, and other heavenly bodies are like the Earth and
the moon. He found imperfection in the Moon, and he found change in the sun. And he declared that the Earth seem from a would shine just like any other star. It did not follow. He continuously stressed that because heavenly bodies were imperfective, the universe was therefore fragile or doomed to destruction. Change did not necessarily mean death. If the fall of Adam and Eve had begun the reign of death on Earth, then Galileo had extended Death's reign throughout
the heavens. His version of Copernicanism represented a second intellectual fall. One complaint was that by making the Earth a heavenly body, he had placed hell in the heavens. Another was that, in claiming that there were other uninhabited worlds, he had made nonsense of the notion that the world existed because it was made for living creatures. Galleo was simply removing the barriers that had kept apart
God and the devil. The sacred and the secular early modern period, there was a fundamental intellectual commitment that was deeper than the commitment to Aristotle or to a literalist reading of the Bible, a commitment that underpinned both of these explicit openly avowed beliefs. The commitment was to a dualist mode of thought. In other words, there was carnival and there was lent. There was time and
there was eternity. There was heaven and there was hell. By denying the distinction between the sublunary and super lunary, Galileo made it impossible to locate heaven and Hell on a map. And that, my friends, was why he had to be condemned. Galleo died quietly on the eighth of January sixteen forty two. He was seventy seven years old. As soon as news reached Rome, instructions were sent that there was to be no tombstone, no memorial within
any church. His good friend Viviani ended up turning the front of his house into a private memorial to Galileo and left money in his will for a tomb. A modest plaque was permitted, but only in sixteen seventy three, and a proper tomb finally allowed in seventeen thirty seven. Galileo's work marked the beginning of a scientific revolution, before which even eventually the Catholic Church would have to
give ground. The first legal reprinting of Galileo's band Dialogue in the original Italian wasn't until seventeen forty four, and then it was also accompanied by the Way
by the Condemnation of sixteen thirty three and by Galileo's famous recantation. The Catholic Church did not formally permit the teaching of Copernicanism until eighteen although over the previous century restrictions on the discussion of his work had slowly broken down, and it was only in eighteen thirty four, the year before Copernicus and Galileo were finally removed from the Index of Forbidden Books, that the English word scientist finally first
appeared in print. John Milton, the famous English poet, met with Galileo in secret just before the man's death. By then, the old man was blind and confined to his bed. In his famous work Paradise Lost, Milton describes Atolemaic universe, but he hedges his bets a little bit, pondering whether Galleo might in fact be right, maybe mankind was not so privileged. Milton has his character adam uttered the following words, which I do think Galileo might
have agreed with. When I behold this goodly frame, this world of heaven and Earth consisting, and compute their magnitudes, this earth, a spot, a grain, an atom, with the firmament compared in all the numbered stars that seem to roll spaces incomprehensible for which their distance argues in their swift return diurnal, merely to officiate light round this opacious earth, this punctual spot, one day and night, in all their vast survey useless. Besides reasoning,
I often admire how nature wise and frugal could commit such disproportions. And with that we closed the book on Galileo, and we close the book for the moment on the scientific Revolution. Next week we return to more political history, and we pick up our story in England with the death of Henry the eighth and the ascension of the young King Edward the sixth, and the conclusion of the English Reformation. As always, if you're looking for additional content, you
can check out the website link in the show notes. I've actually transitioned how we do the paid shows. If you'd like to support the show, there is now one link in the show notes that will take you to all the episodes for Western Civ two point zero, and will also take you to any other bonus and add free content. You can pay between one and five dollars a month. Anything that you give goes to supporting the show and making sure
that we can continue to put these out. Thank you as always, and if you are financially unable to support the show, but you'd like to do something helpful, nonetheless, leaving a rating and review always helps us out