David’s Reviews > The Crime of Galileo > Status Update

“To have recanted was not considered a moral degradation. It was a deliberate *social* degradation, and it was as such that it broke the old man’s heart.” (350)

“A couple of imaginary (or rather faked) factors had been multiplied by each other to give an arbitrary real culpability [to Galileo]. The acrobatics of the text were bound to give it away as soon as it came under the inspection of dispassionate jurists.” (340)

“Two lies in three words, a maximum of effortless efficiency.” (306)

“...it was clearly established among all concerned, with the possible lone exception of the Pope himself, who stood there in the solitary unawareness of despots, that Galileo’s trial was based on a judicial forgery, although it could not be stated explicitly without bringing about a diplomatic crisis.” (297)

“Moralist historians do not seem to notice that their perspective is that of believers in another religion...They forget [Galileo] was a member of the Apostolic Roman communion and had to submit in some way. Quite apart from the personal inconvenience of being burnt at the stake...” (278)

“Galileo had some right to challenge the cardinals on the day of his sentence to show him what could be wrong with his book.” (271)

“A great and rigid authoritarian administration with a thought police which is supposed to know all should at least keep its records straight.” (263)

“Dozens of publications were condemned every year for holding the most erroneous views. But, if their authors had submitted in advance to the judgment of their superiors...they were not even troubled in their careers. Galileo was exactly in the same position...It was only after the success of the “Dialogue” that it suddenly became ‘the most perverse and pernicious matter that could be thought of.’ “ (254)