TENSES

                                               TENSES

Tenses denote the time of action. They show when the work is done. They are:

(1) Present Tense

(2) Past Tense

(3) Future Tense

They are further divided into:

(1) Simple Present- It is used to denote scientific facts, universal truths and work

done on daily basis.

Example – She writes a letter.

Example – She does not write a letter.

Example – Does she write a letter?

Example – Does she not write a letter?

(2) Present Continuous– It is used to express an action taking place at the time

of speaking.

Example – she is writing a letter.

Example – She is not writing a letter.

Example – Is she writing a letter?

ASSERTIVE RULE --- sub + V1 + s/es + object

NEGATIVE RULE --- sub + does not + v1 + s/es + object

INTERROGATIVE RULE --- Does + sub + v1 + s/es + object

INTERROGATIVE NEGATIVE ASSERTIVE --- Does + sub + not + v1 + s/es + object

=+

ASSERTIVE RULE --- sub + is/am/are + v1 + ing + object

NEGATIVE RULE --- sub + is/am/are + not + v1 + ing + object

INTERROGATIVE RULE --- is/am/are + sub + v1 + ing + object

INTERROGATIVE NEGATIVE RULE --- is/am/are + sub + not + v1 + ing + object

Example – Is she not writing a letter?

(3) Present Perfect– It is used to show an action that started in the past and has

just finished.

Example- She has written a letter.

Example – She has not written a letter.

Example- Has she written a letter?

Example– Has she not written a letter?

(4) Present Perfect Continuous– This tense shows the action which started in

the past and is still continuing.

Example – She has been writing a letter.

Example– She has not been writing a letter.

Example – Has she been writing a letter?

Example – Has she not been writing a letter?

ASSERTIVE RULE --- sub + has/have + v3 + object

NEGATIVE RULE --- sub + has/have + not + v3 + object

INTERROGATIVE RULE --- has/have + sub + v3 + object

INTERROGATIVE NEGATIVE RULE ---has/have + sub + not + v3 + object

ASSERTIVE RULE --- sub + has/have + been + v1 + ing + object

NEGATIVE RULE --- sub + has/have + not been + v1 + ing + object

INTERROGATIVE RULE ---has/have + sub + been + v1 + ing + object

INTERROGATIVE NEGATIVE RULE --- has/have + she + not + been + v1 + ing + object

Past Tense

Tense symbolizes the ever moving, non-stop wheel of time which is forever busy

gathering moments of future and throwing them into the dustbin of past

Simple Past

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous

Simple Past

Used to indicate an action completed in the past. It often occurs with adverb of

time. Sometimes it is used without an adverb of time.

Used for past habits.

Eg. I played football when I was a child.

Rule: Subject + V2

Eg She wrote a letter

1. Assertive Sentences – Subject + V2 + Object + (.)

She wrote a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + didn’t + V1 + Object + (.)

She didn’t.write a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Did + Subject + V1 + Object + (?)

Did she write a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Did + Subject + not + V1 + Object + (?)

Did she not write a letter?

Past Continuous Tense

Used to denote an action going on at some time in the past.

e.g. I was driving a car.

Rule: was/were + ing

1. Assertive Sentences –

Subject + was/were +V1+ ing + Object + (.)

She was writing a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + was/were + not + ing + Object + (.)

She was not writing a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Was/were + Subject + ing+ Object + (?)

Was she writing a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Was/were + Subject + not + ing+ Object + (?)

Was she not writing a letter?

Past Perfect Tense

Used to describe an action completed before a certain moment in the past, usually a

long time ago. If two actions happened in the past, past perfect is used to show the

action that took place earlier.

e.g. The patient had died before the doctor came.

1. Assertive Sentences –

Subject + had + V3 + Object + (.)

She had written a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + had + not + Object + (.)

She had not written a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Had + Subject + V3 + Object + (?)

Had she written a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Had + Subject + not + V3 + Object + (?)

Had she not written a letter?

Past Perfect Continuous Tense

Used to denote an action that began before a certain point in the past and continued

up to some time in past.

e.g. I had been learning English in this school for 20 days.

1. Assertive Sentences –

Subject + had been +V1 + ing + Object + (.)

She had been writing a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + had + not been + V1+ ing + Object + (.)

She had not been writing a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Had + Subject+ been+ V1 + ing + Object + (?)

Had she been writing a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Had + Subject +not + been + V1 + ing + Object + (?)

Had she not been writing a letter?

FUTURE TENSE

Time and tide wait for no man. So, a period of time following the moment of

speaking or writing is called as future tense.

For e.g- She will write a letter.

Simple Future

This tense tells us about an action which has not occurred yet and will occur after

saying or in future

Rule – Will/Shall + Verb (Ist form)

In Future Tense helping verb ‘Shall’ is used with ‘I’ and ‘We’. Helping verb ‘Will’

is used with all others. When you are to make a commitment or warn someone or

emphasize something, use of 'will/shall' is reversed. ‘Will’ is used with ‘I’ & ‘We’

and 'shall' is used with others.

Simple Future

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous

In general speaking there is hardly any difference between 'shall & will' and

normally ‘Will’ is used with all.

Now, let us use this rule in various forms of sentences;

1. Positive / Affirmative Sentences –

Subject + Will/Shall + Verb (Ist form) + Object + (.)

She will write a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + Will/Shall + Not + Verb (Ist form) + Object + (.)

She will not write a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Verb (Ist form) + Object + (?)

Will she write a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Not + Verb (Ist form) + Object + (?)

Will she not write a letter?

Future Continuous Tense

It is used to express an ongoing or continued action in future.

e.g. He will be distributing sweets in temple tomorrow at 12 o'clock.

In the example, the action will start in future (tomorrow) and action is thought to

be continued till sometime in future.

We use the future continuous to talk about something that will be in progress at or

around a time in the future.

Rule: Will/Shall + Be + Verb (Ist form) + Ing

Now, let us use this rule in various forms of sentences;

1. Positive / Affirmative Sentences –

Subject + Will/Shall + Be + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object + (.)

She will be writing a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + Will/Shall + Not + Be + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object + (.)

She will not be writing a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Be + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object + (?)

Will she be writing a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Not + Be + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object + (?)

Will she not be writing a letter?

Future Perfect Tense

It is used to express an action which will happen/occur in future and will be

completed by a certain time in future.

We use the future perfect to say that something will be finished by a particular time

in the future.

e.g. They will have shifted the house by Sunday morning.

Rule: Will/Shall + Have + Verb (3rd form)

Now, let us use this rule in various forms of sentences;

1. Positive / Affirmative Sentences –

Subject + Will/Shall + Have + Verb (3rd form) + Object + (.)

She will have written a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + Will/Shall + Not + Have + Verb (3rd form) + Object + (.)

She will not have written a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Have + Verb (3rd form) + Object + (?)

Will she have written a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Not + Have + Verb (3rd form) + Object + (?)

Will she not have written a letter?

Future Perfect Continuous Tense

It is used to talk about actions that will commence at a fix time in future and will

continue for some time in future.

If there is no time reference, then it is not a Future perfect continuous tense.

Without continued time reference, such sentences are Future Continuous Tense.

Continued time reference only differentiates between Future Continuous Tense and

Future Perfect Continuous Tense.

The future perfect progressive emphasize the duration of an activity that will be

in progress before another time or event in the future.

e.g. This time tomorrow, I will be enjoying the cricket match in the stadium.

It is also used to talk about planned actions or actions expected to happen.

e.g. They will be staying for a week’s

The future perfect progressive emphasize the duration of an activity that will be in

progress before another time or event in the future.

Rule: Will/Shall + Have been + Verb (Ist form) + Ing

Now, let us use this rule in various forms of sentences;

1. Positive / Affirmative Sentences –

Subject + Will/Shall + Have been + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object + (.)

She will have been writing a letter.

2. Negative Sentences-

Subject + Will/Shall + Not + Have been + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object+ (.)

She will not have been writing a letter.

3. Interrogative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Have been + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object +(?)

Will she have been writing a letter?

4. Interrogative Negative Sentences-

Will/Shall + Subject + Not + Have been + Verb (Ist form) + Ing + Object +(?)

Will she not have been writing a letter?

The Veins of Wealth - John Ruskin

 

The Veins of Wealth     - John Ruskin

 

     The title ‘The Veins of Wealth’ is appropriate and suitable. It is suggestive too.  Ruskin suggests that the circulation of wealth in the body –politics, resembles that of the blood in the human body. Veins are the blood vessels carrying blood to the heart. Ruskin compares human beings to veins carrying life-giving wealth to the heart of the state.

    Ruskin brings out a clear-cut distinction between Political Economy and Mercantile Economy. Political Economy consists simply of the production, preservation and distribution, at fittest time and place, of or useful pleasurable things. In brief, it implies the economy of national welfare. Mercantile Economy, on the other hand, signifies the accumulation, in the hands of individuals, of legal or moral claim upon or power over the labour of others. It implies poverty or debt on one side and riches or right on the other. Naturally, it does not add to the well-being of the State in which it exists.

    The orthodox political economist assumes that inequalities are necessarily advantageous though established and directed unjustly. Ruskin felt that inequalities of wealth unjustly established have injured the nation in which they exist. On the other hand, if inequalities of wealth are justly established, they benefit the nation in the course of their establishment.

      According to Ruskin, the real value of wealth depends on justice and honest way by which it is accumulated. Any given accumulation of commercial wealth may be indicative, on the one hand, of faithful industries, progressive energies and productive ingenuities or on the other, it may be indicative of moral luxury, merciless tyranny, dangerous tricks.

     It is wrong to presume that wealth is all powerful and that human-beings are insignificant. In truth, the persons themselves are wealth. The price of gold which people possess are ornamental things and hence not so real as the reality itself. The wealth of a nation is in its good men and women and in nothing else but to produce healthy, happy-hearted human beings. The best national manufactures are souls of a good quality.

 

THE ROOTS OF HONOUR - JOHN RUSKIN

 

THE ROOTS OF HONOUR      -  JOHN RUSKIN

     John Ruskin was one of the greatest thinkers and writers of the Victorian age. He produced works of lasting value on a variety of subjects such as art, music, education and literature. Ruskin’s works on art, social and political economy, literature and education are worthy of great consideration. Ruskin’s career as a social critic and reformer began formally in 1860 with the publication of his ‘Unto This Last’. The work ‘Unto This Last’ consists of four essays : i) The Roots of Honour  ii) The Veins of Wealth  iii) Qui Judicates  Terram iv) Ad Valorem. In these essays, Ruskin deals with the problem of wages, the relation of the employers and the labourers. He was a real Messiah of the working classes.

     In this essay ‘The Roots of Honour’ Ruskin wants to say that orthodox political economy ignores social affections, though these are essential and not accidental qualities. The political economy of writers like Mill, Malthus and Ricardo is full of delusions; these economists have said that man is motivated by self-interest only. The political economy which reduces man to covetuous self-interest appears to Ruskin a theory based on the negation of Soul.  He is perfectly right when he remarks that honour is the outcome of self-sacrifice. Without sacrifice no honour can be achieved. Merchants are fanned by self-interest and hence they ignore social affection. To them, monetary gain is the goal of life and thus they consider social affections as accidental and inconstant.

     The second point touched by the author is about the relationship between master and servant, Without co-operation between the master and his servants, no progress can be made. In an ideal society, interests of both the classes should be safeguarded. For example, the master should not pay his worker so low that he starves and remains sickly. The worker should not demand high wages when his master is economically unsound.

Ruskin recommends fixed wages for the labour class. When other types of workers, such as engineers, doctors and teachers have fixed wages, why should the workers remains unfixed? Fixed wages have merits. It would not throw the worker out of employment in competition.

Then Ruskin says that merchants must also learn their duty like the soldiers. Their duty is to produce the purest things and sell them at the cheapest rates. They should also see that men employed under them get their due wages. In a commercial crisis, they should behave like the captain of the ship. In other words, they should be rooted in honour like professional men.

Nevertheless, the essay heralds a prophetic note. The prophesies made by Ruskin have come to be true. His suggestions have a modern appeal.

The Explosion - Philip Larkin

 

The Explosion      - Philip Larkin

Philip Larkin (1922-1985) was one of the most important poets of the late 20^th Century. He wrote the poem The Explosion, in 1970. It is the final poem in his 1974 collection, “High Windows”. After watching a television programme, in late 1969, Larkin got inspiration to the write about the British mining industry and the dangers that miners faced. The speaker of the poem is an observer and commentator on the crucial event of the poem, an explosion at a mine. It is a short poem of twenty-five lines.

The first part of the poem begins with a description of ordinary men going out to do a day’s work down the mine. There is no hint of apprehension on their part. The poet describes how “On the day of the explosion/ Shadows pointed towards the pithead.” These “shadows” are an omen of the terrible event that is to follow.

The actions of the men are all in stark contrast to their work environment, the sun is shining, they are smoking. One among them is more adventurous and active as he hunts some rabbits. The rabbits escape, but he finds a nest with a lark’s eggs in it. He does not destroy or harm this nest but shows it to the others and returns them to their place in the grass. , and even the reference to larks is significant given that larks go straight up and the men will soon go straight down in a cage to start work in the darkness of the mine.

It is significant that poet Philip Larkin does not describe the actual explosion but rather its effects on the outer world. With the tremor, cows stop chewing and the sun is “dimmed.” Readers do not see its effect on the miners who are dying under the earth. That horror and suffering is hidden from view.

In the second part of the poem the focus is changed. Now it is the wives who are central. It is said that the poem is based on a real event and that the wives of the dead miners had visions of their men at the moment of the explosion. Larkin uses this knowledge to transform what would be a sad and meaningless accident into an occasion of transformation and grace. In the religious imaginations of the wives the men are seen for a second as transformed into gold, metal of purity and endurance. In this new changed appearance they will live in the memories of their wives. The poem ends with the image of the unbroken eggs. The eggs are also transformed; now they may represent the hope of resurrection or the preciousness of memory or the strength of the bonds of love.

In the face of death we have a choice, either to accept it as the slide into nothingness or we may find in it the door to renewal. In this poem Larkin suggests us the renewal vision that flashed into the shocked serious hearts of the miners wives.

 

Hawk Roosting - Ted Hughes

 

Hawk Roosting  - Ted Hughes

Introduction

Ted Hughes is a prominent poet of 20^th Century. His father was a veteran of the First World War. He studied in Cambridge University. He married American poet Sylvia Plath in 1956. Plath ended her life in 1963. Hughes served as Poet Laureate from 1984 to 1998. He is called the poet of violence. He is influenced by D.H.Lawrence and Hopkins. The poem Hawk Roosting is taken from Hughes’ second collection, Lupercal. It is written in the form of a monologue. It expresses the ideas of the hawk which speaks in an authoritative tone about the world.

Hawk’s Dream

The hawk is resting on a high tree with closed eyes. Though its eyes are closed, it is not inactive. It thinks of the number of birds that it has killed in the past. Those birds have fallen a prey to it without showing any resistance. It also imagines about the birds which it would kill and eat in the future. It does not feel guilty for killing the small birds.

Nature, Hawk’s ally

It is very much satisfied with its nest comfortably built at the height of the tree, from where it can inspect the whole world and choose its prey. The natural elements like Sun and Air, by providing light, air and warmth makes its job easier. Nature helps it to assert its authority and nothing has changed in the universe since its creation

Hawk’s Physical features

It thinks about its physical features. The creator must have taken special efforts to mould its feet and feathers. From the nest it can fly round the world and choose its prey, for the whole creation belongs to it. It feels proud of its strong body. It sees itself as the pinnacle of the universe around whom everything revolves.

Conclusion

In this poem, the poet depicts the cruelty and blood thirstiness that prevail in Nature. The poet has expressed his unified response of admiration and horror. The poet neither glorifies nor blames Nature but only exaggerates the power of Nature. The theme of course is violence. It projects the bird as a deadly killing machine which is born to kill others who are weak and meek.

Waiting for Godot Summary

 

Waiting for Godot Summary

The setting is in the evening on a country road with a single tree present. Estragon is trying to pull off his boot, but without success. Vladimir enters and greets Estragon, who informs him that he has spent the night in a ditch where he was beaten. With supreme effort Estragon succeeds in pulling off his boot. He then looks inside it to see if there is anything there while Vladimir does the same with his hat.

Vladimir mentions the two thieves who were crucified next to Christ. He asks Estragon if he knows the Gospels. Estragon gives a short description of the maps of the Holy Land at which point Vladimir tells him he should have been a poet. Estragon points to his tattered clothes and says he was. Vladimir continues with his narrative about the two thieves in order to pass the time.

Estragon wants to leave but Vladimir forces him to stay because they are both waiting for Godot to arrive. Neither of the two bums knows when Godot will appear, or even if they are at the right place. Later it is revealed that they do not even know what they originally asked Godot for.

Estragon gets bored of waiting and suggests that they pass the time by hanging themselves from the tree. They both like the idea but cannot decide who should go first. They are afraid that if one of them dies the other might be left alone. In the end they decide it is safer to wait until Godot arrives.

Estragon asks Vladimir whether they still have rights. Vladimir indicates that they got rid of them. He then fears that he hears something, but it turns out to be imaginary noises. Vladimir soon gives Estragon a carrot to eat.

Pozzo and Lucky arrive. Lucky has a rope tied around his neck and is carrying a stool, a basket, a bag and a greatcoat. Pozzo carries a whip which he uses to control Lucky. Estragon immediately confuses Pozzo with Godot which gets Pozzo upset.

Pozzo spends several minutes ordering Lucky around. Lucky is completely silent and obeys like a machine. Pozzo has Lucky put down the stool and open the basket of food which contains chicken. Pozzo then eats the chicken and throws away the bones. Lucky stands in a stooped posture holding the bags after each command has been completed and appears to be falling asleep.

Estragon and Vladimir go to inspect Lucky who intrigues them. They ask why he never puts his bags down. Pozzo will not tell them, so Estragon proceeds to ask if he can have the chicken bones that Pozzo has been throwing away. Pozzo tells him that they technically belong to Lucky. When they ask Lucky if he wants them, he does not reply, so Estragon is given the bones.

Pozzo eventually tells them why Lucky hold the bags the entire time. He thinks it is because Lucky is afraid of being given away. While Pozzo tells them why Lucky continues to carry his bags, Lucky starts to weep. Estragon goes to wipe away the tears but receives a terrible kick in the shin.

Pozzo then tells them that he and Lucky have been together nearly sixty years. Vladimir is appalled at the treatment of Lucky who appears to be such a faithful servant. Pozzo explains that he cannot bear it any longer because Lucky is such a burden. Later Vladimir yells at Lucky that it is appalling the way he treats such a good master.

Pozzo then gives an oratory about the night sky. He asks them how it was and they tell him it was quite a good speech. Pozzo is ecstatic at the encouragement and offers to do something for them. Estragon immediately asks for ten francs but Vladimir tells him to be silent. Pozzo offers to have Lucky dance and then think for them.

Lucky dances for them and when asked for an encore repeats the entire dance step for step. Estragon is unimpressed but almost falls trying to imitate it. They then make Lucky think. What follows is an outpouring of religious and political doctrine which always starts ideas but never brings them to completion. The three men finally wrestle Lucky to the ground and yank off his hat at which point he stops speaking. His last word is, "unfinished."

The men then spend some effort trying to get Lucky to wake up again. He finally reawakens when the bags are placed in his hand. Pozzo gets up to leave and he and Lucky depart the scene. Vladimir and Estragon return to their seats and continue waiting for Godot.

A young boy arrives having been sent by Mr. Godot. Estragon is outraged that it took him so long to arrive and scares him. Vladimir cut him off and asks the boy if he remembers him. The boy says this is his first time coming to meet them and that Mr. Godot will not be able to come today but perhaps tomorrow. The boy is sent away with the instructions to tell Mr. Godot that he has seen them. Both Estragon and Vladimir discuss past events and then decide to depart for the night. Neither of them moves from his seat.

The Life of Galileo Summary

 

The Life of Galileo Summary

Next Scene 1

Life of Galileo opens on Galileo Galilei, a professor of mathematics at Padua University. He’s talking to Andrea (his housekeeper’s young son), who has just brought him breakfast. They’re discussing the solar system and how it works. Galileo shows Andrea a wooden model that illustrates the current, generally accepted understanding of the planets. In it, the Earth is in the middle of the universe and is surrounded by eight crystal spheres. These spheres represent the moon, the sun, and all the planets. People have believed this model for two-thousand years, Galileo says, but as mankind progresses in technology and knowledge, he suspects they won’t believe it for much longer. He teaches the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus to Andrea (who calls Copernicus “Copper Knickers”). The new ideas place the Sun at the center of the solar system, with the Earth and planets revolving around it. All the other stars in the night sky are at the center of their own systems. Galileo uses the wooden model as well as a series of common-sense demonstrations with an apple to show Andrea how Copernicus’ theory could be true. Andrea believes him somewhat, but also questions Galileo whenever an argument seems weak. When Andrea’s mother, Mrs. Sarti, arrives, she expresses serious concerns about what Galileo is teaching Andrea, since it goes against the Church’s approved model and could therefore get Andrea into trouble at school.

Throughout all of this, another concern repeatedly appears: money. Galileo doesn’t have any, but he needs it—not just to continue his research and buy books—but also to do simple tasks like pay the milkman. So when Ludovico arrives, hoping to hire Galileo on as a tutor, Mrs. Sarti insists that Galileo accept the offer. He does, though not happily. Shortly afterwards, Galileo’s supervisor at Padua University (the Procurator) arrives to tell Galileo that his recent request for a raise has been denied. The Procurator suggests that, if the mathematician needs more money than his teaching job provides, he should invent something useful. He reminds Galileo that, while Padua (and more broadly, Venice) might not pay much, it at least offers freedom from persecution by the Church, which he might experience in other, better funded places (like Florence). Galileo responds that such freedom of thought may be nice, but it is meaningless if he spends all of his free time working to make ends meet instead of thinking.Download

 

Ludovico, however, provides a possible solution to Galileo’s problem: a new invention by the Dutch called the telescope. It’s still unheard of in Italy, but Ludovico has seen it put to wondrous uses abroad. Galileo instantly understands the mechanics behind the device and quickly replicates one, pawning it off as his own original invention. The Procurator, seeing the great many uses that the telescope could be put to, guarantees Galileo his raise. Shortly thereafter, however, a Dutch merchant arrives in Venice with a boatload of telescopes and Galileo’s deception is revealed. It doesn’t matter, though. He’s already used the telescope to empirically prove Copernicus’ theory (which he’d previously only been able to prove theoretically using mathematics). He excitedly tries to show this proof to his friend Sagredo, but Sagredo only reminds him that a man was burned at the stake for quoting Copernicus only a few months before. Undeterred, Galileo remains confident that the Church will be unable to avoid the truth when it’s right before their eyes. This confidence causes him to move to Florence where, despite being under strict religious censure, he believes he will have the time and money to explore his new findings.

With Galileo newly settled in, Cosimo Medici, the Grand Duke of Florence (who is still just a child), is brought by his counsellors to see the telescope at work. Among Cosimo’s party are a theologian, a mathematician, and a philosopher. All of them are wholly skeptical of Galileo’s latest findings and, after some heated debate with him, they decide that he’s a waste of time at best if not an outright lunatic. In the end, they won’t even look through the telescope to see the simple, observable evidence that Galileo presents as proof, though they do agree (in a way that seems less than sincere) to present Galileo’s information to the Church’s chief scientist, Clavius. Shortly thereafter, a deadly plague rips through Florence. Galileo, his daughter Virginia, Mrs. Sarti, and Andrea are given the chance to flee, but Galileo declines it, citing his need to work. Mrs. Sarti decides to stay behind with him, but they send Virginia and Andrea away. Andrea, however, opts to return despite the danger so that he can continue assisting Galileo.

All manage to avoid the plague and Galileo soon finds himself at the Vatican awaiting Clavius’ review of his work. The scene plays out in much the same way that the confrontation in Florence did: the Church’s scholars are simply too dedicated to the Church’s existing understanding of the universe to entertain alternatives. They all feel that Galileo’s telescope is a dangerous object and that his questioning of age-old wisdom is even more dangerous. A kind of fever overtakes the discussion and at one point an older cardinal faints while berating Galileo. Nevertheless, the scene ends with Clavius confirming that Galileo is correct. His words are followed up by “deadly silence.”

Though Galileo understandably feels that his work has been vindicated by Clavius, he soon discovers that the Inquisition has other ideas. They’ve decided that Copernicus remains heretical and cannot be taught. Paradoxically, though, they’ve accepted Galileo’s findings. What this means is that the Church has decided to allow Galileo to continue his research but not to publish it to the outside world. Galileo is upset by this, but also slightly overwhelmed—he is, after all, a devout Catholic who doesn’t wish to go against his Church, and these orders come from the highest levels of authority.

In the following scene, the Little Monk visits Galileo. He has looked through a telescope and observed the same things Galileo has. The discovery has shaken his faith, and in order to recover that faith, he has decided to abandon astronomy. He visits Galileo to explain why—perhaps in an effort to convince Galileo to do the same. Their long conversation doesn’t go quite as planned, however, and Galileo ends up converting the Little Monk into one of his students by offering him his manuscripts. Galileo compares these to “an apple from the tree of knowledge,” something he knows the Little Monk won’t be able to resist. Kept from publishing, Galileo has instead spread his knowledge to his students, who now include the Little Monk, Andrea, and Galileo’s telescope lens manufacturer, Federzoni.

Meanwhile, the Pope is dying and it seems likely that his successor will be Cardinal Barberini, a mathematician with whom Galileo has had favorable interactions in the past. Assuming that Barberini will be far more receptive to his work than the previous Pope, Galileo resumes publication. His ideas spread far and wide, seemingly overnight: he even becomes the subject of ballads sung at public fairs and carnivals. Naturally, this catches the eye of the Inquisition, who summon Galileo to the Vatican. While Barberini does indeed agree with Galileo, the politics behind supporting him are just too risky and complicated. Therefore, the new Pope has given the Inquisition the right to imprison Galileo, and even to threaten him with torture, in order to force him to renounce his work. Their plan succeeds, and Galileo recants his doctrine. His students can hardly believe it, and they turn their backs on him. They feel that Galileo has abandoned their hard and important work to save his own skin.

Nearly a decade passes. Galileo has been imprisoned in his home by the Inquisition and will remain so for the rest of his life. He’s forced to write dissertations approving the Church’s opinion on a number of banal matters, all of them below his abilities. These texts are carefully checked by a monk for any heresies they might contain, and any other writing is forbidden. Nevertheless, Galileo has, in secret, finished his magnum opus, The Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. One day, Andrea comes to visit (the first of his old pupils to do so). At first, Andrea is cold towards his old mentor. Galileo reveals, however, that he did not recant his work in order to save his life. Rather, he recanted it so that he could continue it in secret. With Andrea’s help, Galileo manages to sneak The Discourse out of the country and into Holland, where it is published without censure.