In this year (1620) appeared the corrections under which the Congregation
of the Index--i.e., the Committee of Cardinals which superintended the
_Index_ of forbidden books--proposed to allow the work of Copernicus to be
read. I insert these conditions in full, because they are often alluded to,
and I know of no source of reference accessible to a twentieth part of
those who take interest in the question.
By a decree of the Congregation of the Index, dated March 5, 1616, the work
of Copernicus, and another of Didacus Astunica,[137] are suspended _donec
corrigantur_, as teaching:
"Falsam illam doctrinam Pythagoricam, divinae que Scripturae omnino
adversantem, de mobilitate Terrae et immobilitate Solis."[138]
But a work of the Carmelite Foscarini[139] is:
{91}
"Omnino prohibendum atque damnandum," because "ostendere conatur praefatam
doctrinam ... consonam esse veritati et non adversari Sacrae
Scripturae."[140]
Works which teach the false doctrine of the earth's motion are to be
corrected; those which declare the doctrine conformable to Scripture are to
be utterly prohibited.
In a "Monitum ad Nicolai Copernici lectorem, ejusque emendatio, permissio,
et correctio," dated 1620 without the month or day, permission is given to
reprint the work of Copernicus with certain alterations; and, by
implication, to read existing copies after correction in writing. In the
preamble the author is called _nobilis astrologus_; not a compliment to his
birth, which was humble, but to his fame. The suspension was because:
"Sacrae Scripturae, ejusque verae et Catholicae interpretationi repugnantia
(quod in homine Christiano minime tolerandum) non _per hypothesin_
tractare, sed _ut verissima_ adstruere non dubitat!"[141]
And the corrections relate:
"Locis in quibus non _ex hypothesi_, sed _asserendo_ de situ et motu Terrae
disputat."[142]
That is, the earth's motion may be an hypothesis for elucidation of the
heavenly motions, but must not be asserted as a fact.
(In Pref. circa finem.) "_Copernicus._ Si fortasse erunt [Greek:
mataiologoi], qui cum omnium Mathematum ignari sint, tamen de illis
judicium sibi summunt, propter aliquem locum scripturae, male ad suum
propositum detortum, ausi fuerint meum {92} hoc institutum reprehendere ac
insectari: illos nihil moror adeo ut etiam illorum judicium tanquam
temerarium contemnam. Non enim obscurum est Lactantium, celebrem alioqui
scriptorem, sed Mathematicum parum, admodum pueriliter de forma terrae
loqui, cum deridet eos, qui terram globi formam habere prodiderunt. Itaque
non debet mirum videri studiosis, si qui tales nos etiam videbunt.
Mathemata Mathematicis scribuntur, quibus et hi nostri labores, si me non
fallit opinio, videbuntur etiam Reipub. ecclesiasticae conducere aliquid....
_Emend._ Ibi _si fortasse_ dele omnia, usque ad verbum _hi nostri labores_
et sic accommoda--_Coeterum hi nostri labores_."[143]
All the allusion to Lactantius, who laughed at the notion of the earth
being round, which was afterwards found true, is to be struck out.
(Cap. 5. lib. i. p. 3) "_Copernicus._ Si tamen attentius rem consideremus,
videbitur haec quaestio nondum absoluta, et ideireo minime contemnenda.
_Emend._ Si tamen attentius rem consideremus, nihil refert an Terram in
medio Mundi, an extra Medium existere, quoad solvendas coelestium motuum
apparentias existimemus."[144]
{93}
We must not say the question is not yet settled, but only that it may be
settled either way, so far as mere explanation of the celestial motions is
concerned.
(Cap. 8. lib. i.) "Totum hoc caput potest expungi, quia ex professo tractat
de veritate motus Terrae, dum solvit veterum rationes probantes ejus
quietem. Cum tamen problematice videatur loqui; ut studiosis satisfiat,
seriesque et ordo libri integer maneat; emendetur ut infra."[145]
A chapter which seems to assert the motion should perhaps be expunged; but
it may perhaps be problematical; and, not to break up the book, must be
amended as below.
(p. 6.) "_Copernicus._ Cur ergo hesitamus adhuc, mobilitatem illi formae suae
a natura congruentem concedere, magisquam quod totus labatur mundus, cujus
finis ignoratur, scirique nequit, neque fateamur ipsius cotidianae
revolutionis in coelo apparentiam esse, et in terra veritatem? Et haec
perinde se habere, ac si diceret Virgilianus AEneas: Provehimur portu ...
_Emend._ Cur ergo non possum mobilitatem illi formae suae concedere, magisque
quod totus labatur mundus, cujus finis ignoratur scirique nequit, et quae
apparent in coelo, perinde se habere ac si ..."[146]
{94}
"Why should we hesitate to allow the earth's motion," must be altered into
"I cannot concede the earth's motion."
(p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Addo etiam, quod satis absurdum videretur,
continenti sive locanti motum adscribi, et non potius contento et locato,
quod est terra. _Emend._ Addo etiam difficilius non esse contento et
locato, quod est Terra, motum adscribere, quam continenti."[147]
We must not say it is absurd to refuse motion to the _contained_ and
_located_, and to give it to the containing and locating; say that neither
is more difficult than the other.
(p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Vides ergo quod ex his omnibus probabilior sit
mobilitas Terrae, quam ejus quies, praesertim in cotidiana revolutione,
tanquam terrae maxime propria. _Emend._ _Vides_ ... delendus est usque ad
finem capitis."[148]
Strike out the whole of the chapter from this to the end; it says that the
motion of the earth is the most probable hypothesis.
(Cap. 9. lib. i. p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Cum igitur nihil prohibeat
mobilitatem Terrae, videndum nunc arbitror, an etiam plures illi motus
conveniant, ut possit una errantium syderum existimari. _Emend._ Cum igitur
Terram moveri assumpserim, videndum nunc arbitror, an etiam illi plures
possint convenire motus."[149]
{95}
We must not say that nothing prohibits the motion of the earth, only that
having _assumed_ it, we may inquire whether our explanations require
several motions.
(Cap. 10. lib. i. p. 9.) "_Copernicus._ Non pudet nos fateri ... hoc potius
in mobilitate terrae verificari. _Emend._ Non pudet nos assumere ... hoc
consequenter in mobilitate verificari."[150]
(Cap. 10. lib. i. p. 10.) "_Copernicus._ Tanta nimirum est divina haec. Opt.
Max. fabrica. _Emend._ Dele illa verba postrema."[151]
(Cap. ii. lib. i.[152]) "_Copernicus._ De triplici motu telluris
demonstratio. _Emend._ De hypothesi triplicis motus Terrae, ejusque
demonstratione."[153]
(Cap. 10. lib. iv. p. 122.[154]) "_Copernicus._ De magnitudine horum trium
siderum, Solis, Lunae, et Terrae. _Emend._ Dele verba _horum trium siderum_,
quia terra non est sidus, ut facit eam Copernicus."[155]
We must not say we are not ashamed to _acknowledge_; _assume_ is the word.
We must not call this assumption a _Divine work_. A chapter must not be
headed _demonstration_, but _hypothesis_. The earth must not be called a
_star_; the word implies motion.
It will be seen that it does not take much to reduce Copernicus to pure
hypothesis. No personal injury being done to the author--who indeed had
been 17 years out of {96} reach--the treatment of his book is now an
excellent joke. It is obvious that the Cardinals of the Index were a little
ashamed of their position, and made a mere excuse of a few corrections.
Their mode of dealing with chap. 8, this _problematice videtur loqui, ut
studiosis satisfiat_,[156] is an excuse to avoid corrections. But they
struck out the stinging allusion to Lactantius[157] in the preface, little
thinking, honest men, for they really believed what they said--that the
light of Lactantius would grow dark before the brightness of their own.