THE OPPOSITION AND THEIR ARGUMENTS.
The Protestant leaders had rejected the Copernican doctrine as
contrary to the Scriptures. The Roman Congregations had now condemned
Galileo for upholding this doctrine after they had prohibited it for
the same reasons. These objections are perhaps best summarized in that
open letter Foscarini wrote to the general of his order, the
Carmelites, at Naples in January, 1615,[300]--the letter that was
absolutely prohibited by the Index in March, 1616. He gave these
arguments and answered them lest, as he said, "whilst otherwise the
opinion is favored with much probability, it be found in reality to be
extremely repugnant (as at first sight it seems) not only to physical
reasons and common principles received on all hands (which cannot do
so much harm), but also (which would be of far worse consequence) to
many authorities of Sacred Scripture. Upon which account many at first
looking into it explode it as the most fond paradox and monstrous
_capriccio_ that ever was heard of." "Yet many modern authors," he
says further on, "are induced to follow it, but with much hesitancy
and fear, in regard that it seemeth in their opinion so to contradict
the Holy Scriptures that it cannot possibly be reconciled to them."
Consequently Foscarini argued that the theory is either true or false;
if false, it ought not to be divulged; if true, the authority of the
Sacred Scriptures will not oppose it; neither does one truth
contradict another. So he turned to the Bible.
[Footnote 300: In Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: I, 471-503.]
He found that six groups of authorities seemed to oppose this
doctrine. (1) Those stating that the earth stands fast, as Eccles.
1:4. (2) Those stating that the sun moves and revolves; as Psalm XIX,
Isaiah XXXVIII, and the miracle in Josh. X:12-14. (3) Those speaking
of the heaven above and the earth beneath, as in Joel II. Also Christ
came _down_ from Heaven. (4) Those authorities who place Hell at the
center of the world, a "common opinion of divines," because it ought
to be in the lowest part of the world, that is, at the center of the
sphere. Then by the Copernican hypothesis, Hell must either be in the
sun; or, if in the earth, if the earth should move about the sun, then
Hell within the earth would be in Heaven, and nothing could be more
absurd. (5) Those authorities opposing Heaven to earth and earth to
Heaven, as in Gen. I, Mat. VI, etc. Since the two are always mutually
opposed to each other, and Heaven undoubtedly refers to the
circumference, earth must necessarily be at the center. (6) Those
authorities ("rather of fathers and divines than of the Sacred
Scriptures") who declare that after the Day of Judgment, the sun shall
stand immovable in the east and the moon in west.
Foscarini then lays down in answer six maxims, the first of which is
that things attributed to God must be expounded metaphorically
according to our manner of understanding and of common speech. The
other maxims are more metaphysical, as that everything in the
universe, whether corruptible or incorruptible, obeys a fixed law of
its nature; so, for example, Fortune is _always_ fickle. In concluding
his defense, he claims among other things, that the Copernician is a
more admirable hypothesis than the Ptolemaic, and that it is an easy
way into astronomy and philosophy. Then he adds that there may be an
analogy between the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Testament
and the seven planets around the sun, and possibly the arrangement of
the seeds in the "Indian Figg," in the pomegranate and in grapes is
all divine evidence of the solar system. With such an amusing
reversion to mediaeval analogy his spirited letter ends.
Some or all of these scriptural arguments appear in most of the
attacks on the doctrine even before its condemnation by the Index in
1616 was widely known. Besides these objections, Aristotle's and
Ptolemy's statements were endlessly repeated with implicit faith in
their accuracy. Even Sir Francis Bacon (1567-1631) with all his
modernity of thought, failed in this instance to recognize the value
of the new idea and, despite his interest in Galileo's discoveries,
harked back to the time-honored objections. At first mild in his
opposition, he later became emphatically opposed to it. In the
_Advancement of Learning_[301] (1604), he speaks of it as a possible
explanation of the celestial phenomena according to astronomy but as
contrary to natural philosophy. Some fifteen years later in the _Novum
Organon_,[302] he asserts that the assumption of the earth's movement
cannot be allowed; for, as he says in his _Thema Coeli_,[303] at
that time he considered the opinion that the earth is stationary the
truer one. Finally, in his _De Augmentis Scientiarum_[304] (1622-1623)
he speaks of the old notions of the solidity of the heavens, etc., and
adds, "It is the absurdity of these opinions that has driven men to
the diurnal motion; which I am convinced is most false." He gives his
reasons in the _Descriptio Globi Intellectualis_[305] (ch. 5-6): "In
favor of the earth [as the center of the world] we have the evidence
of our sight, and an inveterate opinion; and most of all this, that as
dense bodies are contracted into a narrow compass, and rare bodies are
widely diffused (and the area of every circle is contracted to the
center) it seems to follow almost of necessity that the narrow space
about the middle of the world be set down as the proper and peculiar
place for dense bodies." The sun's claims to such a situation are
satisfied through having two satellites of its own, Venus and Mercury.
Copernicus's scheme is inconvenient; it overloads the earth with a
triple motion; it creates a difficulty by separating the sun from the
number of the planets with which it has much in common; and the
"introduction of so much immobility into nature ... and making the
moon revolve around the earth in an epicycle, and some other
assumptions of his are the speculations of one who cares not what
fictions he introduces into nature, provided his calculations answer."
The total absence of all reference to the Scriptures is the unique and
refreshing part of Bacon's thought.
[Footnote 301: Bk. II: sec. 8, Sec.1.]
[Footnote 302: Bk. II, ch. 46.]
[Footnote 303: _Phil. Works_: 705.]
[Footnote 304: Bk. III.]
[Footnote 305: _Phil. Works_: 684-685.]
All the more common arguments against the diurnal rotation of the
earth are well stated in an interesting little letter (1619) by
Thomas Feyens, or Fienus, a professor at the school of medicine in the
University of Louvain.[306] Thus Catholic, Protestant, and unbeliever,
Feyens, Melancthon, Bacon and Bodin, all had recourse to the same
arguments to oppose this seemingly absurd doctrine.
[Footnote 306: Translated in Appendix C. For criticism, see Monchamp:
58-64.]
Froidmont, or Fromundus, the good friend and colleague of Feyens at
Louvain, was also much interested in these matters, so much so that
some thought he had formerly accepted the Copernican doctrine and
"only fled back into the camp of Aristotle and Ptolemy through terror
at the decree of the S. Congregation of Cardinals."[307] His indignant
denial of this imputation of turn-coat in 1634 is somewhat weakened by
reference to his _Saturnalitae Coenae_[308] (1615) in which he suggests
that, if the Copernican doctrine is admitted, then Hell may be in the
sun at the center of the universe rather than in the earth, in order
to be as far as possible from Paradise. He also refers in his _De
Cometa_ (1618) to the remark of Justus-Lipsius[309] that this paradox
was buried with Copernicus, saying "You are mistaken, O noble scholar:
it lives, and it is full of vigor even now among many,"[310] thus
apparently not seeing serious objection to it. M. Monchamp summarizes
Froidmont's point of view as against Aristotle and Ptolemy, half for
Copernicus and wholly for Tycho Brahe.
[Footnote 307: Fromundus: _Vesta_: Ad Lectorem.]
[Footnote 308: Monchamp: 41.]
[Footnote 309: Justus-Lipsius: IV, 947.]
[Footnote 310: Monchamp: 48.]
Froidmont's best known books are the two he wrote in answer to a
defense of the Copernican position first by Philip Lansberg, then by
his son. The _Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis Terrae Immobilis, Liber unicus
in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal. an. 1616, adversus
Pythagorico-Copernicanus editum, defenditur_, appeared in 1631 before
Galileo's condemnation. The Jesuit Cavalieri wrote to Galileo in May
about it thus:[311] "I have run it through, and verily it states the
Copernican theory and the arguments in its favor with so much skill
and efficacy that he seems to have understood it very well indeed. But
he refutes them with so little force that he seems rather to be of an
opinion contrary to that expressed in the title of his book. I have
given it to M. Cesar. If you wish it, I will have it sent to you. The
arguments he brings against Copernicus are those you have so
masterfully stated and answered in your _Dialogo_." Nearly a year
later, Galileo wrote to Gassendi and Diodati that he had received this
book a month before and, although he had been unable to read much of
it on account of his eye trouble, it seemed to him that of all the
opponents of Copernicus whom he had seen, Fromundus was the most
sensible and efficient.[312] Again he wrote in January, 1633,
regretting that he had not seen it till six months after he had
published his dialogues, for he would have both praised it and
commented upon certain points. "As for Fromundus (who however shows
himself to be a man of great talent) I wish he had not fallen into
what seems to me a truly serious error, although a rather common one,
in order to refute the Copernican opinion, of beginning by poking
scorn and ridicule at those who consider it true, and then (what seems
to me still less becoming) of basing his attack chiefly on the
authority of the Scriptures, and finally of deducing from this that in
this respect it is an opinion little short of heretical. To argue in
this way is clearly not praiseworthy;" for as Galileo goes on to show,
if the Scriptures are the word of God, the heavens themselves are his
handiwork. Why is the one less noble than the other?[313]
[Footnote 311: Ibid: 94.]
[Footnote 312: Galileo: _Opere_: XV, 25.]
[Footnote 313: Ibid: XIV, 340-341.]
Froidmont replied in 1633 to Lansberg's reply with his second attack,
_Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi Vindex_, in which he laid even more
emphasis upon the theological and scriptural objections. Yet, in
ignorance of Galileo's condemnation, he considers the charge of heresy
too strong. "The partisans of this system do not after all disdain the
authority of the Scriptures, although they appear to interpret it in a
way rather in their favor." He also, and rightly, denies the existence
at that time of any conclusive proof.[314]
[Footnote 314: Monchamp: 107-108.]
In spite of Froidmont's position, the University of Louvain was not
cordial in its response to the papal nuncio's announcement in
September, 1633, of Galileo's abjuration and sentence, in marked
contrast to the reply sent by the neighboring university of Douay. The
latter body, in a letter signed by Matthaeus Kellison (Sept. 7, 1633),
declared the condemned theory "should be discarded and hissed from the
schools; and that in the English College there in Douay, this paradox
never had been approved and never would be, but had always been
opposed and always would be."[315]
[Footnote 315: Doc. in Favaro: 120-121, 132, 133.]
This opposition in the universities in Belgium continued throughout
the century to be based not so much on scientific grounds as upon the
Bible. This may be seen in the manuscript reports of lectures in
physics and astronomy given at Liege in 1662, and at Louvain between
1650-1660, though one of these does not mention the decree of
1616.[316] The general congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1650
drew up a list of the propositions proscribed in their teaching,
though, according to M. Monchamp (himself a Catholic) not thereby
implying a denial of any probability they might have. The 35th
proposition ran: "Terra movetur motu diurno; planetae, tanquam
viventia, moventur ab intrinseco. Firmamentum stat."[317] The Jesuit
astronomer Tacquet in his textbook (Antwerp, 1669) respected this
decision, acknowledging that no scientific reason kept him from
defending the theory, but solely his respect for the Christian
faith.[318]
[Footnote 316: Monchamp: 125, 143.]
[Footnote 317: Ibid: 148-149.]
[Footnote 318: Ibid: 152-153.]
One of the pupils of the Jesuits revolted however. Martin van Welden,
appointed professor of mathematics at Louvain in 1683, debated a
series of theses in January, 1691. The second read: "Indubitum est
systhema Copernici de planetarum motu circa sole; inter quos merito
terra censetur." His refusal to alter the wording except to change
_indubitum_ to _certum_ brought on a stormy controversy within the
faculty which eventually reached the Council of Brabant and the papal
nuncio at Brussels.[319] The professor finally submitted, though he
was not forbidden to teach the Copernician system, nor did the faculty
affirm its falsity, merely that it was contrary to the Roman decree.
The professor re-opened the matter with a similar thesis in July,
thereby arousing a second controversy that this time reached even the
Privy Council. Once more he submitted, but solely with an apology for
having caused a disagreement. His new theses in 1695 contained no
explicit mention of the Copernician system; at least he had learned
tact.[320]
[Footnote 319: Ibid: 182-234.]
[Footnote 320: Monchamp: 321.]
The absorption of the German states in the Thirty Years War may
account for the apparent absence there of Copernican discussion until
after the Peace of Westphalia. A certain Georgius Ludovicus Agricola
gave a syllogistic refutation of the doctrine as his disputation at
the university of Wittenberg in 1665. While he acknowledged its
ingenuity, he preferred to it "the noblest, truest, and divinely
inspired system" of Tycho Brahe. The four requirements of an
acceptable astronomical hypothesis according to this student are: (1)
That it suit all the observations of all the ages; (2) That as far as
possible, it be simple and clear; (3) That it be not contrary to the
principles of physics and optics; (4) That it be not contrary to the
Holy Scriptures. As the Copernican theory does not meet all these
tests, it is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he considers it "ridiculous
to include the earth among the planets, because then we would be
living in Heaven, forsooth, since we would be in a star." He decides
finally "that the decree of March, 1616, condemning the Copernican
opinion was not unjust, nor was Galileo unfairly treated."[321]
[Footnote 321: Agricola: _Disputatio_.]
Two years later appeared a textbook at Nuernberg, by a Jesuit father,
based on the twelfth century Sacrobosco treatise and without a single
reference so far as I could find, to Copernicus![322] Another
publication of the same year was a good deal more up to date. This was
a kind of catechism in German by Johann-Henrich Voight[323] explaining
for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in
a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish
astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his
reader free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of
which he carefully explained.[324] He made an interesting summary in
parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion
which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common
people were taught:
Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless:
1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be
moved.
2. Joshua bade the sun stand still--which would not be notable were it
not already at rest.
3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at
rest.
4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why
should not the whole earth itself be at rest?
5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a
great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and
especially if it declined to the north and south....
6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if
the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its
starting point.
7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps.
8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the
swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of
dizziness.
Reasons for the belief that the earth is moved:
1. The sun, the most excellent, the greatest and the midmost star,
rightly stands still like a king while all the other stars with the
earth swing round it.
2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular
deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving shore.
3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in
accordance with the popular misconception.
4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so
the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.
5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle
of the human body.
6. Since the earth has in itself its especial _centrum_, a stone or an
arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own _centrum_ as do all
earthly things.
7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun
can go forty miles in the same time.
And similarly on both sides.[325]
[Footnote 322: Schotto: _Organum Mathematicum_ (1667).]
[Footnote 323: Voight: _Der Kunstguenstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
Raritaeten Erstes Hundert_. (Hamburg, 1667).]
[Footnote 324: Voight: _op. cit._: 28.]
[Footnote 325: Ibid: 30-31.]
Another writer preferring the Tychonic scheme was Longomontanus, whose
_Astronomica Danica_ (Amsterdam, 1640) upheld this theory because it
"obviates the absurdities of the Copernican hypothesis and most aptly
corresponds to celestial appearances," and also because it is "midway
between that and the Ptolemaic one."[326] Even though he speaks of the
"apparent motion of the sun," he attributed diurnal motion to the
heavens, and believed the earth was at the center of the universe
because (1), from the account of the Creation, the heaven and the
earth were first created, and what could be more likely than that the
heavens should fill the space between the center (the earth) and the
circumference? (2) and because of the incredibly enormous interval
between the sphere of the fixed stars and the earth necessitated by
Copernican doctrine.[327]
[Footnote 326: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 162.]
[Footnote 327: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 158.]
The high-water mark of opposition after Galileo's condemnation was
reached in the _Almagestum Novum_ (Bologna, 1651) by Father Riccioli
of the Society of Jesus. It was the authoritative answer of that
order, the leaders of the Church in matters of education, to the
challenges of the literary world for a justification of the
condemnation of the Copernican doctrine and of Galileo for upholding
it. Father Riccioli had been professor of philosophy and of
mathematics for six years and of theology for ten when by order of his
superiors, he was released from his lectureship to prepare a book
containing all the material he could gather together on this great
controversy of the age.[328] He wrote it as he himself said, as "an
_apologia_ for the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals who officially
pronounced these condemnations, not so much because I thought such
great height and eminence needed this at my hands but especially in
behalf of Catholics; also out of the love of truth to which every
non-Catholic, even, should be persuaded and from a certain notable
zeal and eagerness for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures
intact and unimpaired; and lastly because of that reverence and
devotion which I owe from my particular position toward the Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church."[329]
[Footnote 328: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: Praefatio, I, xviii.]
[Footnote 329: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 496.]
This monumental work, the most important literary production of the
Society in the 17th century,[330] is abundant witness to Riccioli's
remarkable erudition and industry. Nearly one-fifth of the total bulk
of the two huge volumes is devoted to a statement of the Copernican
controversy. This is prefaced by a brief account of his own theory of
the universe--the invention of which is another proof of the ability
of the man--for his scientific training prevented his acceptance of
the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory in the light of Galileo's
discoveries; his position as a Jesuit and a faithful son of the Church
precluded him from adopting the system condemned by its
representatives; and Tycho Brahe's scheme was not wholly to his
liking. Therefor he proposed an adaptation of the last-named, more in
accordance, as he thought, with the facts.[331] Where Tycho had all
the planets except the earth and the moon encircle the sun, and that
in turn, together with the moon and the sphere of the fixed stars,
sweep around the earth as the center of the universe, Riccioli made
only Mars, Mercury and Venus encircle the sun,--Mars with an orbit the
radius of which included the earth within its sweep, the other two
planets with orbital radii shorter than that of the sun, and so
excluding the earth. This he did, (1) because both Jupiter and Saturn
have their own kingdoms in the heavens, and Mars, Mercury and Venus
are but satellites of the sun; (2) because there are greater varieties
of eccentricity among these three than the other two; (3) because
Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the
fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of
their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the
planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and
with Mercury and Venus also.[332]
[Footnote 330: _Cath. Ency._: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic
Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)]
[Footnote 331: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
[Footnote 332: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre
summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments against it,[333] and
Riccioli himself claims[334] to have stated "40 new arguments in
behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat
familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for
instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or,
the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is
smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of
God's power; for to God all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.[335]
Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so,
according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it,
Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars
revolve around him. The sun may be nobler than the earth, but man is
nobler than the sun.[336] If the earth's movement were admitted,
Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the
epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans
appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,[337] but he calls to his
aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his
defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.[338] There are many
more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more
or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or
novelty.
[Footnote 333: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 674-680.]
[Footnote 334: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 2.]
[Footnote 335: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 313, 315.]
[Footnote 336: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 330-351.]
[Footnote 337: Ibid: II, 339-340.]
[Footnote 338: Delambre: _Op. cit._: I, 677.]
To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the
heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite
view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern
reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it,
for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure
men.[339]
[Footnote 339: Ibid: I, 673.]
In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].[340]
Copernicus
Rheticus
Maestlin
Kepler
Rothman
Galileo
Gilbert (diurnal motion)
Foscarini
Didacus Stunica (_sic_)
Ismael Bullialdus
Jacob Lansberg
Peter Herigonus
Gassendi,--"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees."
Descartes "inclines to this belief."
A.L. Politianus
Bruno
Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement.
Aristotle
Ptolemy
Theon the Alexandrine
Regiomontanus
Alfraganus
Macrobius
Cleomedes
Petrus Aliacensis
George Buchanan
Maurolycus
Clavius
Barocius
Michael Neander
Telesius
Martinengus
Justus-Lipsius
Scheiner
Tycho
Tasso
Scipio Claramontius
Michael Incofer
Fromundus
Jacob Ascarisius
Julius Caesar La Galla
Tanner
Bartholomaeus Amicus
Antonio Rocce
Marinus Mersennius
Polacco
Kircher
Spinella
Pineda
Lorinis
Mastrius
Bellutris
Poncius
Delphinus
Elephantutius
[Footnote 340: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 290.]
Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy.
After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted
the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one
digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one
unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never
been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,--that man who
accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even
to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a triple
motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before
so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to
carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his
hypothesis!"[341]
[Footnote 341: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 304, 309.]
His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit
restrained him from being a Copernican himself.[342] "I. If the
celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well
explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The
physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of
percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or
west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently
between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures,
which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other
motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But
with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under
Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the
sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile
in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a
diurnal and an annual motion."[343]
[Footnote 342: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 680.]
[Footnote 343: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 478 (condensed), 500.]
Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the
action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the
doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of
the Church. The full title of his _Apologia_ runs: "An Apologia in
behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican
system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex
motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his
_Almagestum Novum_ had received the approbation of professors of
mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and
he quotes the conclusion from _Nicetas Orthodoxus_ ("a diatribe by
Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and
Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual
motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly
believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons, but
solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures,
and the nod of approval (_nutu_) of the Roman See, whose rules laid
down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits
everyone, uphold as law."[344]
[Footnote 344: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 4.]
Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that
"the Church did not decide _ex cathedra_ that the Scripture concerning
movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by
qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not
merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the
contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the
primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical
and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was
absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any
objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but
only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to
philosophy."[345] These answers are indicative of the type of
criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.[346]
[Footnote 345: Ibid: 103.]
[Footnote 346: One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his
work has come down to us. A canon at Liege, Rene-Francois Sluse, wrote
asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English
mathematician, as to his opinion of the _Almagestum Novum_, and of
this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies.
Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all
value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as
intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a
matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this."
Monchamp: 165-166.
For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican
system between 1631-1688, see Martin: _Galilee_: 386-388.]