THE CHURCH AND THE NEW ASTRONOMY: CONCLUSION.
Astronomical thought on the Continent was more hampered, in the
Catholic countries especially, by the restrictive opinions of the
Church. Yet in 1757, when the decree prohibiting all books dealing
with the Copernican doctrine was removed from the Index, that system
had already long been adopted by the more celebrated academies of
Europe, for so Mme. de Premontval claimed in 1750; and it was then
reaching out to non-scientific readers, through simple accounts for
"ladies and others not well versed in these somewhat technical
matters."[389] The great landmark in the development of the doctrine
was the publication of Newton's _Principia_ in 1687, though its effect
in Europe was of course slower in being felt than it was in England.
Newton's work and that of the astronomers immediately following him
was influential except where the Church's prohibitions still held
sway.
[Footnote 389: de Premontval: _Le Mechaniste Philosophe_, 54, 72. (The
Hague, 1750).]
During this period, the books published in free Holland were more
outspoken in their radical acceptance or in their uncertainty of the
truth than were those published in the Catholic countries. Christian
Huygens's treatises on the plurality of worlds not only fully accepted
the Copernican doctrine, but like those of Bishop Wilkins in England,
deduced therefrom the probability that the other planets are inhabited
even as the earth is. A writer[390] on the sphere in 1697 stated the
different theories of the universe so that his readers might choose
the one that to them appeared the most probable. He himself preferred
the Cartesian explanation as the simplest and most convenient of all,
"though it should be held merely as an hypothesis and not as in
absolute agreement with the truth." Pierre Bayle[391] also explained
the different systems, but appears himself to waver between the
Copernican and the Tychonic conceptions. He used, however, the old
word "perigee" (nearness to the earth) rather than the Newtonian
"perihelion" (nearness to the sun). His objections to the Copernican
doctrine have a familiar ring: It is contrary to the evidence of the
senses; a stone would not fall back to its starting-place, nor could a
bird return to her nest; the earth would not be equidistant from the
horizon and the two poles; and lastly it is contrary to the
Scriptures. Only a few years later, however, De Maupertius wrote that
no one at that day (1744) doubted any longer the motion of the earth
around its axis, and he believed with Newton that the laws of gravity
applied to the universe as well as to the earth. Then he proceeded to
explain the Copernican system which he favored on the ground of its
greater probability.[392]
[Footnote 390: de Brisbar: _Calendrier Historique_, (Leyden),
228-233.]
[Footnote 391: Bayle: _Systeme Abrege de Philosophie_ (The Hague,
1731), IV, 394-412.]
[Footnote 392: de Maupertius: _Elements de Geographie_, xv, 9-14.]
Even in 1750, Mme. de Premontval thought it wiser to publish in
Holland her little life of her father, _Le Mechaniste Philosophe_.
This Jean Piegeon, she claimed, was the first man in France to make
spheres according to the Copernican system. An orphan, he was educated
by a priest; then took up carpentry and mechanics. When he tried to
make a celestial sphere according to the Ptolemaic system, he became
convinced of its falsity because of its complexities. Therefore he
plunged into a study of the new system which he adopted. His first
Copernican sphere was exhibited before Louis XIV at Versailles in 1706
and was bought by the king and presented to the Academie des
Sciences.[393] The second was taken to Canada by one of the royal
officials. Public interest in his work was keen; even Peter the Great,
who was then in Paris, visited his workroom.[394] M. Piegeon also
wrote a book on the Copernican system.[395]
[Footnote 393: de Premontval: 123.]
[Footnote 394: Ibid: 132.]
[Footnote 395: Ibid: 157.]
It seems, however, as though M. Piegeon were slightly in advance of
his age, or more daring, perhaps, than his contemporaries, for there
was almost no outspoken support of the Copernican system at this time
in France. Even Cassini of the French Academie des Sciences did not
explicitly support it, though he spoke favorably of it and remarked
that recent observations had demonstrated the revolutions of each
planet around the sun in accordance with that supposition.[396] But
the great orator, Bossuet, (1627-1703), clung to the Ptolemaic
conception as alone orthodox, and scriptural.[397] Abbe Fenelon
(1651-1715) writing on the existence of God, asked: "Who is it who has
hung up this motionless ball of the earth; who has placed the
foundations for it," and "who has taught the sun to turn ceasely
[Transcriber's Note: ceaselessly] and regularly in spaces where
nothing troubles it?"[398] And a writer on the history of the heavens
as treated by poets, philosophers and Moses (1739), tells Gassendi,
Descartes and many other great thinkers that their ideas of the
heavens are proved vain and false by daily experience as well as by
the account of Creation; for the most enlightened experience is wholly
and completely in accord with the account of Moses. This book was
written, the author said, for young people students of philosophy and
the humanities, also for teachers.[399]
[Footnote 396: Cassini: _De l'Origine et du Progres ..._, 35.]
[Footnote 397: Shields: 59. I have failed to find this reference in
Bossuet's works.]
[Footnote 398: Fenelon: _Oeuvres_, I, 3 and 7.]
[Footnote 399: Pluche: _Histoire du Ciel_: viii, ix, xiii.]
The Jesuit order, still a power in Europe in the early 18th century,
was bound to the support of the traditional view, which led them into
some curious positions in connection with the discoveries made in
astronomy during this period. Thus the famous Jesuit astronomer
Boscovich (1711-1787) published in Rome in 1746 a study of the
ellipticity of the orbits of planets which necessitated the use of the
Copernican position; he stated he had assumed it as true merely to
facilitate his labors. In the second edition (1785) published some
years after the removal from the Index of the decree against books
teaching the Copernican doctrine (at his instigation, it is
claimed),[400] he added a note to this passage asking the reader to
remember the time and the place of its former publication.[401] Just
at the end of the preceding century, one of the seminary fathers at
Liege maintained that were the earth to move, being made up of so
many and divers combustible materials, it would soon burst into flames
and be reduced to ashes![402]
[Footnote 400: _Cath. Ency._: "Boscovich."]
[Footnote 401: _Opera_: III (1785).]
[Footnote 402: Cited in Monchamp: 335 note.]
During the 18th century at Louvain the Copernican doctrine was warmly
supported, but as a theory. A MS. of a course given there in 1748 has
come down to us, in which the professor, while affirming its
hypothetical character, described it as a simple, clear and
satisfactory explanation of the phenomena, then answered all the
objections made against it by theologians, physicists, and
astronomers.[403] A few years earlier, (1728) a Jesuit at Liege,
though well acquainted with Newton's work, declared: "For my part I do
not doubt the least in the world that the earth is eternally fixed,
for God has founded the terrestrial globe, and it will not be
shaken."[404] Another priest stated in the first chapter of his
astronomy that the sun and the planets daily revolve around the earth;
then later on, he explained the Copernican and the Tychonic schemes
and the Cartesian theory of motion with evident sympathy.[405] Two
others, one a Jesuit in 1682 at Naples,[406] the other in 1741 at
Verona, frankly preferred the Tychonic system, and the latter called
the system found by "Tommaso Copernico" a mere fancy.[407] Still
another priest, evidently well acquainted with Bradley's work, as late
as in 1774 declared that there was nothing decisive on either side of
the great controversy between the systems.[408] At this time, however,
a father was teaching the Copernican system at Liege without
differentiating between thesis and hypothesis.[409] And a Jesuit,
while he denied (1772) universal gravitation, the earth's movement,
and the plurality of inhabited worlds, declared that the Roman
Congregation had done wrong in charging these as heretical
suggestions. In fact, M. Monchamp, himself a Catholic priest at
Louvain, declared that the Newtonian proofs were considered by many in
the 18th century virtually to abrogate the condemnation of 1616 and
1633; hence the professors of the seminary at Liege had adopted the
Copernican system.[410]
[Footnote 403: Ibid: 326.]
[Footnote 404: Ibid: 330.]
[Footnote 405: Fontana: _Institutio_, II, 32-35.]
[Footnote 406: Ferramosca: _Positiones ..._: 19.]
[Footnote 407: Piccoli: _La Scienza_, 4, 7.]
[Footnote 408: Spagnio, _De Motu_, 81.]
[Footnote 409: Monchamp: 331.]
[Footnote 410: Monchamp: 345.]
The famous French astronomer Lalande, in Rome in 1757 when the
Inquisition first modified its position, tried to persuade the
authorities to remove Galileo's book also from the Index; but his
efforts were unavailing, because of the sentence declared against its
author.[411] In 1820 Canon Settele was not allowed by the Master of
the Sacred Palace to publish his textbook because it dealt with the
forbidden subject. His appeal to the Congregation itself resulted, as
we have seen, in the decree of 1822 removing this as a cause for
prohibition. Yet as late as in 1829, when a statue to Copernicus was
being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the
church for the celebration of the mass as part of the ceremony, at the
last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor
of a man whose book was on the Index.[412]
[Footnote 411: Bailly: II, 132, note.]
[Footnote 412: Flammarion: 196-198.]
Thus the Roman Catholic Church by reason of its organization and of
its doctrine requiring obedience to its authority was more conspicuous
for its opposition as a body to the Copernican doctrine, even though
as individuals many of its members favored the new system. But the
Protestant leaders were quite as emphatic in their denunciations,
though less influential because of the Protestant idea of the right to
individual belief and interpretation. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin,
Turrettin,[413] Owen, and Wesley are some of the notable opponents to
it. And when the scientific objections had practically disappeared,
those who interpreted the Scriptures literally were still troubled and
hesitant down to the present day. Not many years ago, people flocked
to hear a negro preacher of the South, Brother Jasper, uphold with all
his ability that the sun stood still at Joshua's command, and that
today "the sun do move!" Far more surprising is this statement in the
new _Catholic Encyclopedia_ under "Faith," written by an English
Dominican:
"If, now, the will moves the intellect to consider some
debatable point--_e.g._, the Copernican and Ptolemaic
theories of the relationship between the sun and the
earth--it is clear that the intellect can only assent to one
of these views in proportion that it is convinced that the
particular view is true. But neither view has, as far as we
can know, more than probable truth, hence of itself the
intellect can only give in its partial adherence to one of
these views, it must always be precluded from absolute
assent by the possibility that the other may be right. The
fact that men hold more tenaciously to one of these than the
arguments warrant can only be due to some extrinsic
consideration, _e.g._, that it is absurd not to hold to what
a vast majority of men hold."
[Footnote 413: Shields: 60.]
In astronomical thought as in many another field, science and reason
have had a hard struggle in men's minds to defeat tradition and the
weight of verbal inspiration. Within the Roman Catholic Church
opposition to this doctrine was officially weakened in 1757, but not
completely ended till the publication of the Index in 1835--the first
edition since the decrees of 1616 and 1619 which did not contain the
works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, a Stunica and Kepler. Since
then, Roman Catholic writers have been particularly active in
defending and explaining the positions of the Church in these matters.
They have not agreed among themselves as to whether the infallibility
of the Church had been involved in these condemnations, nor as to the
reasons for them. As one writer has summarized these diverse
positions,[414] they first claimed that Galileo was condemned not for
upholding a heresy, but for attempting to reconcile these ideas with
the Scriptures,--though in fact he was sentenced specifically for
heresy. In their next defense they declared Galileo was not condemned
for heresy, but for contumacy and want of respect to the Pope.[415]
This statement proving untenable, others held that it was the result
of a persecution developing out of a quarrel between Aristotelian
professors and those professors who favored experiment,--a still worse
argument for the Church itself. Then some claimed that the
condemnation was merely provisional,--a position hardly warranted by
the wording of the decrees themselves and flatly contradicted by
Father Riccioli, the spokesman of the Jesuit authorities.[416] More
recently, Roman Catholics have held that Galileo was no more a victim
of the Roman Church than of the Protestant--which fails to remove the
blame of either. The most recent position is that the condemnation of
the doctrine by the popes was not as popes but as men simply, and the
Church was not committed to their decision since the popes had not
signed the decrees. But two noted English Catholics, Roberts and
Mivart, publicly stated in 1870 that the infallibility of the papacy
was fully committed in these condemnations by what they termed
incontrovertible evidence.[417]
[Footnote 414: White: I, 159-167.]
[Footnote 415: See di Bruno: _Catholic Belief_, 286a.]
[Footnote 416: Riccioli: _Apologia_, 103.]
[Footnote 417: White: I, 165. See the answer by Wegg-Prosser: _Galileo
and his Judges_.]
One present-day Catholic calls the action of the Congregations "a
theoretical mistake;"[418] another admits it was a deplorable mistake,
but practically their only serious one;[419] and a third considers it
"providential" since it proved conclusively "that whenever there is
apparent contradiction between the truths of science and the truths of
faith, either the scientist is declaring as proved what in reality is
a mere hypothesis, or the theologian is putting forth his own personal
views instead of the teaching of the Gospel."[420] Few would accept
today, however, the opinion of the anonymous writer in the _Dublin
Review_ in the forties that "to the Pontiffs and dignitaries of Rome
we are mainly indebted for the Copernican system" and that the phrases
"heretical" and "heresy" in the sentence of 1633 were but the _stylus
curiae_, for it was termed heresy only in the technical sense.[421]
[Footnote 418: Donat: 183.]
[Footnote 419: Walsh: _Popes and Science_, 17.]
[Footnote 420: Conway: 48.]
[Footnote 421: Anon.: _Galileo--the Roman Congregation_, 39, 60.]
The majority of Protestants, with the possible exception of the
Lutherans, were satisfied with the probable truth of the Copernican
doctrine before the end of the 18th century. Down to the present day,
however, there have been isolated protests raised against it, usually
on technical grounds supported by reference to the Scriptures. De
Morgan refers to one such, "An Inquiry into the Copernican System ...
wherein it is proved in the clearest manner, that the earth has only
her diurnal motion ... with an attempt to point out the only true way
whereby mankind can receive any real benefit from the study of the
heavenly bodies, by John Cunningham, London, 1789." De Morgan adds
that "the true way appears to be the treatment of heaven and earth as
emblematical of the Trinity."[422] Another, by "Anglo-American," is
entitled "Copernicus Refuted; or the True Solar System" (Baltimore,
1846). It begins thus:
"One of these must go, the other stand still,
It matters not which, so choose at your will;
But when you find one already stuck fast,
You've only got Hobson's choice left at last."
[Footnote 422: De Morgan: I, 172.]
This writer admits the earth's axial rotation, but declares the earth
is fixed as a pivot in the center of the universe, because the poles
of the earth are fixed and immovable, and that the sun as in the
Tychonic scheme encircles the earth and is itself encircled by five
planets.[423] His account of the origin of the Copernican system is
noteworthy: it was originated by Pythagoras and his deciples but lay
neglected because it was held to be untenable in their time; it was
"revived when learning was at its lowest ebb by a monk in his
cloister, Copernicus, who in ransacking the contents of the monastery
happened to lay his hands on the MS. and then published it to the
world with all its blunders and imperfections!"[424] One might remark
that the Anglo-American's own learning was at very low ebb.
[Footnote 423: "Anglo-American": 5-6.]
[Footnote 424: Ibid: 11.]
The Tychonic scheme was revived also some years later by a Dane,
Zytphen (1856).[425] Three years after, an assembly of Lutheran clergy
met together at Berlin to protest against "science falsely
so-called,"[426] but were brought into ridicule by Pastor Knap's
denunciations of the Copernican theory as absolutely incompatible with
belief in the Bible. A Carl Schoepffer had taken up the defense of the
Tychonic scheme in Berlin before this (1854) and by 1868 his lecture
was in its seventh edition. In it he sought to prove that the earth
revolves neither upon its own axis nor yet about the sun. He had seen
Foucault's pendulum demonstration of the earth's movement, but he held
that something else, as yet unexplained, caused the deviation of the
pendulum, and that the velocity of the heavens would be no more
amazing than the almost incredible velocity of light or of
electricity.[427] His lecture, curiously enough, fell into the hands
of the late General John Watts de Peyster of New York, who had it
translated and published in 1900 together with a supplement by Frank
Allaben.[428] Both these gentlemen accepted its scientific views and
deductions, but the General refused to go as far as his colleague in
the latter's enthusiastic acceptance of the verbal inspiration of the
Scriptures as a result of these statements.[429] A few months later,
they published a supplementary pamphlet claiming to prove the
possibility of the sun's velocity by the analogy of the velocity of
certain comets.[430] A Professor J.R. Lange of California (a German),
attracted by these documents, sent them his own lucubrations on this
subject. He considered Newton's doctrine of universal attraction
"nonsense," and had "absolute proof" in the fixity of the Pole Star
that the earth does not move.[431] In a letter to General de Peyster,
he wrote: "Let us hope and pray that the days of the pernicious
Copernican system may be numbered,"[432]--but he did not specify why
he considered it pernicious. The General was nearly eighty years old
when he became interested in these matters, and he did not live long
thereafter to defend his position. His biographers make no mention of
it. The other men seem almost obsessed, especially Lange;--like the
Italian painter, Sindico, who bombarded the director of the Paris
Observatory in 1878 with many letters protesting against the
Copernican system.[433]
[Footnote 425: De Morgan: II, 335.]
[Footnote 426: White: I, 150.]
[Footnote 427: Schoepffer: _The Earth Stands Fast_, title-page, 6-7.]
[Footnote 428: Ibid: Supplement by Allaben, 21, 74.]
[Footnote 429: Ibid: Note by J.W. de P., 74.]
[Footnote 430: De Peyster and Allaben: _Algol_, preface.]
[Footnote 431: Lange: _The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurdity
in the History of Human Thought_.]
[Footnote 432: De Peyster and Allaben: _Algol_, 74.]
[Footnote 433: Sindico: _Refutation du Systeme de Copernic...._]
German writers, whether Lutherans or not, appear to have opposed the
system more often in the last century than have the writers of other
nationalities. Besides those already mentioned, one proposed an
ingenious scheme in which the sun moves through space followed by the
planets as a comet is by its tail, the planets revolving in a plane
perpendicular to that of the sun's path. A diagram of it would be
cone-shaped. He included in this pamphlet, besides a list of his own
books, (all published in Leipsic), a list of twenty-six titles from
1758 to 1883, books and pamphlets evidently opposed in whole or in
part to the modern astronomy, and seventeen of these were in German or
printed in Germany.[434] In this country at St. Louis was issued an
_Astronomische Unterredung_ (1873) by J.C.W.L.; according to the late
President White, a bitter attack on modern astronomy and a decision by
the Scriptures that the earth is the principal body of the universe,
that it stands fixed, and that the sun and the moon only serve to
light it.[435]
[Footnote 434: Tischner: _Le Systeme Solaire se Mouvant_. (1894).]
[Footnote 435: White: I, 151.]
Such statements are futile in themselves nowadays, and are valuable
only to illustrate the advance of modern thought of which these are
the little eddies. While modern astronomers know far more than
Copernicus even dreamed of, much of his work still holds true today.
The world was slow to accept his system because of tradition,
authority, so-called common sense, and its supposed incompatibility
with scriptural passages. Catholic and Protestant alike opposed it on
these grounds; but because of its organization and authority, the
Roman Catholic Church had far greater power and could more
successfully hinder and delay its acceptance than could the
Protestants. Consequently the system won favor slowly at first through
the indifference of the authorities, then later in spite of their
active antagonism. Scholars believed it long before the universities
were permitted to teach it; and the rationalist movement of the 18th
century, the revolt against a superstitious religion, helped to
overturn the age-old conception of the heavens and to bring
Newtonian-Copernicanism into general acceptance.
The elements of this traditional conception are summarized in the
fifth book of Bodin's _Universae Naturae Theatrum_, a scholar's account
of astronomy at the close of the sixteenth century.[436] Man in his
terrestrial habitation occupies the center of a universe created
solely to serve him, God presides over all from the Empyrean above,
sending forth his messengers the angels to guide and control the
heavenly bodies. Such had been the thought of Christians for more than
a thousand years. Then came the influence of a new science. Tycho
Brahe "broke the crystal spheres of Aristotle"[437] by his study of
the comet of 1572; Galileo's telescopes revealed many stars hitherto
unknown, and partly solved the mysteries of the Milky Way; Kepler's
laws explained the courses of the planets, and Newton's discovery of
the universal application of the forces of attraction relieved the
angels of their duties among the heavens. Thinkers like Bruno proposed
the possibility of other systems and universes besides the solar one
in which the earth belongs. And thus not only did man shrink in
importance in his own eyes; but his conception of the heavens changed
from that of a finite place inexplicably controlled by the mystical
beings of a supernatural world, to one of vast and infinite spaces
traversed by bodies whose density and mass a man could calculate,
whose movements he could foretell, and whose very substance he could
analyze by the science of today. This dissolution of superstition,
especially in regard to comets was notably rapid and complete after
the comet of 1680.[438] Thus the rationalist movement with the new
science opened men's minds to a universe composed of familiar
substances and controlled by known or knowable laws with no tinge
remaining of the supernatural. Today a man's theological beliefs are
not shaken by the discovery of a new satellite or even a new planet,
and the appearance of a new comet merely provides the newspaper editor
with the subject of a passing jest.
[Footnote 436: See translated sections in Appendix C.]
[Footnote 437: Robinson: 107.]
[Footnote 438: Ibid: 119.]
Yet it was fully one hundred and fifty years after the publication of
the _De Revolutionibus_ before its system met with the general
approval of scholars as well as of mathematicians; then nearly a
generation more had to elapse before it was openly taught even at
Oxford where the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches had no control.
During the latter part of this period, readers were often left free to
decide for themselves as to the relative merits of the Tychonic and
Copernican or Copernican-Cartesian schemes. But it took fully fifty
years and more, besides, before these ideas had won general acceptance
by the common people, so wedded were they to the traditional view
through custom and a superstitious reverence for the Bible. Briefly
then, the _De Revolutionibus_ appeared in 1543; and quietly won some
supporters, notably Bruno, Kepler and Galileo; the Congregations of
the Index specifically opposed it in 1616 and 1633; however it
continued to spread among scholars and others with the aid of
Cartesianism for another fifty years till the appearance of Newton's
_Principia_ in 1687. Then its acceptance rapidly became general even
in Catholic Europe, till it was almost a commonplace in England by
1743, two hundred years after its first formal promulgation, and had
become strong enough in Europe to cause the Congregations in 1757 to
modify their stand. Thereafter opposition became a curiosity rather
than a significant fact. Only the Roman Church officially delayed its
recognition of the new astronomy till the absurdity of its obsolete
position was brought home to it by Canon Settele's appeal in 1820.
Fifteen years later the last trace of official condemnation was
removed, a little over two hundred years after the decrees had first
been issued, and just before Bessel's discovery of stellar parallax at
length answered one of the strongest and oldest arguments against the
system. Since then have come many _apologias_ in explanation and
extenuation of the Church's decided stand in this matter for so many
generations.
Though Galileo himself was forced to his knees, unable to withstand
his antagonists, his work lived on after him; he and Copernicus,
together with Kepler and Newton stand out both as scientists and as
leaders in the advance of intellectual enlightenment. The account of
their work and that of their less well-known supporters, compared with
that of their antagonists, proves the truth of the ancient Greek
saying which Rheticus used as the motto for the _Narratio Prima_, the
first widely known account of the Copernican system: "One who intends
to philosophize must be free in mind."
APPENDIX A.
PTOLEMY: _Syntaxis Mathematica (Almagest)_
"That the earth has no movement of rotation," in _Opera Quae
Exstant Omnia_, edidit Heiberg, Leipsic, 1898, Bk. I, sec.
7: (I, 21-25); compared with the translation into French by
Halma, Paris, 1813.
By proofs similar to the preceding, it is shown that the earth cannot
be transported obliquely nor can it be moved away from the center.
For, if that were so, all those things would take place which would
happen if it occupied any other point than that of the center. It
seems unnecessary to me, therefore, to seek out the cause of
attraction towards the center when it is once evident from the
phenomena themselves, that the earth occupies the center of the
universe and that all heavy bodies are borne towards it; and this will
be readily understood if it is remembered that the earth has been
demonstrated to have a spherical shape, and according to what we have
said, is placed at the center of the universe, for the direction of
the fall of heavy bodies (I speak of their own motions) is always and
everywhere perpendicular to an uncurved plane drawn tangent to the
point of intersection. Obviously these bodies would all meet at the
center if they were not stopped by the surface, since a straight line
drawn to the center is perpendicular to a plane tangent to the sphere
at that point.
Those who consider it a paradox that a mass like the earth is
supported on nothing, yet not moved at all, appear to me to argue
according to the preconceptions they get from what they see happening
to small bodies about them, and not according to what is
characteristic of the universe as a whole, and this is the cause of
their mistake. For I think that such a thing would not have seemed
wonderful to them any longer if they had perceived that the earth,
great as it is, is merely a point in comparison to the surrounding
body of the heaven. They would find that it is possible for the earth,
being infinitely small relative to the universe, to be held in check
and fixed by the forces exercised over it equally and following
similar directions by the universe, which is infinitely great and
composed of similar parts. There is neither up nor down in the
universe, for that cannot be imagined in a sphere. As to the bodies
which it encloses, by a consequence of their nature it happens that
those that are light and subtle are as though blown by the wind to the
outside and to the circumference, and seem to appear to us to go _up_,
because that is how we speak of the space above our heads that
envelops us. It happens on the other hand that heavy bodies and those
composed of dense parts are drawn towards the middle as towards a
center, and appear to us to fall _down_, because that it is the word
we apply to what is beneath our feet in the direction of the center of
the earth. But one should believe that they are checked around this
center by the retarding effect of shock and of friction. It would be
admitted then that the entire mass of the earth, which is considerable
in comparison to the bodies falling on it, could receive these in
their fall without acquiring the slightest motion from the shock of
their weight or of their velocity. But if the earth had a movement
which was common to it and to all other heavy bodies, it would soon
seemingly outstrip them as a result of its weight, thus leaving the
animals and the other heavy bodies without other support than the air,
and would soon touch the limits of the heaven itself. All these
consequences would seem most ridiculous if one were only even
imagining them.
There are those who, while they admit these arguments because there is
nothing to oppose them, pretend that nothing prevents the supposition,
for instance, that if the sky is motionless, the earth might turn on
its axis from west to east, making this revolution once a day or in a
very little less time, or that, if they both turn, it is around the
same axis, as we have said, and in a manner conformable to the
relations between them which we have observed.
It has escaped these people that in regard to the appearances of the
planets themselves, nothing perhaps prevents the earth from having the
simpler motion; but they do not realize how very ridiculous their
opinion is in view of what takes place around us and in the air. For
if we grant them that the lightest things and those composed of the
subtlest parts do not move, which would be contrary to nature, while
those that are in the air move visibly more swiftly than those that
are terrestrial; if we grant them that the most solid and heavy bodies
have a swift, steady movement of their own, though it is true however
that they obey impelling forces only with difficulty; they would be
obliged to admit that the earth by its revolution has a movement more
rapid than the movements taking place around it, since it would make
so great a circuit in so short a time. Thus the bodies which do not
rest on it would appear always to have a motion contrary to its own,
and neither the clouds, nor any missile or flying bird would appear to
go towards the east, for the earth would always outstrip them in this
direction, and would anticipate them by its own movement towards the
east, with the result that all the rest would appear to move backwards
towards the west.
If they should say that the atmosphere is carried along by the earth
with the same speed as the earth's own revolution, it would be no less
true that the bodies contained therein would not have the same
velocity. Or if they were swept along with the air, no longer would
anything seem to precede or to follow, but all would always appear
stationary, and neither in flight nor in throwing would any ever
advance or retreat. That is, however, what we see happening, since
neither the retardation nor the acceleration of anything is traceable
to the movement of the earth.
APPENDIX B.
"TO HIS HOLINESS, PAUL III, SUPREME PONTIFF,
PREFACE BY NICHOLAS COPERNICUS TO HIS BOOKS ON REVOLUTIONS."
(A translation of the _Praefatio_ in Copernicus: _De
Revolutionibus_; pp. 3-8.)
"I can certainly well believe, most holy Father, that, while mayhap a
few will accept this my book which I have written concerning the
revolutions of the spheres of the world, ascribing certain motions to
the sphere of the earth, people will clamor that I ought to be cast
out at once for such an opinion. Nor are my ideas so pleasing to me
that I will not carefully weigh what others decide concerning them.
And although I know that the meditations of philosophers are remote
from the opinions of the unlearned, because it is their aim to seek
truth in all things so far as it is permitted by God to the human
reason, nevertheless I think that opinions wholly alien to the right
ought to be driven out. Thus when I considered with myself what an
absurd fairy-tale people brought up in the opinion, sanctioned by many
ages, that the earth is motionless in the midst of the heaven, as if
it were the center of it, would think it if I were to assert on the
contrary that the earth is moved; I hesitated long whether I would
give to the light my commentaries composed in proof of this motion, or
whether it would indeed be more satisfactory to follow the example of
the Pythagoreans and various others who were wont to pass down the
mysteries of philosophy not by books, but from hand to hand only to
their friends and relatives, as the letter of Lysis to Hipparchus
proves.[439] But verily they seemed to me not to have done this, as
some think, from any dislike to spreading their teachings, but lest
the most beautiful things and those investigated with much earnestness
by great men, should be despised by those to whom spending good work
on any book is a trouble unless they make profit by it; or if they are
incited to the liberal study of philosophy by the exhortations and the
example of others, yet because of the stupidity of their wits they are
no more busily engaged among philosophers than drones among bees. When
therefore I had pondered these matters, the scorn which was to be
feared on account of the novelty and the absurdity of the opinion
impelled me for that reason to set aside entirely the book already
drawn up.
[Footnote 439: See Prowe: _Nic. Cop._: III, 128-137.]
"But friends, in truth, have brought me forth into the light again,
though I long hesitated and am still reluctant; among these the
foremost was Nicholas Schoenberg, Cardinal of Capua, celebrated in all
fields of scholarship. Next to him is that scholar, my very good
friend, Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm, most learned in all sacred
matters, (as he is), and in all good sciences. He has repeatedly urged
me and, sometimes even with censure, implored me to publish this book
and to suffer it to see the light at last, as it has lain hidden by me
not for nine years alone, but also into the fourth 'novenium'. Not a
few other scholars of eminence also pleaded with me, exhorting me that
I should no longer refuse to contribute my book to the common service
of mathematicians on account of an imagined dread. They said that
however absurd in many ways this my doctrine of the earth's motion
might now appear, so much the greater would be the admiration and
goodwill after people had seen by the publications of my commentaries
the mists of absurdities rolled away by the most lucid demonstrations.
Brought to this hope, therefore, by these pleaders, I at last
permitted my friends, as they had long besought me, to publish this
work.
"But perhaps your Holiness will not be so shocked that I have dared to
bring forth into the light these my lucubrations, having spent so much
work in elaborating them, that I did not hesitate even to commit to a
book my conclusions about the earth's motion, but that you will
particularly wish to hear from me how it came into my mind to dare to
imagine any motion of the earth, contrary to the accepted opinion of
mathematicians and in like manner contrary to common sense. So I do
not wish to conceal from your Holiness that nothing else moved me to
consider some other explanation for the motions of the spheres of the
universe than what I knew, namely that mathematicians did not agree
among themselves in their examinations of these things. For in the
first place, they are so completely undecided concerning the motion of
the sun and of the moon that they could not observe and prove the
constant length of the great year.[440] Next, in determining the
motions of both these and the five other planets, they did not use the
same principles and assumptions or even the same demonstrations of the
appearances of revolutions and motions. For some used only homocentric
circles; others, eccentrics and epicycles, which on being questioned
about, they themselves did not fully comprehend. For those who put
their trust in homocentrics, although they proved that other diverse
motions could be derived from these, nevertheless they could by no
means decide on any thing certain which in the least corresponded to
the phenomena. But these who devised eccentrics, even though they seem
for the most part to have represented apparent motions by a number [of
eccentrics] suitable to them, yet in the meantime they have admitted
quite a few which appear to contravene the first principles of
equality of motion. Another notable thing, that there is a definite
symmetry between the form of the universe and its parts, they could
not devise or construct from these; but it is with them as if a man
should take from different places, hands, feet, a head and other
members, in the best way possible indeed, but in no way comparable to
a single body, and in no respect corresponding to each other, so that
a monster rather than a man would be constructed from them. Thus in
the process of proof, which they call a system, they are found to have
passed over some essential, or to have admitted some thing both
strange and scarcely relevant. This would have been least likely to
have happened to them if they had followed definite principles. For if
the hypotheses they assumed were not fallacious, everything which
followed out of them would have been verified beyond a doubt. However
obscure may be what I now say, nevertheless in its own place it will
be made more clear.
[Footnote 440: _i.e._, the 15,000 solar years in which all the
heavenly bodies complete their circuits and return to their original
positions.]
"When therefore I had long considered this uncertainty of traditional
mathematics, it began to weary me that no more definite explanation of
the movement of the world machine established in our behalf by the
best and most systematic builder of all, existed among the
philosophers who had studied so exactly in other respects the minutest
details in regard to the sphere. Wherefore I took upon myself the task
of re-reading the books of all the philosophers which I could obtain,
to seek out whether any one had ever conjectured that the motions of
the spheres of the universe were other than they supposed who taught
mathematics in the schools. And I found first that, according to
Cicero, Nicetas had thought the earth was moved. Then later I
discovered according to Plutarch that certain others had held the
same opinion; and in order that this passage may be available to all,
I wish to write it down here:
"But while some say the earth stands still, Philolaus the
Pythagorean held that it is moved about the element of fire
in an oblique circle, after the same manner of motion that
the sun and moon have. Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus
the Pythagorean assign a motion to the earth, not
progressive, but after the manner of a wheel being carried
on its own axis. Thus the earth, they say, turns itself upon
its own center from west to east."[441]
[Footnote 441: Plutarch: _Moralia: De Placitis Philosophorum_, Lib.
III, c. 13 (V. 326).]
When from this, therefore, I had conceived its possibility I myself
also began to meditate upon the mobility of the earth. And although
the opinion seemed absurd, yet because I knew the liberty had been
accorded to others before me of imagining whatsoever circles they
pleased to explain the phenomena of the stars, I thought I also might
readily be allowed to experiment whether, by supposing the earth to
have some motion, stronger demonstrations than those of the others
could be found as to the revolution of the celestial sphere.
Thus, supposing these motions which I attribute to the earth later on
in this book, I found at length by much and long observation, that if
the motions of the other planets were added to the rotation of the
earth and calculated as for the revolution of that planet, not only
the phenomena of the others followed from this, but also it so bound
together both the order and magnitude of all the planets and the
spheres and the heaven itself, that in no single part could one thing
be altered without confusion among the other parts and in all the
universe. Hence, for this reason, in the course of this work I have
followed this system, so that in the first book I describe all the
positions of the spheres together with the motions I attribute to the
earth; thus this book contains a kind of general disposition of the
universe. Then in the remaining books, I bring together the motions of
the other planets and all the spheres with the mobility of the earth,
so that it can thence be inferred to what extent the motions and
appearances of the other planets and spheres can be solved by
attributing motion to the earth. Nor do I doubt that skilled and
scholarly mathematicians will agree with me if, what philosophy
requires from the beginning, they will examine and judge, not casually
but deeply, what I have gathered together in this book to prove these
things. In order that learned and unlearned may alike see that in no
way whatsoever I evade judgment, I prefer to dedicate these my
lucubrations to your Holiness rather than to any one else; especially
because even in this very remote corner of the earth in which I live,
you are held so very eminent by reason of the dignity of your position
and also for your love of all letters and of mathematics that, by your
authority and your decision, you can easily suppress the malicious
attacks of calumniators, even though proverbially there is no remedy
against the attacks of sycophants.
[Illustration: A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from
Mulier's edition (1617) as "corrected" according to the _Monitum_ of
the Congregations in 1620. The first writer merely underlined the
passage with marginal comment that this was to be deleted by
ecclesiastical order. The second writer scratched out the passage and
referred to the second volume of Riccioli's _Almagestum Novum_ for the
text of the order. The earlier writer was probably the librarian of
the Florentine convent from which this book came, and wrote this soon
after 1620. The later writer did his work after 1651, when Riccioli's
book was published. This copy of the _De Revolutionibus_ is now in the
Dartmouth College Library.]
If perchance there should be foolish speakers who, together with those
ignorant of all mathematics, will take it upon themselves to decide
concerning these things, and because of some place in the Scriptures
wickedly distorted to their purpose, should dare to assail this my
work, they are of no importance to me, to such an extent do I despise
their judgment as rash. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, the
writer celebrated in other ways but very little in mathematics, spoke
somewhat childishly of the shape of the earth when he derided those
who declared the earth had the shape of a ball.[442] So it ought not
to surprise students if such should laugh at us also. Mathematics is
written for mathematicians to whom these our labors, if I am not
mistaken, will appear to contribute something even to the
ecclesiastical state the headship of which your Holiness now occupies.
For it is not so long ago under Leo X when the question arose in the
Lateran Council about correcting the Ecclesiastical Calendar. It was
left unsettled then for this reason alone, that the length of the year
and of the months and the movements of the sun and moon had not been
satisfactorily determined. From that time on, I have turned my
attention to the more accurate observation of these, at the suggestion
of that most celebrated scholar, Father Paul, a bishop from Rome, who
was the leader then in that matter. What, however, I may have achieved
in this, I leave to the decision of your Holiness especially, and to
all other learned mathematicians. And lest I seem to your Holiness to
promise more about the value of this work than I can perform, I now
pass on to the undertaking.
[Footnote 442: These two sentences the Congregations in 1620 ordered
struck out, as part of their "corrections."]
APPENDIX C.
THE DRAMA OF UNIVERSAL NATURE: in which are considered the
efficient causes and the ends of all things, discussed in a
connected series of five books, by JEAN BODIN, (Frankfort,
1597).
_Book V_: On the Celestial Bodies: their number, movement,
size, harmony and distances compared with themselves and
with the earth. Sections 1 and 10 (in part) and 12
(entire).
BODIN, JEAN: _Universae Naturae Theatrum in quo rerum omnium
effectrices causa et fines contemplantur, et continuae series
quinque libris discutiuntur_. Frankfort, 1597. Book V
translated into English by the writer and compared with the
French translation by Francois de Fougerolles, (Lyons,
1597).
_Section 1_: On the definition and the number of the spheres.
MYSTAGOGUE: ... Now to prove that the heavens have a nature endowed
with intelligence I need no other argument than that by which
Theophrastus and Alexander prove they are living, for, they say, if
the heavens did not have intelligence, they would be greatly inferior
in dignity and excellence to men. That is why Aben-Ezra,[443] having
interpreted the Hebrew of these two words of the Psalm: "The heavens
declare," has written that the phrase _Sapperim_ (declare) in the
judgment of all Hebrews is appropriate to such great intelligence.
Also he who said "When the morning stars sang together and shouted for
joy,"[444] indicated a power endowed with intelligence, as did the
Master of Wisdom[445] also when he said that God created the heavens
with intelligence.
[Footnote 443: As Rabbi David testified on the 19th Psalm [these
footnotes are by Bodin].]
[Footnote 444: Job: 38.]
[Footnote 445: Proverbs.]
THEODORE. I have learned in the schools that the spheres are not moved
of themselves but that they have separate intelligences who incite
them to movement.
MYST. That is the doctrine of Aristotle. But Theophrastus and
Alexander,[446] (when they teach that the spheres are animated bodies)
explain adequately that the spheres are agitated by their own
coessential soul. For if the sky were turned by an intelligence
external to it, its movement would be accidental with the result that
it, and the stars with it, would not be moved otherwise, than as a
body without soul. But accidental motion is violent. And nothing
violent in nature can be of long duration. On the contrary there is
nothing of longer duration, nor more constant, than the movement of
the heavens.
[Footnote 446: Metaphysics: II. c. 6, de Coelo. I. c. 6.]
THEO. What do you call fixed stars?
MYST. Celestial beings who are gifted with intelligence and with
light, and who are in continual motion. This is sufficiently indicated
by the words of Daniel[447] when he wrote, that the souls of those who
have walked justly in this life, and who have brought men back to the
path of virtue, all have their seat and dwelling (like the gleaming
stars) among the heavens. By these words one can plainly understand
the essence and figure of the angels as well as of the celestial
beings; for while other beings have their places in this universe
assigned to them for their habitation, as the fish the sea, the cattle
the fields, and the wild beasts the mountains and forests, even as
Origen,[448] Eusebius, and Diodorus say, so the stars are assigned
positions in the heavens. This can also be understood by the curtains
of the tabernacle which Moses, the great Lawgiver, had ornamented with
the images of cherubim showing that the heavens were indicated by the
angelic faces of the stars. While St. Augustine,[449] Jerome,[450]
Thomas Aquinas[451] and Scotus most fitly called this universe a
being, nevertheless Albertus, Damascenus, and Thomas Aquinas deny that
the heavenly bodies are animated. But Thomas Aquinas shows himself in
this inconsistent and contradictory, for he confesses that spiritual
substances are united with the heavenly bodies, which could not be
unless they were united in the same hypostasis of an animated body. If
this body is animated, it must necessarily be living and either
rational or irrational. If, on the other hand, this spiritual
substance does not make the same hypostasis with the celestial body,
it will necessarily be that the movement of the sky is accidental, as
coming from the mover outside to the thing moved, no more nor less
than the movement of a wheel comes from the one who turns it: As this
is absurd, what follows from it is necessarily absurd also.
[Footnote 447: In his last chapter.]
[Footnote 448: Which is confirmed by Pico of Mirandola: Heptaplus: Bk.
V.]
[Footnote 449: Enchiridion: cap. 43; Gen.: 2 and 18.]
[Footnote 450: On Psalm: Audite coeli.]
[Footnote 451: Summa: pt. 1, art. 3, ques. 70.]
THEO. How many spheres are there?
MYST. It is difficult to determine their number because of the variety
of opinions among the authorities, each differing from the other, and
because of the inadequacy of the proofs of such things. For Eudoxus
has stated that the spheres with their deferents are not more than
three and twenty in number. Calippus has put it at thirty, and
Aristotle[452] at forty-seven, which Alexander Aphrodisiensis[453] has
amended by adding to it two more on the advice of Sosigenes. Ptolemy
holds that there are 31 celestial spheres not including the bodies of
the planets. Johan Regiomontanus says 33, an opinion which is followed
by nearly all, because in the time of Ptolemy they did not yet know
that the eighth sphere and all the succeeding ones are carried around
by the movement of the trepidation. Thus he held that the moon has
five orbits, Mercury six, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn each four,
aside from the bodies of the planets themselves, for beyond these are
still the spheres and deferents of the eighth and ninth spheres. But
Copernicus, reviving Eudoxus' idea, held that the earth moved around
the motionless sun; and he has also removed the epicycles with the
result that he has greatly reduced their number, so that one can
scarcely find eight spheres remaining.
[Footnote 452: Metaphy. XII.]
[Footnote 453: In his commentaries on Book XII of Metaph. where he
gives the opinion of Calippus and Eudoxus.]
THEO. What should one do with such a variety of opinions?
MYST. Have recourse to the sacred fountain of the Hebrews to search
out the mysteries of a thing so deeply hidden from man; for from them
we may obtain an absolutely certain decision. The Tabernacle which the
great Lawgiver Moses ordered to be made[454] was like the Archetype of
the universe, with its ten curtains placed around it each decorated
with the figures of cherubim thus representing the ten heavens with
the beauty of their resplendent stars. And even though Aben-Ezra did
not know of the movement of trepidation, nevertheless he interpreted
this passage, "The heavens are the work of Thy fingers" as indicating
the number of the ten celestial spheres. The Pythagoreans seem also to
have agreed upon the same number since, besides the earth and the
eight heavens, they imagine a sphere Anticthon because they did not
then clearly understand the celestial movements. They thought however,
all should be embraced in the tenth.
[Footnote 454: Ex. XVIII and following. Philo Judaeus in the
Allegories.]
THEO. The authority of such writers has indeed so great weight with me
that I place their statements far in advance of the arguments of all
others. Nevertheless if it can be done, I should wish to have this
illustrated and confirmed by argument in order to satisfy those who
believe nothing except on absolute proof.
MYST. It can indeed be proved that there are ten mobile spheres in
which the fiery bodies accomplish their regular courses. Yet by these
arguments that ultimate, motionless sphere which embraces and
encircles all from our terrestial abode to its circumference within
its crystalline self, encompassing plainly the utmost shores and
limits of the universe, cannot be proved. For as it has been shown
before [in Book I] the elemental world was inundated by celestial
waters from above. Nor can it apparently be included in the number of
the spheres since (as we will point out later) as great a distance
exists between it and the nearest sphere as between the ocean and the
starry heaven. Furthermore it has been said before that the essence
of the spheres consists of fire and water which is not fitting for the
celestial waters above.
THEO. By what arguments then can it be proved there are ten spheres?
MYST. The ancients knew well that there were the seven spheres of the
planets, and an eighth sphere of the fixed stars which, down to the
time of Eudoxus and Meto, they thought had but one simple movement.
These men were the first who perceived by observation that the fixed
stars were carried backward quite contrary to the movement of the
Primum Mobile. After them came Timochares, Hipparchus, and Menelaus,
and later Ptolemy, who confirmed these observations perceiving that
the fixed stars (which people had hitherto thought were fixed in their
places) had been separated from their station. For this reason they
thought best to add a ninth sphere to the eight inferior ones. Much
later an Arabian and a Spanish king, Mensor and Alphonse, great
students of the celestial sciences, in their observations noticed that
the eighth sphere with the seven following moved in turning from the
north to the east, then towards the south, and so to the west, finally
returning to the north, and that such a movement was completed in 7000
years. This Johannus Regiomontanus, a Franconian, has proved, with a
skill hitherto equalled only by that of those who proved the ninth
sphere, which travels from west to east. From this it is necessarily
concluded that there are ten spheres.
THEO. Why so?
MYST. Because every natural body[455] has but one movement which is
its own by nature; all others are either voluntary or through
violence, contrary to the nature of a mobile object; for just as a
stone cannot of its own impulse ascend and descend, so one and the
same sphere cannot of itself turn from the east to the west and from
the west to the east and still less from the north to the south and
south to north.
[Footnote 455: Aristotle: Metaph. II and XII and de Coelo I.]
THEO. What then?
MYST. It follows from this that the extremely rapid movement by which
all the spheres are revolved in twenty-four hours, belongs to the
Primum Mobile, which we call the tenth sphere, and which carries with
it all the nine lesser spheres; that the second or planetary movement,
that is, from west to east, is communicated to the lesser spheres and
belongs to the ninth sphere; that the third movement, resembling a
person staggering, belongs to the eighth sphere with which it affects
the other lesser spheres and makes them stagger in a measure outside
of the poles, axes and centres of the greater spheres.
_Section 10_: On the position of the universe according to its
divisions.
* * * *
THEO. Does it not also concern Physics to discuss those things that
lie outside the universe?
MYST. If there were any natural body beyond the heavens, most
assuredly it would concern Physics, that is, the observer and student
of nature. But in the book of Origins,[456] the Master workman is said
to have separated the waters and placed the firmament in between them.
The Hebrew philosophers declare that the crystalline sphere which
Ezekiel[457] called the great crystal and upon which he saw God
seated, as he wrote, is as far beyond the farthermost heaven as our
ocean is far from that heaven, and that this orb is motionless and
therefore is called God's throne. For "seat" implies quiet and
tranquility which could be proper for none other than the one immobile
and immutable God. This is far more probable and likely than
Aristotle's absurd idea, unworthy the name of a philosopher, by which
he placed the eternal God in a moving heaven as if He were its source
of motion and in such fashion that He was constrained of necessity to
move it. We have already refuted this idea. It has also been shown
that these celestial waters full of fertility and productiveness
sometimes are spread abroad more widely and sometimes less so, as
though obviously restrained, whence the heavens are said to be
closed[458] and roofed[459] with clouds or that floods burst forth out
of the heaven to inundate the earth. Finally we read in the Holy
Scriptures that the eternal God is seated upon the flood.
[Footnote 456: Gen.: 1.]
[Footnote 457: Chap. 1 and 10. Exod.: 24.]
[Footnote 458: I Kings: 8. Deut.: 28.]
[Footnote 459: Psalm 146.]
THEO. Why then are not eleven spheres counted?
MYST. Because the crystalline sphere is said to have been separated
from the inferior waters by the firmament, and it therefore cannot be
called a heaven. Furthermore motion is proper to all the heavens, but
the crystalline one is stationary. That is why Rabi Akiba called[460]
it a marble counterpart of the universe. This also is signified in the
construction of the altar which was covered with a pavilion in
addition to its ten curtains for, as it is stated elsewhere,[461] God
covers the heavens with clouds, and the Scriptures often make mention
of the waters beyond the heavens.[462] There are those, however, who
teach that the Hebrew word _Scamajim_ may be applied only to a dual
number, so that they take it to mean the crystalline sphere and the
starry one. But I think those words in Solomon's speech[463] "the
heaven of heaven, and the heavens of the heavens" refer in the
singular to the crystalline sphere, in the plural to the ten lesser
spheres.
[Footnote 460: According to Maymon: Perplexorum, III.]
[Footnote 461: Psalm 147.]
[Footnote 462: Psalm 148. Gen. 1 and 7.]
[Footnote 463: Also in Psalm 67 and 123.]
THEO. It does not seem so marvelous to me that an aqueous or
crystalline sphere exists beyond the ten spheres, as that it is as far
beyond the furthermost sphere as the ocean is far this side of it,
that is, as astrologists teach, 1040 terrestrial diameters.
MYST. It is written most plainly that the firmament holds the middle
place between the two waters. Therefore God is called[464] in Hebrew
_Helion_, the Sun, that is, the Most High, and under His feet the
heaven is spread like a crystal,[465] although He is neither excluded
nor included in any part of the universe, it is however consistent
with His Majesty to be above all the spheres and to fill heaven and
earth with His infinite power as Isaiah[466] indicated when he writes:
"His train filled the temple;" it is the purest and simplest act, the
others are brought about by forces and powers. He alone is
incorporeal, others are corporeal or joined to bodies. He alone is
eternal, others according to their nature are transitory and fleeting
unless they are strengthened by the Creator's might; wherefore the
Chaldean interpreter is seen everywhere to have used the words,
Majesty, Glory or Power in place of the presence of God.
[Footnote 464: Psalm 92.]
[Footnote 465: Exod. 24. Ezek. 1, 10.]
[Footnote 466: Isa. 6.]
THEO. Nevertheless so vast and limitless a space must be filled with
air or fire, since there are no spheres there, nor will nature suffer
any vacuum.
MYST. If then the firmament occupies the middle position between the
two waters, then by this hypothesis you must admit that the space
beyond the spheres is empty of elemental and celestial bodies;
otherwise you would have to admit that the last sphere extends on even
to the crystalline orb, which can in no way be reconciled with the
Holy Scriptures and still less with reason because of the incredible
velocity of this sphere. Therefore it is far more probable that this
space is filled with angels.
THEO. Is there some medium between God and the angels which shares in
the nature of both?
MYST. What is incorporeal and indivisible cannot communicate any part
of its essence to another; for if a creature had any part of the
divine essence, it would be all God, since God neither has parts nor
can be divided, therefore He must be separated from all corporeal
contact or intermixture.
_Section 12_: On guardian angels.
THEO. What then in corporeal nature is closest to God?
MYST. The two Seraphim, who stand near the eternal Creator,[467] and
who are said to have six wings, two wherewith to fly, the others to
cover head and feet. By this is signified the admirable swiftness with
which they fulfill His commands, yet head and feet are veiled for so
the purpose of their origin and its earliest beginning are not known
to us. Also they have eyes scattered in all parts of their bodies to
indicate that nothing is hidden from them. And they also pour oil for
lighting through a funnel into the seven-branched candlestick; that
is, strength and power are poured forth by the Creator to the seven
planets, so that we should turn from created things to the worship and
love of the Creator.
[Footnote 467: Isa. 6. Ezek. 1 and 10. Zach. 4. Exod. 24, 25.]
THEO. Since nothing is more fitting for the Divine goodness than to
create, to generate, and to pile up good things for all, whence comes
the destruction of the world and the ruin of all created things?
MYST. It is true Plato and Aristotle attributed the cause of all ills
to the imperfection of matter in which they thought was some
_kakopoion_,[468] but that is absurd since it is distinctly written:
All that God had made was good, or as the Hebrews express it,
beautiful,--so evil is nothing-else than the absence[469] or privation
of good.
[Footnote 468: Maleficium quidam, _i.e._, some evil-power. Job 5.]
[Footnote 469: Augustine against Faustus wrote that vanity is not
produced from the dust, nor evil from the earth.]
THEO. Can not wicked angels be defined without privation since they
are corporeal essences?
MYST. Anything that exists is said to be good and to be a participant
by its existence in the divine goodness; and even as in a well
regulated Republic, executioners, lictors, and corpse-bearers are no
less necessary than magistrates, judges and overseers; so in the
Republic of this world, for the generation, management and
guardianship of things God has gathered together angels as leaders and
directors for all the celestial places, for the elements, for living
beings, for plants, for minerals, for states, provinces, families and
individuals. And not only has He done this, but He has also assigned
His servants, lictors, avengers and others to places where they may do
nothing without His order, nor inflict any punishment upon wicked men
unless the affair has been known fully and so decided. Thus God is
said[470] to have made Leviathan, which is the outflow of Himself,
that is, the natural rise and fall of all things. "I have created a
killer,"[471] He said, "to destroy," and so also Behemoth, and the
demons cleaving to him, which are often called ravens, eagles and
lions, and which are said to beg their food of God, that is, the
taking of vengeance upon the wicked whose punishment and death they
feed upon as upon ordinary fare. From these, therefore, or rather from
ourselves, come death, pestilence, famine, war and those things we
call ills, and not from the Author of all good things except by
accident. For so God says of Himself:[472] "I am the God making good
and creating evil, making light and creating darkness." For when He
withdraws His spirit, evil follows the good; when He takes the light
away, darkness is created; as when one removes the pillars of a
building, the ruin of a house follows. If He takes the vital spark
away, death follows; nor can He be said to do evil[473] to anyone in
taking back what is His own.
[Footnote 470: Job 41 and 49. Isa. 54. Ezek. 31.]
[Footnote 471: Isa. 54.]
[Footnote 472: Isa. 45.]
[Footnote 473: Job 34.]
THEO. When the Legislator asked Him to disclose His face to his gaze,
why did the Architect of the universe and the Author of all things
reply: "My face is to be seen by no mortal man, but only my back?"
MYST. This fine allegory signifies that God cannot be known from
superior or antecedent causes but from behind His back, that is, from
results, for a little later He adds, "I will cover thine eyes with My
hand." Thus the hand signifies those works which He has placed before
anyone's eyes, and it indicates that He places man not in an obscure
corner but in the center of the universe so that He might better and
more easily than in heaven contemplate the universe and all His works
through the sight of which, as through spectacles, the Sun, that is,
God Himself, may be disclosed. And therefore we undertook this
disputation concerning nature and natural things, so that even if they
are but slightly explained, nevertheless we may attain from this
disquisition an imperfect knowledge of the Creator and may break forth
in His praises with all our might, that at length by degrees we may be
borne on high and be blessed by the Divine reward; for this is indeed
the supreme and final good for a man.
Here endeth the Drama of Nature which Jean Bodin wrote while
all France was aflame with civil war.
FINIS
APPENDIX D.
A TRANSLATION OF A LETTER BY THOMAS FEYENS
ON THE QUESTION: IS IT TRUE THAT THE HEAVENS ARE MOVED AND THE EARTH
IS AT REST? (FEBRUARY, 1619)
(_Thomae Fieni Epistolica Quaestio_: An verum sit, coelum
moveri et terram quiescere? Londini, 1655.)
To the eminent and noble scholars, Tobias Matthias and George Gays:
It is proved that the heavens are moved and the earth is stationary:
First; by authority; for besides the fact that this is asserted by
Aristotle and Ptolemy whom wellnigh all Philosophers and
Mathematicians have followed by unanimous consent, except for
Copernicus, Bernardus Patricius[474] and a very few others, the Holy
Scriptures plainly attest it in at least two places which I have seen.
In Joshua,[475] are the words: Steteruntque sol et luna donec
ulcisceretur gens de inimicis suis. And a little further on: Stetit
itaque sol in medio coeli, et non festinavit occumbere spatio unius
diei, et non fuit antea et postea tam longa dies. The Scriptures
obviously refer by these words to the motion of the _primum mobile_ by
which the sun and the moon are borne along in their diurnal course and
the day is defined; and it indicates that the heavens are moved as
well as the _primum mobile_. Then Ecclesiastes, chapter 1,[476] reads:
Generatio praeterit, et generatio advenit, terra autem semper stat,
oritur sol et occidit, et ad locum suum revertitur.
[Footnote 474: Feyens probably refers here to Francesco Patrizzi, who
was an enemy of the peripatetics and a great supporter of platonism.
He died in 1597 at Rome, where Clement VIII had conferred on him the
chair of philosophy.]
[Footnote 475: Joshua X: 13-14.]
[Footnote 476: Ecclesiastes I: 4.]
Secondly, it is proved by reason. All the heavens and stars were made
in man's behalf and, with other terrestrial bodies, are the servants
of man to warm, light, and vivify him.
This they could not do unless in moving they applied themselves by
turns to different parts of the world. And it is more likely that they
would apply themselves by their own movement to man and the place in
which man lives, than that man should come to them by the movement of
his own seat or habitation. For they are the servants of man; man is
not their servant; therefore it is more probable that the heavens are
moved and the earth is at rest than that the reverse is true.
Thirdly; no probable argument can be thought out from philosophy to
prove that the earth is moved and the heavens are at rest. Nor can it
be done by mathematics. By saying that the heavens are moved and the
earth is at rest, all phenomena of the heavenly bodies can be solved.
Just as in the same way in optics all can be solved by saying either
that sight comes from the thing to the eye, or that rays go from the
eye to the thing seen; so is it in astronomy. Therefore one ought
rather to abide in the ancient and general opinion than in one
received recently without justification.
Fourthly; the earth is the center of the universe; all the heavenly
bodies are observed to be moved around it; therefore it itself ought
to be motionless, for anything that moves, it seems, should move
around or above something that is motionless.
Fifthly; if the earth is moved in a circle, either it moves that way
naturally or by force, either by its own nature or by the nature of
another. It is not by its own nature, for straight motion from above
downward is natural to it; therefore circular motion could not be
natural to it. Further, the earth is a simple body; and a simple body
can not have two natural motions of distinct kinds or classes. Nor is
it moved by another body; for by what is it moved? One has to say it
is moved either by the sun or by some other celestial body; and this
cannot be said, since either the sun or that body is said to be at
rest or in motion. If it is said to be at rest, then it cannot impart
movement to another. If it is said to be in motion, then it can not
move the earth, because it ought to move either by a motion similar to
its own or the opposite of it. It is not similar, since thus it would
be observed to move neutrally as when two boats moving in the same
direction, appear not to move but to be at rest. It is not the
opposite motion, since nothing could give motion contrary to its own.
And because Galileo seems to say, in so far as I have learned from
your lordships, that the earth was moved by the sun; I prove anyway
that this is not true since the movement of the sun and of the earth
ought to be from contrary and distinct poles. The sun, however, can
not be the cause of the other's movement because it is moved above
different poles. Lastly, the earth follows the motion of no other
celestial body; since if it is moved, it moves in 24 hours, and all
the other celestial bodies require the space of many days, months and
years. Ergo. Finally, if the earth is moved by another, its motion
would be violent; but this is absurd, for no violence can be regular
and perpetual.
Sixthly; even so it is declared that the earth is moved. Nevertheless,
it must be admitted to this that either the planets themselves or
their spheres are moved, for in no other way can the diversities of
aspects among themselves be solved; nor can a reason be given why the
sun does not leave the Ecliptic and the moon does; and how a planet
can be stationary or retrograde, high or low,--and many other
phenomena. For this reason those who said the earth moved, as
Bernardus Patricius and the others said, claimed that the _primum
mobile_, forsooth, was stationary and that the earth was moved in its
place; yet they could not in the least deny that the planets
themselves were moved, but admitted it. That is the reason why both
ancient and modern mathematicians, aside from the motion of the
_primum mobile_, were forced to admit and consider the peculiar
movements of the planets themselves. If therefore it must be
acknowledged, and it is certain, that the stars and the celestial
bodies are moved; then it is more probable that all movement perceived
in the universe belongs rather to the heavenly bodies than to the
earth. For if movement were ascribed to all the rest, why for that
same reason is not diurnal rotation ascribed rather to the _primum
mobile_ than to the earth, particularly when our senses seem to decide
thus? Although one may well be mistaken, sometimes, concerning other
similar movements; yet it is not probable that all ages could be at
fault, or should be, about the movements of its most important
objects, of course the celestial luminaries.
Seventhly; it is proved by experience. For if the earth is moved, then
an arrow shot straight up on high could never fall back to the place
whence it was shot, but should fall somewhere many miles away. But
this is not so. Ergo.
This can be answered and is so customarily in this way: this does not
follow because the air is swept along with the earth, and so, since
the air which carries the arrow is turning in the same way with the
earth, the arrow also is borne along equally with it, and thus returns
to the same spot. This in truth is a pure evasion and a worthless
answer for many reasons.
It is falsely observed that the air is moved and by the same motion as
the earth. For what should move the earth? Truly, if the air is moved
by the same motion as the earth, either it ought to be moved by the
earth itself, or by that other which moves the earth, or by itself. It
is not moved by itself; since it has another motion, the straight one
of course natural to itself, and also since it has a nature, an
essence and qualities all different from the nature and the essence of
the earth; therefore it could not by its own nature have the same
motion as that other, but of necessity ought to have a different one.
Nor is it moved by any other that may move the earth; as that which
moves the earth could not at the same time and with like motion move
the air. For since the air is different from the earth in essence, in
both active and passive qualities, and in kind of substance, it can
not receive the impelling force of the acting body, or that force
applied in the same way as the earth, and so could not be moved in the
same way. The virtues [of bodies] acting and of moving diversely are
received by the recipients according to the diversity of their
dispositions. Also it can not be moved by the earth; since if it were
moved by the earth, it must be said to be moved by force, but such
motion appears to be impossible. Ergo. The minor premise is proved:
for if air is thus moved by the earth by force the air ought to be
moved more rapidly than the earth, because air is larger [than the
earth].
For what is outside is larger than what is inside. When, however, what
is larger and what is outside is driven around equally rapidly with
what is less, and what is inside, then the former is moved much more
rapidly. Thus it is true that the sphere of Saturn in its daily course
is moved far faster than the sphere of the moon. But it is impossible
that the one driven should move more rapidly than the one driving;
therefore the air is not moved by the earth's violence. Thus would it
be if the air were moved with the earth, or by itself, or by force.
Thus far, then, the force of the original argument remains; since of
its own motion, indeed, it could not be in every way conformable to
the motion of the earth as I have shown; and this because the air
differs from the earth in consistency of substance, in qualities and
in essence. But the air ought at all events to move more sluggishly
than the earth. It follows from this that an arrow shot straight up
could not return to its starting point; for the earth, moving like the
air, on account of the other's slower rate leaves it behind, and the
arrow also which is carried away from it.
Besides, if the air does not move so rapidly as the earth, a man
living in a very high tower, however quiet the air, ought then always
to feel the strongest wind and the greatest disturbance of the air.
Since mountains and towers are moved with the earth, and the air would
not be accompanying them at an equal speed, it would necessarily
follow that they would precede the air by cleaving and cutting and
ploughing through it which ought to make a great wind perceptible.
Eighthly; if a person stood in some very high tower or other high
place and aimed from that tower at some spot of earth perpendicularly
below his eye, and allowed a very heavy stone to fall following that
perpendicular line, it is absolutely certain that that stone would
land upon the spot aimed at perpendicularly underneath. But if the
earth is moved, it would be impossible for the stone to strike that
spot.
This I prove first: because either the air moves at an unequal rate
with the earth; or it moves equally rapidly. If not equally, then it
is certain the stone could not land at that spot, since the earth's
movement would outstrip the stone borne by the air. If equally
rapidly, then again the stone could not land at that spot, since
although the air was moving in itself at an equal speed, yet on that
account it could not carry the stone thus rapidly with itself and
carrying it downward falling by its own weight, for the stone tending
by gravity towards the center resists the carrying of the air.
You will say: if the earth is moved in a circle, so are all its parts;
wherefore that stone in falling not only moves in a circle by the
carrying of the air, but also in a circle because of its own nature as
being part of the earth and having the same motion with it.
Verily this answer is worthless. For although the stone is turned in a
circle by its own nature like the earth, yet its own natural gravity
impeded it so that it is borne along that much the less swiftly,
unlike the air or the earth, both of which are in their natural places
and which in consequence have no gravity as a stone falling from on
high has.
Lastly; because although the stone is moved in the world by its own
nature like the whole earth, yet it is not borne along as swiftly as
the whole earth. For as one stone by its own weight falls from the
heaven following its own direct motion straight to the center just as
a part of the earth, so also the whole earth itself would fall; and
yet it would not fall so swiftly as the whole earth, for although the
stone would be borne along in its sphere like the whole earth just as
a part of it, yet it would not be borne along as swiftly as the whole
earth; and so, in whatever way it is said, the motion of the earth
ought always to outstrip the stone and leave it a long distance
behind. Thus a stone could never fall at the point selected or a point
perpendicularly beneath it. This is false. Ergo.
Ninthly: If the earth is moved in a circular orbit, it ought to pass
from the west through the meridian to the east; consequently the air
ought to move by the same path. But if this were so, then if an archer
shot toward the east, his arrow ought to fly much farther than if he
shot toward the west. For when he shot toward the east, the arrow
would fly with the natural movement of the air and would have that
supporting it. But when he shot toward the west, he would have the
motion of the air against him and then the arrow would struggle
against it. But it is certain the arrow ought to go much farther and
faster when the movement of the air is favorable to it then when
against it, as is obvious in darts sent out with a favoring wind.
Ergo.
Similarly not a few other arguments can be worked out, but there are
none as valuable for proof as the foregoing ones. Though these were
written by me with a flying pen far from books and sick in bed with a
broken leg, yet they seem to me to have so much value that I do not
see any way by which they could rightly be refuted. These I have
written for your gracious lordships in gratitude for your goodwill on
the occasion of our conversation at your dinner four days ago; and I
ask for them that you meditate on them justly and well.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(of references cited.)
I
GENERAL WORKS.
Addis and Arnold: _Catholic Dictionary_, 2nd edit. London, 1884.
Bailly: _Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne depuis la Fondation de
l'Ecole d'Alexandrie, jusqu' a l'Epoque de 1730_. 3 vol. Paris, 1785.
Berry, Arthur: _Short History of Astronomy_. New York, 1912.
Cajori, Florian: _The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the
United States_. Washington, 1890. (Bureau of Education, No. 3.)
Delambre, J.B.J.: _Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne_. Paris, 1817.
----: _Histoire de l'Astronomie du Moyen Age_. Paris, 1819.
----: _Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne_. Paris, 1821.
De Morgan, Augustus: _A Book of Paradoxes_. 2 vol. 2nd edit. ed. by
David Eugene Smith. Chicago, 1915.
Di Bruno, Joseph Faa: _Catholic Belief, or a short and simple
exposition of Catholic Doctrine_. Author's American edit. 375th
thousand. New York, [1912.]
Jacoby, Harold: _Astronomy, a Popular Handbook_. New York, 1913.
Janssen, J.: _History of the German People at the Close of the Middle
Ages_. Trans. by Mitchell and Christie. 2 vol. St. Louis, no date.
Lecky, Wm. E. Hartpole: _History of England in the 18th Century_. 8
vol. New edit. New York, 1892.
Libri, C.: _Histoire des Sciences Mathematiques en Italie depuis la
Renaissance des Lettres_. 2me edit. 4 vol. Halle, 1865.
Milman, Henry H.: _History of Latin Christianity_. 8 vol. in 4. New
York, 1899.
Owen, John: _The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance_. 2nd edit. New
York, 1893.
Peignot, G.: _Dictionnaire Critique Litteraire et Bibliographique des
Principaux Livres Condamnes au Feu, Supprimes on Censures_. 2 vol.
Paris, 1806.
Putnam, George Haven: _The Censorship of the Church of Rome_. 2 vol.
New York, 1907.
Rashdall, Hastings: _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_. 2
vol. Oxford, 1895.
Smith, David Eugene: _Rara Arithmetica_. Boston, 1908.
Snyder, Carl: _The World Machine: The Cosmic Mechanism_. London, 1907.
Stephen, Leslie: _History of English Thought in the 18th Century_. 2
vol. 3rd edit. New York, 1902.
Taylor, Henry Osborne: _The Mediaeval Mind_. 2nd edit. London, 1914.
Walsh, J.J.: _Catholic Churchmen in Science_. 2nd series.
Philadelphia, 1909.
----: _The Popes and Science_. Knights of Columbus edit. New York,
1911.
Wegg-Prosser, F.R.: _Galileo and his Judges_. London. 1889.
Whewell, William: _History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest
to the Present Time_. New edit. revised. 3 vol. London, 1847.
White, Andrew D.: _History of the Welfare of Science with Theology in
Christendom_. 2 vol. New York, 1898.
Windle, B.C.A.: _A Century of Scientific Thought and Other Essays_.
London, 1915.
Young, Charles: _Manual of Astronomy_. Boston, 1902.
II
SPECIAL WORKS.
Allaben, Frank: _John Watts de Peyster_. 2 vol. New York, 1908.
----: see De Peyster.
Anon: _Galileo--The Roman Inquisition: A Defence of the Catholic
Church from the Charge of having persecuted Galileo for his
philosophical opinions_. Reprinted from the _Dublin Review_ with an
introduction by an "American Catholic." Cincinnati, 1844.
Baudrillart, Henri: _Jean Bodin et son Temps: Tableau des Theories
Politiques et des Idees Economiques au 16me siecle_. Paris, 1853.
Bartholmess, Christian: _Jordano Bruno_. 2 vol. Paris, 1846.
Berti, Domenico: _Vita di Giordano Bruno da Nola_. Turin, 1868.
Bertrand, M.J.: _Copernic et ses Travaux_ (Fev. 1864) in _Memoires sur
les Mathematiques_.
----: _Le Proces de Galilee_ (Oct. 1877), in _Eloges Academiques,
nouvelle serie_. Paris, 1902.
----: _Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de Kepler_. (Dec. 1863) in
_Memoires de l'Academie des Sciences_, XXXV. Paris, 1866.
Betten, Francis S. (S.J.): _The Roman Index of Forbidden Books briefly
explained for Catholic Booklovers and Students_. 4th edit. enlarged.
St. Louis, 1915.
Beyersdorf, Robert: _Giordano Bruno und Shakespeare_. Leipsic, 1889.
Blavatsky, H.P.: _The Secret Doctrine_. 2 vol. Point Loma, Cal., 1909.
Brewster, David: _Martyrs of Science: Lives of Galileo, Tycho Brahe
and Kepler_. London, 1874.
Bridges, J.H.: _Tycho Brahe_, in _Contemp. Rev._: 81: 196-213 (Feb.
1902).
Brinton, Daniel G. and Davidson, Thomas: _Giordano Bruno, Philosopher
and Martyr_. Philadelphia, 1890.
Burckhardt, F.: _Zur Erinnerungaan Tycho Brahe. Vortrag 23, Oct. 1901,
in den Naturforschen der Gesellschaft in Basel_. Vol. 13, Basel, 1901.
Chasles, Philarete: _Galilei, sa vie, son proces et ses
contemporains_. Paris, 1862.
Conway, Bertrand L. (C.S.P.): _The Condemnation of Galileo_. Pamphlet.
New York, 1913.
Cumont, Franz: _Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans_.
New York, 1912.
Davidson: see Brinton.
De l'Epinois, Henri: _Galilee, son proces, sa condemnation, d'apres
des documents inedits_, in _Revue des Quest. Hist._, III, 68-145.
Paris, 1867.
Desdouits, Theophile: _La Legende Tragique de Jordano Bruno_. Paris,
1885.
Dreyer, J.L.E.: _Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in
the 16th Century_. Edinburgh, 1890.
Eastman, Charles R.: _Earliest Predecessors of Copernicus_, in _Pop.
Sci._ LVIII: 323-327 (April, 1906).
Fahie, J.J.: _Galileo, his Life and Work_. London, 1903.
Flammarion, Camille: _Vie de Copernic et Histoire de la Decouverte du
Systeme du Monde_. Paris, 1872.
Frisch: _Vita Joannis Kepler_ in _Opera Omnia Kepleri_. VIII,
668-1028.
Frith, I.: _Life of Giordano Bruno the Nolan_. London, 1887.
Graux, Charles: _L'Universite de Salamanque_ in _Notices
Bibliographiques_. Paris, 1884.
Haldane, Elizabeth S.: _Descartes, his Life and Times_. London, 1905.
Heath, Thomas L.: _Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus_.
Oxford, 1913.
Holden, E.S.: _Copernicus_ in _Pop. Sci._ LXV: 109-131 (June, 1904.)
La Fuente, (Vicente de): _Historia de las Universidades ... de
Espana_. 2 vol. 1884.
Martin, Henri T.: _Galilee, les Droits de la Science et la Methode des
Sciences Physiques_. Paris, 1868.
McIntyre, J. Lewis: _Giordano Bruno_. London, 1903.
Monchamp, Georges: _Galilee et la Belgique, Essai Historique sur les
Vicissitudes du Systeme du Copernic en Belgique_. Saint-Trond, 1892.
Parchappe, Max: _Galilee, sa Vie, ses Decouvertes et ses Travaux_.
Paris, 1866.
Prowe, Leopold: _Nicolaus Coppernicus_, 3 vol.: I and II, Biography,
1883; III, Sources, 1884. Berlin.
R----: _Beitrage zur Beantwortung der Frage nach der Nationalitaet des
Nicolaus Copernicus_. Pamphlet. Breslau, 1872.
Reusch, F.H.: _Der Process Galilei's und Die Jesuiten_. Bonn, 1879.
Robinson, James Howard: _The Great Comet of 1680: A Study in the
History of Rationalism_. Northfield, Minn., 1916.
Schiaparelli, G.V.: _Die Vorlaufer des Copernicus im Alterthum_,
trans. by M. Curtze. Leipsic, 1876.
----: _Studj Cosmologici: Opinioni e Ricerche degli Antichi sulle
Distance e sulle Grandezze dei Corpi Celesti_. Pamphlet. 1865.
Schwilgue, Charles: _Description Abregee de l'Horloge Astronomique de
la Cathedrale de Strasbourg_, 6me edit. Strasbourg, 1856.
Shields, Charles W.: _The Final Philosophy_. New York, 1877.
Small, Robert: _Account of the Astronomical Discoveries of
Kepler,--including an historical review of the Systems which had
successively prevailed before his time_. London, 1804.
Thayer, William Roscoe: _Throne-Makers_. New York, 1899. Pp. 252-308:
Giordano Bruno: his Trial, Opinions and Death.
Walsh, J.J.: _An Early Allusion to Accurate Methods in Diagnosis_.
Pamphlet. 1909.
Warren, William F.: _The Earliest Cosmologies_. New York, 1909.
Vaughan, Roger Bede: _Life and Labours of S. Thomas of Aquin_. 2 vol.
London, 1871.
Von Gebler, Karl: _Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia_, trans. by
Mrs. Sturge. London, 1879.
Ziegler, Alexander: _Regiomontanus, ein geistiger Vorlaufer des
Columbus_. Dresden. 1874.
III
SOURCES.
_A: Pre-Copernican (chapters I and II)._
Archimedes: _Arenarius_, vol. II in _Opera Omnia_ ed. Heiberg,
Leipsic, 1781.
Aquinas, Thomas: _Summa Theologica_, vol. V in _Opera Omnia ... cum
commentariis ... Caietani...._ Rome, 1889.
Aristotle: _De Mundo_, vol. III in _Opera Omnia_. Paris, 1854.
Augustine: _De Civitate Dei_, vol. XLI in Migne: _Patr. Lat._ (Cf.
trans. in vol. II in Nicene and Post-Nicene Christian Library. New
York, 1903.)
----: _De Genesi_, vol. XXXIV in Migne: _Pair. Lat._
Bacon, Roger: _Opus Tertium_, vol. I in _Opera Quaedam Hactenus
Inedita_, ed. by Brewer. London, 1859.
Capella, Martianus: _De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii et de Septem
Artibus Liberalibus, libri novem_. Ed. by Kopp. Frankfort, 1836.
Cicero: _Academica_, ed. by J.S. Reid, London, 1885. (Cf. trans. by
Yonge in Bohn Classical Library, London, 1902.)
Clement of Alexander: _Stromatum_, vol. III in _Opera Omnia_, Leipsic,
1834 (Cf. trans. by Williams, vol. II in _Writings_, Edinburgh, 1869.)
Cusanus, Nicolaus: _De Docta Ignorantia_, and _Sermones_, in _Opera_.
Basle, [1565.]
Diogenes Laertius: _De Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis_, ed. Cobet.
Paris, 1878. (Cf. trans. by Yonge in Bohn Classical Library, London,
1909.)
St. Dionysius the Areopagite: _De Coelesti Ierarchia_, vol. CXXII in
Migne: _Patr. Lat._
St. Isidore: _De Ordine Creaturarum_, vol. LXXXIII in Migne: _Patr.
Lat._
Lactantius: _Divinarum Institutionum_, vol. VI in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
(Cf. trans. by Fletcher, vol. XXI in Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
Edinburgh, 1871.)
Lombard, Peter: _Sententiae_, vol. CXCII in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
Origen: _De Principiis_, vol. XI in Migne: _Patr. Graec._ (Cf. trans.
vol. X in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh, 1869.)
St. Philastrius: _De Haeeresibus_, vol. XII in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
Philo Judaeus: _De Mundi Creatione_ (vol. I), and _Quis Rerum Divinarum
Haeres_ (vol. IV) in _Opera Omnia_, Erlangae, 1820. (Cf. trans. by
Yonge, London, 1854.)
Plato: _Timaeus_, vol. IV in _Opera_ ed. Burnet, Oxford, [1905.] (Cf.
trans. by Jowett, vol. III of _Dialogues_, 3rd edit. revised. New
York, 1892).
Plutarch: _Moralia_, ed. Bernardakis, Teubner, Leipsic, 1893. (Cf.
trans. ed. by Goodwin, Boston, 1898.)
Ptolemy, Claudius: _Syntaxis Mathematica_, vol. I in _Opera Quae
Supersunt Omnia_, 3 vol., Teubner, Leipsic, 1898. (Cf. trans. into
French by Halma, 2 vol., Paris, 1813.)
Sacro Bosco: _Libellus de Sphaera_, Venice, 1488; Wittenberg, [1537];
Wittenberg, 1545; Paris, 1564; Venice, 1574; Wittenberg, 1578.
Scotus, Joannus: _Depositiones super Ierarchias sancti Dionysii_, vol.
CXXII in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
Seneca: _Naturalium Quaestionum Libros VIII_, ed. Gercke, vol. II in
_Opera quae supersunt_, Teubner, Leipsic, 1907. (Cf. trans. by Clarke,
London, 1910.)
Vitruvius: _De Architectura Libri Decem_, Teubner, Leipsic, 1867. (Cf.
trans. by Gwilt, London, 1880.)
_B: Copernican and Post-Copernican._
Addison, Joseph: _The Spectator, No. 420_, vol. IV in _Works_. New
edit. with notes. 6 vol. London, 1811.
Agricola, Georgius Ludovicus: _De Systemate Mundi Copernico,
Disputatio Astronomica_. Pamphlet. Wittenberg, 1665.
Allaben, see Schoepffer.
"Anglo-American": _Copernicus Refuted: or the True Solar System_.
Pamphlet. Baltimore, 1846.
Bacon, Francis: _Philosophical Works_. Reprinted from texts and
translations of Ellis and Spedding, ed. by Robertson. London, 1905.
Barocio, Francisco: _Cosmographia in quatuor libros_. Venice, 1585.
Bayle, Pierre: _Systeme Abrege de Philosophie_, vol. III in _Oeuvres
Diverses_. 4 vol. The Hague, 1731.
Bodin, Jean: _Universae Naturae Theatrum in quo rerum omnium effectrices
causa et fines contemplantur et continuae series quinque libris
discutiuntur_. Frankfort, 1597.
----: _Universae Naturae Theatrum_, trans. into French by Francois de
Fougerolles. Lyons, 1597.
Boscovich, Rogerio Josepho (S.J.): _De Determinanda Orbita Planetae ope
catoptricae_. Rome, 1749.
----: _Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et Astronomiam_. 5 vol. Bassan,
1785.
Bottrigaro, Hercole: _Trattato della Descrittone della Sfera Celeste
in Piano di Cl. Tolomeo Tradotto in parlare Italiano_. Bologna, 1572.
Brahe, Tychonis: _Opera Omnia, sive Astronomiae Instauratae
Progymnasmata_. Frankfort, 1648.
Browne, Thomas: _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_ in _Works_, ed. by S. Wilkins.
3 vol. London, 1852.
Bruno, Giordano: _De Immenso et Innumerabilis_, in _Opera Latina
Conscripta_, ed. by Fiorentino. Naples, 1884.
----: _La Cena de le Ceneri_, in _Opere Italiane_, ed. by Gentile.
Bari, 1907.
Burnet, Thomas: _The Sacred Theory of the Earth_. 5th Edit., 2 vol.
London, 1722.
Burton, Richard [Transcriber's Note: Robert]: _Anatomy of Melancholy_.
13th edit. corrected, 2 vol. London, 1827.
Calvin, Jean: _Commentaria_ in _Opera Omnia_ in _Corpus Reformatorum_,
vol. LIX. Brunswick, 1887.
----: _Traite ou Avertissement contre l'Astrologie qu'on appelle
Judiciaire et autre curiosites qui regnent aujourd'hui au monde_, in
_Oeuvres Francois_, ed. by P.L. Jacob. Paris, 1842.
Canevari, Petro, Giovannelli, Andrea, Giovannelli, Benedicto: _De
Observationibus Astronomicis. Dissertatio habita in Seminario Romano_.
Rome, 1742.
Cassini, G.D.: _De l'Origine et du Progres de l'Astronomie et de son
usage dans la Geographie et dans la Navigation_, in _Recueil
d'Observations faites en plusieurs voyages par ordre de sa majeste
pour perfectionner l'Astronomie et la Geographie, par MM. de
l'Academie Royale des Sciences_. Paris, 1693.
Cavalieri, Bonaventura: _Sfera Astronomica, Lettore primario delle
Matematiche nello studio di Bologna ... cavate da MS. dell'Autore da
Antonio Manari_. Rome, 1690.
Copernicus, Nicolas: _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, Libri
sex_. Nuernberg, 1543.
----: _Astronomia Instaurata, Libris sex comprehensa, qui De
Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, inscribuntur. Nunc demum post 75
ab obitu authoris annum integritati suae restituta, notisque
illustrata, opera et studio Nicolai Mulerii_. Amsterdam, 1617.
----: _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. Libri Sex. Accedit G.J.
Rhetici Narratio Prima, cum Copernici nonnullis Scriptis minoribus
nunc primum collectis, ejusque vita_. (In Latin and Polish). Warsaw,
1854.
----: _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, Libri Sex_, with
Rheticus, George Joachim: _Narratio Prima_. Thorn, 1873.
----: see also vol. III, Sources, of Prowe: _Nicolaus Coppernicus_.
Cromer, Martin: _De Origine et Rebus Gestibus Polonorum Libri XXX.
Tertium ab authore diligenter recogniti_. Basel, 1568.
----: _Poloniae_, in _Res Publicae sive Status Regni Poloniae, Lituanae,
Prussiae, Livoniae, etc. Diversorum Autorum_. Lugd: Batavorum, 1642.
DuBartas, W. deSaluste: _The Divine Weeks_, trans. by Josuah
Sylvester, (1501) ed. by T.W. Haight. Waukesha, Wis. 1908.
De Brisbar, J.: _Calendrier Historique ... avec un Traite Historique
de la Sphere_. 2me edit. Leyden, 1697.
De Maupertius: _Elements de Geographie_, in _Ouvrages Divers_.
Amsterdam, 1744.
De Premontval, Mme.: _Le Mechaniste Philosophe, Memoir ... de la Vie
et des Ouvrages du Sr. Jean Piegeon, mathematicien, Membre de la
Societe des arts, Auteur des premieres Spheres mouvantes qui ayent ete
faites en France, selon l'hypothese de Copernic_. The Hague, 1750.
DePeyster, J.W., Allaben, F.: _Algol: The "Ghoul" or "Demon" Star, a
Supplement to "The Earth Stands Fast."_ Pamphlet. New York, 1900.
Descartes, Rene: _Les Principes de la Philosophie_, vol. III in
_Oeuvres_ ed. by Cousin. II vol. Paris, 1824.
Di Gallo, Marco Antonio Giovanni Gianesimi: _Opinione sopra il
movimento della Terra e degli Astri_. Pamphlet. Bassano, 1771.
Dobell, John (ed.): _Hymns_. No title-page. Preface dated England,
1806.
Favaro, Antonio: _Galileo e l'Inquisizione, Documenti de Processo
Galileiano ... per la prima volta integralmente pubblicati_. Florence,
1907.
Fenelon, F. de S. de la Mothe: _Traite de l'existence et des attributs
de Dieu_, in vol. I, _Oeuvres_. 3 vol. Paris, 1835.
Ferramosca, Aegidius Leognanus: _Positiones suas Physioastronomicas De
Sphaera Coelesti publice Demonstrandas et Propugnandis in Collegio
Neapolitano Soc. Jesu_. Naples, 1682.
Fienus, Thomas, Fromundus, Liberti: _De Cometa Anni 1618,
Dissertationes. Ejusdem Thomae Fieni Epistolica quaestio, An Verum sit
Coelum moveri, et Terram quiescere?_ London, 1655. Bound with
Fromundus: _Meteorologicorum_.
Fienus, Thomas: _Epistolica quaestio_. See above.
Fontana, Cajetano: _Institutio Physico-Astronomica_. Mutinae, 1695.
Forbes, Duncan: _A Letter to a Bishop concerning some important
Discoveries in Philosophy and Theology_, in _Works_. Dublin, 1755.
Foscarini, Paolo Antonio: _An Epistle Concerning the Pythagorian and
Copernican Opinion of the Mobility of the Earth and Stability of the
Sun ... in which the Authorities of Sacred Scriptures ... are
reconciled. Written to the Most Reverend Father Sebastiano Fontoni,
General of the Order of Carmelites, Jan., 1615, Naples_, in Salusbury:
_Math. Coll._, q.v.
Fromondus, Liberti: _Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis-Terrae Immobilis: Liber
Unicus in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal, an 1616
adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur_. Antwerp, 1631.
----: _Meteorologicorum Libri Sex. Cui accessit in hac ultima Editione
Thomae Fieni et Lib. Fromondi Dissertationes de Cometa Anni 1618, et
Clarorum Virorum Judicia De Pluvia Purpurea Bruxelliensis_. London,
1656.
----: _Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi vindex adversus Iac. Lansbergium ...
in quo Decretum ... 1616 et alterum anno adversus Copernicanos terrae
motores editum, iterum defenditur_. Antwerp, 1634. See also Fienus.
Gadbury, John and Timothy: _George Hartgill's Astronomical Tables_.
London, 1656.
Galilei, Galileo: _Opere_, Edizione Nazionale, ed. by Favaro. 20 vol.
Florence, 1890-1909.
----: _Dialogo sopra i due Massimi sistemi del Monde, Tolemaico, e
Copernicano_. Florence, 1632. Trans. in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._, q.v.
----: _Lettera a Madama Cristina di Lorena, Granduchessa di Toscana_,
in vol. V, _Opere_; trans. in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._, q.v.
----: _Sidereus Nuncius ... atque Medicea Sidera_, in vol. III,
_Opere_.
_Accusation, Condemnation and Abjuration of Galileo Galilei before the
Holy Inquisition at Rome_, 1633. Pamphlet. London, 1819. See also
Favaro.
Gassendi, Petro: _Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis quam Veterum
quam Copernici ac Tychonis_. 3rd edit. Hagae-Comitum, 1656.
----: _Institutio Astronomica...._ 5th edit. London, 1675.
----: _Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis Tam Veterum quam
Recentiorum Cui accesserunt Galileo Galilei; Nuncius Sidereus, et
Johannis Kepleri: Dioptrice_. 3rd edit. corrected. London, 1683.
----: _Vita Tychonis Brahei, Equitis Dani, Astrononum Coryphaei._, 2nd
edit. corrected. Hagae-Comitum, 1655.
George, Earl of Macclesfield: _Speech in the House of Peers, Mar. 18,
1750_. Pamphlet. London, 1751.
Gilbert, William: _De Magnete, Magnetis qui corporibus, et de magno
magnete tellure Physilogia nova_. London, 1600, reprinted Berlin 1892.
Trans. by P.F. Mottelay, New York, 1893.
Herbert, George: _Man_, in _English Works_ ed. by G.H. Palmer, Boston,
1905.
Horne, George: _Commentary on Book of Psalms_. 2 vol. Oxford, 1784.
----: _A Fair, Candid and Impartial State of the Case between Sir
Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson_. Pamphlet. Oxford, 1753.
Hutchinson, John: _Moses's Principia_. London, 1724.
Huygens, Christian: _The Celestial Worlds discover'd. Trans. from the
Latin_. London, 1698.
----: _Nouveau Traite de la Pluralite des Mondes ... traduit du Latin
en Francois par M.D._ Amsterdam, 1718.
_Index Librorum Prohibitorum ... usque 1681_, (appendix to June,
1704). Rome, 1704.
---- _usque 1711_. Rome, 1711.
---- _usque 1744_. Rome, 1744.
---- _usque 1752_. Rome, 1752.
---- _Benedicti XIV_. Rome, 1758.
---- _Pii Sexti_. Rome, 1786.
---- _Pii Septimi_. Rome, 1819.
---- _editum 1835_. Mechlin, 1838.
---- _Gregorii XVI_. Rome, 1841.
---- _Leonis XIII recognitus Pii X_. 3rd edit. Rome, 1911.
Justus-Lipsius: _Physiologiae Stoicorum_, vol. IV, in _Opera Omnia_, 4
vols. Vesaliae, 1674.
Keble, John: _Christian Year_. Ed. by Lock. London, 1895.
Keill, John: _Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam, seu Lectiones
Astronomicae habitae in Schola Astronomica Academiae Oxoniensis_. Oxford,
1718.
Kepler, Joannis: _Opera Omnia_, edidit Frisch. 8 vol. Frankfort a.M.
1858-1871.
----: _Abstract of the "Introduction Upon Mars"_, trans. in Salusbury:
_Math. Coll._, q.v.
----: _Tabulae Rudolphinae ... a Phoenice illo Astronomorum Tychone
... primum concepta ... 1564 ... observatioribus siderum ... post
annum praecipue 1572 ... Traducta in Germaniam ... 1598. Tabulas ipsas
... jussu et stipendiis ... Imp. Rudolphi_. Ulm, 1627.
Kircher, Athanasius (S.J.): _Iter Exstaticum Coeleste_, enlarged by
Gaspare Schotto, S.J. Herbipoli, 1671.
Kromer, see Cromer.
La Galla, Julius Caesar: _De Phoenomenis in Orbe Lunae Novi Telescopii
usu a Gallileo Gallileo. Physica Disputatio_. Venice, 1612.
Lambert: _Systeme du Monde_. 2me edit. Berlin, 1784.
Lange, J.R.L.: _The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurdity in the
History of Human Thought_. No place, 1901.
Leadbetter, Charles: _Astronomy of the Satellites of the Earth,
Jupiter and Saturn, grounded upon Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of the
Earth's Satellites_. London, 1729.
Longomontanus, Christianus: _Astronomica Danica_. Amsterdam, 1640.
Luther, Martin: _Tischreden oder Colloquia_, ed. by Forstemann. 4 vol.
Leipsic, 1846.
Mather, Cotton: _The Christian Philosopher, a Collection of the Best
Discoveries in Nature with Religious Improvements_. London, 1721.
Melancthon, Philip: _Initia Doctrinae Physicae_, 2nd edit. Wittenberg,
1585.
Milton, John: _Areopagitica_, ed. by Hales. Oxford, 1904.
----: _Paradise Lost_, in _Complete Poetical Works_, ed. by Beeching.
London, 1911.
Montaigne, Michel E. de: _Apologie of Raymond Sebonde_, vol. II in
_Essayes_, trans. by Florio. 3 vol. London, 1908.
Moxon, Joseph: _A Tutor to Astronomie and Geographie, or an Easie and
Speedy Way to know the use of both the Globes, Celestial and
Terrestrial_. 2nd edit. London, 1670.
Mulerius, Nicolaus: _Tabulae Friscae Lunae-Solares quadruplices e
fontibus Cl. Ptolemaei, Regis Alfonsi, Nic. Copernici et Tychonis
Brahe_. Amsterdam, 1611.
Piccioli, Gregorio: _La Scienza dei Cieli e dei Corpi Celesti, e loro
meravigliosa Posizione, Moto, e Grandezza: Epilogata colle sue Figure
quattro piu famosi Sistemi dell'Universo Tolemaico, Copernicano,
Ticonico, e Novissimo. Colla patente Dimostrazione della quieta di
nostra Terra, e che poco piu, o meno ci apparisce ella oggidi nella
sua superfizie tal quale era avanti l'Universal Diluvio_. Verona,
1741.
Pike, Samuel: _Philosophica Sacra: or the Principles of Natural
Philosophy extracted from Divine Revelation_. London, 1753.
Pluche: _Histoire du Ciel considere selon les idees des Poetes, des
Philosophes et de Moise_. 2 vol. Paris, 1739.
Pope, Alexander: _Letter_ in vol. VI, _Works_, new edit. by Croker and
Elwin. London, 1871.
Record, Robert: _The Castle of Knowledge_. 3rd edit. London, 1596.
Reisch, Gregorius: _Margarita Filosofica..._ trans. into Italian by
Gallucci. Venice, 1599.
Rheticus, Georgius Joachim: _De Libris Revolutionum ad Joannem
Schoenerum Narratio Prima_, 1539, in Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_,
Thorn, 1873.
Riccioli, Giovanni Baptista (S.J.): _Almagestum Novum, Astronomiam
veterem novamque completens Observationibus Aliorum et Propriis,
Novisque Theorematibus, Problematibus ac Tabulis promotam_. 2 vol.
Bologna, 1651.
----: _Apologia pro Argumento Physicomathematico contra Systema
Copernicanum adiecto contra illud Novo Argumento ex Reflexo motu
Gravium Decidentium_. Venice, 1669.
Spooner, W.W.: _Great Copernican Myth_; a Review of Algol by de
Peyster and Allaben. Pamphlet. Tivoli, N.Y., 1901.
Salusbury, Thomas: _Mathematical Collections and Translations, first
tome_. London, 1661.
Schoepffer, C.: _The Earth Stands Fast_, trans. for and ed. by J.W. de
Peyster with notes and Supplement by Frank Allaben. Pamphlet. New
York, 1900.
Schotto, Gaspar (S.J.): _Organum Mathematicum. Opus Posthumum_,
Herbipoli, 1668.
Simpson, Thomas: _Essays on Several Curious and Useful Subjects in
Speculative and Mix'd Mathematicks_. London, 1740.
Sindico, Pierre: _Refutation du Systeme de Copernic expose en dix-sept
lettres qui ete adressees a feu M. Le Verrier_. Paris, 1878.
Spagnio, Andrea: _De Motu_. Rome, 1774.
Tischner, August: _Le Systeme Solaire se Mouvant_. Pamphlet. Leipsic,
1894.
Toland, John: _Miscellaneous Works_. 2 vol. London, 1747.
Vitali, Hieronymo: _Lexicon Mathematicum_. Rome, 1690.
Voight, Johann-Henrich: _Der Kunstguenstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
Raritaeten Erstes Hundert: Allen Kunstguenstigen zum lustigen und
nutzbaren Gebrauch mit Fleiss und Muehe zusammen geordnet und
furgetragen_. Hamburg, 1668.
Wesley, John: _Sermon_, vol. VII in _Works_. 5th edit. 14 vol. London,
1860.
----: _Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation, or a Compendium of
Natural Philosophy_. 3 vol. in 2. 2nd edit. Bristol, 1770.
Whiston, William: _A New Theory of the Earth_. 4th edit. London, 1725.
Wilkins, G.: _The First Book: The Discovery of a New World_. 3rd edit.
London, 1640.
----: _The Second Book: Discourse concerning a New Planet, that 'tis
probable our Earth is one of the planets_. London, 1640. (Bound with
_First Book_.)
"W.R.": _The New Astronomer, or Astronomy made easy by such
instruments that readily shew by Observation the Stars...._ London,
1735.
INDEX
Addison, J., 91-92.
Agricola, G.L., 77.
Albategnius, 15.
Allaben, F., 103.
Alphonse X of Castile, 15, 119.
Ambrose, 16.
Arabian astronomers, 15, 16, 20, 119.
Archimedes, 11.
Aristarchus of Samos, 11-12n., 13, 27n., 43, 46.
Aristotle, 10, 18, 72, 81, 116, 117, 120, 122, 124.
Augustine, 16, 17, 18.
Bacon, Francis, 50, 72-73.
Bacon, Roger, 20.
Bayle, Pierre, 95-96.
Bellarmin, Cardinal, 56, 58-59, 66.
Benedict XIV, 69.
Bessel, 38, 106.
Bodin, Jean, 45-47, 104-105, 115-123.
Boscovich, 69, 97.
Bossuet, 97.
Bradley, 38, 98.
Browne, Thomas, 87-88.
Bruno, 32, 39, 47-52, 82, 87, 88, 105, 106.
Burton, Richard [Transcriber's Note: Robert], 88.
Calvin, 41, 69, 99.
Cartesian-Copernicans, 85-86, 91, 95, 98, 106.
Cassini, G.D., 96-97.
Castelli, 56, 67.
Church Fathers, 17-18, 117.
Cicero, 11, 12, 27, 111.
Cleanthes, 13.
Clement of Alexandria, 16.
Clement VIII, 124n.
Congregations of the Index, 52, 57-60, 65-71, 74, 79, 83, 101, 106,
113.
Copernicus, 12, 20, 21, 33, 35, 63, 81, 82-83, 88, 90, 99, 100, 102,
104, 109, 118, 124.
name, 23n.
life, 23-29.
theory, 5, 27-28, 64, 66, 68, 97-101, 104, 105-106.
opponents, 32, 35, 39-40, 41, 45-48, 58-60, 69, 71-84, 94, 96,
101-104.
supporters, 30, 31, 35-38, 39, 42-43, 44-45, 48, 49-52, 53-55, 56,
60, 71-72, 74-77, 89-94, 95-96, 97-99.
Dante, 18.
Delambre, 80, 81.
de Maupertius, 96.
de Peyster, J.W., 103.
de Premontval, Mme., 95.
_De Revolutionibus_, 26, 27, 42, 60, 70, 105-106, 109-115.
Descartes, 82, 85, 97.
Didacus a Stunica, 44, 60, 70, 82, 100.
Digges, Thomas, 87n.
Diogenes Laertius, 10.
Dominicus Maria di Novara, 24, 25.
DuBartas, 43.
Fenelon, 97.
Feyens, Thomas, 60, 74, 124-129.
Flammarion, 41.
Forbes, Duncan, 94.
Foscarini, 60, 70, 71-72, 82, 100.
Foucault, 38, 102.
Froidmont, see Fromundus.
Fromundus, 60, 69, 74-75, 82.
Galileo, 16, 37, 52-69, 70, 73, 74-75, 77, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 99,
100, 105, 106, 125.
Gassendi, 82, 91, 97.
Gilbert, Wm., 50, 82, 87.
Greek philosophers, 10-12, 27, 46, 119.
Herbert, George, 88-89.
Hipparchos, 13, 34.
Hicetas, 11, 111.
Horne, George, 94.
Hutchinson, John, 94.
Huygens, Christian, 88, 95.
Index, 52, 60, 69-70, 95, 97, 99, 100.
Inquisition, 51, 52, 56, 57-60, 64-67, 69, 84, 99.
Isidore of Seville, 18.
Jasper, Bro., 99.
Jesuits, 55, 56, 76, 77, 79, 85, 97-98, 100.
Johnson, S., 87.
Justus-Lipsius, 74, 82.
Keble, J., 93.
Keill, J., 90-91.
Kepler, 29, 34, 35-37, 47, 48, 53, 55, 70, 82, 100, 105, 106.
Knap, 102.
Kromer, M., 47n.
Lactantius, 16, 115.
Lalande, 99.
Lange, J.R., 103.
Lansberg, 74-75, 82.
Leo X, 115.
Liege, Univ. of, 76, 97-98.
Longomontanus, 79.
Louvain, Univ. of, 60, 74, 75-77, 86, 98.
Luther, 31, 39, 69, 99.
Lutherans, 101, 103, 105.
Maestlin, 36, 37, 48, 81.
Martianus Capella, 74.
Mather, Cotton, 92.
Melancthon, 31, 39-41, 99.
Milton, 43, 67, 89.
Mivart, 101.
Montaigne, 45.
_Narratio Prima_, 31, 106.
Newton, 37, 67, 86, 87, 90.
Nicolas Cusanus, 22, 23.
Origen, 16.
Osiander, 29, 32.
Owen, J., 89n., 99.
Paul III, 109.
Paul V, 56-60, 63, 69, 83.
Peter Lombard, 18.
Peter the Great, 96.
Philastrius, 17.
Philo Judaeus, 16.
Philolaus, 11, 112.
Piegeon, J., 96.
Pike, S., 94.
Pius VII, 70.
Plato, 10, 122.
Plutarch, 10, 13, 27, 111.
Pope, Alexander, 91, 93.
Pseudo-Dionysius, 18.
Ptolemy, 9n., 13, 14, 81, 107-109, 117, 119, 124.
theory, 5, 16, 19, 27, 35, 53, 54, 66, 80, 83, 85, 96-100.
Puerbach, 21.
Pythagoras, 10, 11, 102.
Pythagoreans, 109, 112.
Recorde, R., 42-43.
Regiomontanus, 20, 21, 81, 117, 119.
Reinhold, Erasmus, 31.
Rheticus, 29-31, 39, 81, 106.
Riccioli, 5, 22, 79-84, 100, 113.
Roberts, 101.
Roemer, 38.
Sacrobosco, 16, 41, 77.
Salamanca, Univ. of, 16, 44.
Schoepffer, C., 102.
Schwilgue, 42.
Settele, 99, 106.
Shakespeare, 50.
Sindico, 103.
Stephen, Leslie, 94.
Thomas Aquinas, 18.
Turrettin, 99.
Turrinus, J., 83.
Tycho Brahe, 14, 32-37, 47, 82, 105.
theory, 34, 48, 74, 77, 79, 80, 85, 96, 98, 102, 105.
Urban VIII, 63-69.
Van Welden, M., 76-77.
Vitruvius, 14.
Voight, J.H., 77-78.
von Schoenberg, N., 30, 39, 110.
Wallis, 84n.
Wesley, J., 93, 99.
Whewell, 16, 89.
Widmanstadt, 30, 39.
Wilkins, Bp., 89-90, 95.
Wren, Dean, 87-88.
Yale, Univ. of, 91.
Zytphen, 102.