initial commit of ebook 35744HEADmain

15 files changed, 21059 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/35744-8.txt b/35744-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..70126c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6920 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the Copernican
+theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The gradual acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe
+
+Author: Dorothy Stimson
+
+Release Date: April 1, 2011 [EBook #35744]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer errors have been corrected
+without note. Other questionable items are marked with a
+[Transcriber's Note].]
+
+
+
+
+The Gradual Acceptance
+
+OF THE
+
+Copernican Theory of the Universe
+
+
+DOROTHY STIMSON, Ph.D.
+
+
+NEW YORK
+1917
+
+COPYRIGHT 1917 BY DOROTHY STIMSON
+
+  Trade Selling Agents
+  The Baker & Taylor Co.,
+  354 Fourth Ave.,
+  New York
+
+
+
+
+TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER
+
+
+
+
+[Illustration: THE SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD IN 1651 ACCORDING TO FATHER
+RICCIOLI
+
+(Reduced facsimile of the frontispiece in Riccioli: _Almagestum
+Novum_. Bologna, 1651.)]
+
+
+EXPLANATION
+
+"Astrea, goddess of the heaven, wearing angel's wings and gleaming
+everywhere with stars, stands at the right; on the left is Argus of
+the hundred eyes, not tense, but indicating by the position of the
+telescope at his knee rather than at the eyes in his head, that while
+observing the work of God's hand, he appears at the same time to be
+worshipping as in genuflexion." (Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._, _Præfatio_,
+xvii). He points to the cherubs in the heavens who hold the planets,
+each with its zodiacal sign: above him at the top is Mars, then
+Mercury in its crescent form, the Sun, and Venus also in the crescent
+phase; on the opposite side are Saturn in its "tripartite" form (the
+ring explanation was yet to be given), the sphere of Jupiter encircled
+by its four satellites, the crescent Moon, its imperfections clearly
+shown, and a comet. Thus Father Riccioli summarized the astronomical
+knowledge of his day. The scrolls quote Psalms 19:2, "Day unto day
+uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge."
+
+Astrea holds in her right hand a balance in which Riccioli's theory of
+the universe (an adaptation of the Tychonic, see p. 68) far outweighs
+the Copernican or heliocentric one. At her feet is the Ptolemaic
+sphere, while Ptolemy himself half lies, half sits, between her and
+Argus, with the comment issuing from his mouth: "I will arise if only
+I am corrected." His left hand rests upon the coat of arms of the
+Prince of Monaco to whom the _Almagestum Novum_ is dedicated.
+
+At the top is the Hebrew _Yah-Veh_, and the hand of God is stretched
+forth in reference to the verse in the Book of Wisdom (10:20): "But
+thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number and weight."
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+  ILLUSTRATIONS                                                      7
+
+  PREFACE                                                            8
+
+
+  PART I. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE HELIOCENTRIC
+  THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
+
+  Chapter I. The Development of Astronomical Thought to 1400:
+  Preliminary Review                                                 9
+
+  Chapter II. Copernicus and his Times                              20
+
+  Chapter III. Later Development and Scientific Defense
+  of the Copernican Theory                                          33
+
+
+  PART II. THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.
+
+  Chapter I. Opinions and Arguments in the Sixteenth Century        39
+
+  Chapter II. Bruno and Galileo                                     49
+
+  Chapter III. The Opposition and their Arguments                   71
+
+  Chapter IV. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory       85
+
+  Chapter V. The Church and the New Astronomy: Conclusion           95
+
+
+  APPENDICES: TRANSLATIONS BY THE WRITER.
+
+  A. Ptolemy: _Almagest_. Bk. I, chap. 7: That the earth has no
+  movement of rotation                                             107
+
+  B. Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, Dedication to the Pope       109
+
+  C. Bodin: _Universæ Naturæ Theatrum_, Bk. V, sections 1 and 2
+  in part, and section 10 entire                                   115
+
+  D. Fienus: _Epistolica Quæstio_: Is it true that the heavens
+  are moved and the earth is at rest?                              124
+
+
+  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                     130
+
+  INDEX                                                            145
+
+
+
+
+ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+
+  Facsimile of the frontispiece "The Systems of the
+  World" in Riccioli: _Almagestum Novum_,
+  1651                                                  _Frontispiece_
+
+  Photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from a
+  copy of Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, as
+  "corrected" in the 17th century according to
+  the directions of the Congregations of the
+  Index in 1620                                                  p. 61
+
+  Photographic facsimile (reduced) of another "corrected"
+  page from the same copy                                       p. 113
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+This study does not belong in the field of astronomy, but in that of
+the history of thought; for it is an endeavor to trace the changes in
+people's beliefs and conceptions in regard to the universe as these
+were wrought by the dissolution of superstition resulting from the
+scientific and rationalist movements. The opening chapter is intended
+to do no more than to review briefly the astronomical theories up to
+the age of Copernicus, in order to provide a background for the better
+comprehension of the work of Copernicus and its effects.
+
+Such a study has been rendered possible only by the generous loan of
+rare books by Professor Herbert D. Foster of Dartmouth College,
+Professor Edwin E. Slosson of Columbia University, Doctor George A.
+Plimpton and Major George Haven Putnam, both of New York, and
+especially by the kindly generosity of Professor David Eugene Smith of
+Teachers College who placed his unique collection of rare mathematical
+books at the writer's disposal and gave her many valuable suggestions
+as to available material. Professors James T. Shotwell and Harold
+Jacoby of Columbia University have read parts of this study in
+manuscript. The writer gratefully acknowledges her indebtedness not
+only to these gentlemen, but to the many others, librarians and their
+assistants, fellow-students and friends, too numerous to mention
+individually, whose ready interest and whose suggestions have been of
+real service, and above all to Professor James Harvey Robinson at
+whose suggestion and under whose guidance the work was undertaken, and
+to the Reverend Doctor Henry A. Stimson whose advice and criticism
+have been an unfailing source of help and encouragement.
+
+
+
+
+PART ONE
+
+AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE HELIOCENTRIC THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASTRONOMICAL THOUGHT TO 1400 A.D.
+
+_A Preliminary Sketch of Early Theories as a Background._
+
+
+The appearances in the heavens have from earliest historic ages filled
+men with wonder and awe; then they gradually became a source of
+questioning, and thinkers sought for explanations of the daily and
+nightly phenomena of sun, moon and stars. Scientific astronomy,
+however, was an impossibility until an exact system of chronology was
+devised.[1] Meanwhile men puzzled over the shape of the earth, its
+position in the universe, what the stars were and why the positions of
+some shifted, and what those fiery comets were that now and again
+appeared and struck terror to their hearts.
+
+[Footnote 1: The earliest observation Ptolemy uses is an Egyptian one
+of an eclipse occurring March 21, 721 B.C. (Cumont: 7). [In these
+references, the Roman numerals refer to the volume, the Arabic to the
+page, except as stated otherwise. The full title is given in the
+bibliography at the back under the author's name.]]
+
+In answer to such questions, the Chaldean thinkers, slightly before
+the rise of the Greek schools of philosophy, developed the idea of the
+seven heavens in their crystalline spheres encircling the earth as
+their center.[2] This conception seems to lie back of both the later
+Egyptian and Hebraic cosmologies, as well as of the Ptolemaic. Through
+the visits of Greek philosophers to Egyptian shores this conception
+helped to shape Greek thought and so indirectly affected western
+civilization. Thus our heritage in astronomical thought, as in many
+other lines, comes from the Greeks and the Romans reaching Europe (in
+part through Arabia and Spain), where it was shaped by the influence
+of the schools down to the close of the Middle Ages when men began
+anew to withstand authority in behalf of observation and were not
+afraid to follow whither their reason led them.
+
+[Footnote 2: Warren: 40. See "Calendar" in Hastings: _Ency. of
+Religion and Ethics_.]
+
+But not all Greek philosophers, it seems,[3] either knew or accepted
+the Babylonian cosmology.[4] According to Plutarch, though Thales
+(640?-546? B.C.) and later the Stoics believed the earth to be
+spherical in form, Anaximander (610-546? B.C.) thought it to be like a
+"smooth stony pillar," Anaximenes (6th cent.) like a "table."
+Beginning with the followers of Thales or perhaps Parmenides (?-500
+B.C.), as Diogenes Laërtius claims,[5] a long line of Greek thinkers
+including Plato (428?-347? B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) placed
+the earth in the center of the universe. Whether Plato held that the
+earth "encircled" or "clung" around the axis is a disputed point;[6]
+but Aristotle claimed it was the fixed and immovable center around
+which swung the spherical universe with its heaven of fixed stars and
+its seven concentric circles of the planets kept in their places by
+their transparent crystalline spheres.[7]
+
+[Footnote 3: For a summary of recent researches, see the preface of
+Heath: _Aristarchus of Samos_. For further details, see Heath: _Op.
+cit._, and the writings of Kugler and Schiaparelli.]
+
+[Footnote 4: See Plutarch: _Moralia: De placitas Philosophorum_, Lib.
+I et II, (V. 264-277, 296-316).]
+
+[Footnote 5: Diogenes Laërtius: _De Vitis_, Lib. IX, c. 3 (252).]
+
+[Footnote 6: Plato: _Timæus_, sec. 39 (III, 459 in Jowett's
+translation).]
+
+[Footnote 7: Aristotle: _De Mundo_, c. 2 et 6 (III, 628 and 636).]
+
+The stars were an even greater problem. Anaximenes thought they were
+"fastened like nails" in a crystalline firmament, and others thought
+them to be "fiery plates of gold resembling pictures."[8] But if the
+heavens were solid, how could the brief presence of a comet be
+explained?
+
+[Footnote 8: Plutarch: _Op. cit._, Lib. III, c. 2 (V, 303-4).]
+
+Among the philosophers were some noted as mathematicians whose leader
+was Pythagoras (c. 550 B.C.). He and at least one of the members of
+his school, Eudoxus (409?-356? B.C.), had visited Egypt, according to
+Diogenes Laërtius,[9] and had in all probability been much interested
+in and influenced by the astronomical observations made by the
+Egyptian priests. On the same authority, Pythagoras was the first to
+declare the earth was round and to discuss the antipodes. He too
+emphasized the beauty and perfection of the circle and of the sphere
+in geometry, forms which became fixed for 2000 years as the fittest
+representations of the perfection of the heavenly bodies.
+
+[Footnote 9: Diogenes Laërtius: _De Vitis_, Lib. VIII, c. 1, et 8
+(205, 225).]
+
+There was some discussion in Diogenes' time as to the author of the
+theory of the earth's motion of axial rotation. Diogenes[10] gives the
+honor to Philolaus (5th cent. B.C.) one of the Pythagoreans, though he
+adds that others attribute it to Icetas of Syracuse (6th or 5th cent.
+B.C.). Cicero, however, states[11] the position of Hicetas of Syracuse
+as a belief in the absolute fixedness of all the heavenly bodies
+except the earth, which alone moves in the whole universe, and that
+its rapid revolutions upon its own axis cause the heavens apparently
+to move and the earth to stand still.
+
+[Footnote 10: Diogenes: _Op. cit._, Lib. VIII, c. 7 (225).]
+
+[Footnote 11: Cicero: _Academica_, Lib. II, c. 39 (322).]
+
+Other thinkers of Syracuse may also have felt the Egyptian influence;
+for one of the greatest of them, Archimedes (c. 287-212 B.C.), stated
+the theory of the earth's revolution around the sun as enunciated by
+Aristarchus of Samos. (Perhaps this is the "hearth-fire of the
+universe" around which Philolaus imagined the earth to whirl.[12]) In
+_Arenarius_, a curious study on the possibility of expressing infinite
+sums by numerical denominations as in counting the sands of the
+universe, Archimedes writes:[13] "For you have known that the universe
+is called a sphere by several astrologers, its center the center of
+the earth, and its radius equal to a line drawn from the center of the
+sun to the center of the earth. This was written for the unlearned, as
+you have known from the astrologers.... [Aristarchus of Samos][14]
+concludes that the world is many times greater than the estimate we
+have just given. He supposes that the fixed stars and the sun remain
+motionless, but that the earth following a circular course, revolves
+around the sun as a center, and that the sphere of the fixed stars
+having the same sun as a center, is so vast that the circle which he
+supposes the earth to follow in revolving holds the same ratio to the
+distance of the fixed stars as the center of a sphere holds to its
+circumference."
+
+[Footnote 12: Plutarch: _Op. cit._, Lib. II (V. 299-300).]
+
+[Footnote 13: Archimedes: _Arenarius_, c. 1. Delambre: _Astr. Anc._,
+I, 102.]
+
+[Footnote 14: This is the only account of his system. Even the age in
+which he flourished is so little known that there have been many
+disputes whether he was the original inventor of this system or
+followed some other. He was probably a contemporary of Cleanthes the
+Stoic in the 3rd century B.C. He is mentioned also by Ptolemy,
+Diogenes Laërtius and Vitruvius. (Schiaparelli: _Die Vorlaufer des
+Copernicus im Alterthum_, 75. See also Heath: _Op. cit._)]
+
+These ancient philosophers realized in some degree the immensity of
+the universe in which the earth was but a point. They held that the
+earth was an unsupported sphere the size of which Eratosthenes (c.
+276-194 B.C.) had calculated approximately. They knew the sun was far
+larger than the earth, and Cicero with other thinkers recognized the
+insignificance of earthly affairs in the face of such cosmic
+immensity. They knew too about the seven planets, had studied their
+orbits, and worked out astronomical ways of measuring the passage of
+time with a fair amount of accuracy. Hipparchus and other thinkers had
+discovered the fact of the precession of the equinoxes, though there
+was no adequate theory to account for it until Copernicus formulated
+his "motion of declination." The Pythagoreans accepted the idea of the
+earth's turning upon its axis, and some even held the idea of its
+revolution around the motionless sun. Others suggested that comets had
+orbits which they uniformly followed and therefore their reappearance
+could be anticipated.[15]
+
+[Footnote 15: Plutarch: _Op. cit._: Bk. III, c. 2 (V, 317-318).]
+
+Why then was the heliocentric theory not definitely accepted?
+
+In the first place, such a theory was contrary to the supposed facts
+of daily existence. A man did not have to be trained in the schools to
+observe that the earth seemed stable under his feet and that each
+morning the sun swept from the east to set at night in the west.
+Sometimes it rose more to the north or to the south than at other
+times. How could that be explained if the sun were stationary?
+
+Study of the stars was valuable for navigators and for surveyors,
+perhaps, but such disturbing theories should not be propounded by
+philosophers. Cleanthes,[16] according to Plutarch,[17] "advised that
+the Greeks ought to have prosecuted Aristarchus the Samian for
+blasphemy against religion, as shaking the very foundations of the
+world, because this man endeavoring to save appearances, supposed that
+the heavens remained immovable and that the earth moved through an
+oblique circle, at the same time turning about its own axis." Few
+would care to face their fellows as blasphemers and impious thinkers
+on behalf of an unsupported theory. Eighteen hundred years later
+Galileo would not do so, even though in his day the theory was by no
+means unsupported by observation.
+
+[Footnote 16: The Stoic contemporary of Aristarchus, author of the
+famous Stoic hymn. See Diogenes Laërtius: _De Vitis_.]
+
+[Footnote 17: Plutarch: _De Facie in Orbe Lunæ_, (V, 410).]
+
+Furthermore, one of the weaknesses of the Greek civilization militated
+strongly against the acceptance of this hypothesis so contrary to the
+evidence of the senses. Experimentation and the development of applied
+science was practically an impossibility where the existence of slaves
+made manual labor degrading and shameful. Men might reason
+indefinitely; but few, if any, were willing to try to improve the
+instruments of observation or to test their observations by
+experiments.
+
+At the same time another astronomical theory was developing which was
+an adequate explanation for the phenomena observed up to that
+time.[18] This theory of epicycles and eccentrics worked out by
+Apollonius of Perga (c. 225 B.C.) and by Hipparchus (c. 160 B.C.) and
+crystallized for posterity in Ptolemy's great treatise on astronomy,
+the _Almagest_, (c. 140 A.D.) became the fundamental principle of the
+science until within the last three hundred years. The theory of the
+eccentric was based on the idea that heavenly bodies Following
+circular orbits revolved around a center that did not coincide with
+that of the observer on the earth. That would explain why the sun
+appeared sometimes nearer the earth and sometimes farther away. The
+epicycle represented the heavenly body as moving along the
+circumference of one circle (called the epicycle) the center of which
+moves on another circle (the deferent). With better observations
+additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly
+observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a
+
+                                  "----Sphere
+    With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,
+    Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb"--[19]
+
+[Footnote 18: Young: 109.]
+
+[Footnote 19: Milton: _Paradise Lost_, Bk. VIII, ll. 82-85.]
+
+Yet the heliocentric theory was not forgotten. Vitruvius, a famous
+Roman architect of the Augustan Age, discussing the system of the
+universe, declared that Mercury and Venus, the planets nearest the
+sun, moved around it as their center, though the earth was the center
+of the universe.[20] This same notion recurs in Martianus Capella's
+book[21] in the fifth century A.D. and again, somewhat modified, in
+the 16th century in Tycho Brahe's conception of the universe.
+
+[Footnote 20: Vitruvius: _De Architectura_, Lib. IX, c. 4 (220).]
+
+[Footnote 21: Martianus Capella: _De Nuptiis_, Lib. VIII, (668).]
+
+Ptolemy devotes a column or two of his _Almagest_[22] (to use the
+familiar Arabic name for his _Syntaxis Mathematica_) to the refutation
+of the heliocentric theory, thereby preserving it for later ages to
+ponder on and for a Copernicus to develop. He admits at the outset
+that such a theory is only tenable for the stars and their phenomena,
+and he gives at least three reasons why it is ridiculous. If the earth
+were not at the center, the observed facts of the seasons and of day
+and night would be disturbed and even upset. If the earth moves, its
+vastly greater mass would gain in speed upon other bodies, and soon
+animals and other lighter bodies would be left behind unsupported in
+the air--a notion "ridiculous to the last degree," as he comments,
+"even to imagine it." Lastly, if it moves, it would have such
+tremendous velocity that stones or arrows shot straight up in the air
+must fall to the ground east of their starting point,--a "laughable
+supposition" indeed to Ptolemy.
+
+[Footnote 22: Ptolemy: _Almagest_, Lib. I, c. 7, (1, 21-25).
+Translated in Appendix B.]
+
+This book became the great text of the Middle Ages; its author's name
+was given to the geocentric theory it maintained. Astronomy for a
+thousand years was valuable only to determine the time of Easter and
+other festivals of the Church, and to serve as a basis for astrology
+for the mystery-loving people of Europe.
+
+To the Arabians in Syria and in Spain belongs the credit of preserving
+for Europe during this long period the astronomical works of the
+Greeks, to which they added their own valuable observations of the
+heavens--valuable because made with greater skill and better
+instruments,[23] and because with these observations later scientists
+could illustrate the permanence or the variability of important
+elements. They also discovered the so-called "trepidation" or apparent
+shifting of the fixed stars to explain which they added another sphere
+to Ptolemy's eight. Early in the sixth century Uranus translated
+Aristotle's works into Syrian, and this later was translated into
+Arabic.[24] Albategnius[25] (c. 850-829 [Transcriber's Note: 929]
+A.D.), the Arabian prince who was the greatest of all their
+astronomers, made his observations from Aracte and Damascus, checking
+up and in some cases amending Ptolemy's results.[26]
+
+[Footnote 23: Whewell: I, 239.]
+
+[Footnote 24: Whewell: I, 294.]
+
+[Footnote 25: Berry: 79.]
+
+[Footnote 26: His book _De Motu Stellarum_, translated into Latin by
+Plato Tiburtinus (fl. 1116) was published at Nuremberg (1557) by
+Melancthon with annotations by Regiomontanus. _Ency. Brit._ 11th.
+Edit.]
+
+Then the center of astronomical development shifted from Syria to
+Spain and mainly through this channel passed on into Western Europe.
+The scientific fame of Alphonse X of Castile (1252-1284 A.D.) called
+the Wise, rests chiefly upon his encouragement of astronomy. With his
+support the Alfonsine Tables were calculated. He is said[27] to have
+summoned fifty learned men from Toledo, Cordova and Paris to translate
+into Spanish the works of Ptolemy and other philosophers. Under his
+patronage the University of Salamanca developed rapidly to become
+within two hundred years one of the four great universities of
+Europe[28]--a center for students from all over Europe and the
+headquarters for new thought, where Columbus was sheltered,[29] and
+later the Copernican system was accepted and publicly taught at a time
+when Galileo's views were suppressed.[30]
+
+[Footnote 27: Vaughan: I, 281.]
+
+[Footnote 28: Graux: 318.]
+
+[Footnote 29: Graux: 319.]
+
+[Footnote 30: Rashdall: II, pt. I, 77.]
+
+Popular interest in astronomy was evidently aroused, for Sacrobosco
+(to give John Holywood[31] his better known Latin name) a Scotch
+professor at the Sorbonne in Paris in the 13th century, published a
+small treatise _De Sphæri Mundo_ that was immensely popular for
+centuries,[32] though it was practically only an abstract of the
+_Almagest_. Whewell[33] tells of a French poem of the time of Edward I
+entitled _Ymage du Monde_, which gave the Ptolemaic view and was
+illustrated in the manuscript in the University of Cambridge with a
+picture of the spherical earth with men upright on it at every point,
+dropping balls down perforations in the earth to illustrate the
+tendency of all things toward the center. Of the same period (13th
+century) is an Arabian compilation in which there is a reference to
+another work, the book of Hammarmunah the Old, stating that "the earth
+turns upon itself in the form of a circle, and that some are on top,
+the others below ... and there are countries in which it is constantly
+day or in which at least the night continues only some instants."[34]
+Apparently, however, such advanced views were of no influence, and the
+Ptolemaic theory remained unshaken down to the close of the 15th
+century.
+
+[Footnote 31: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._]
+
+[Footnote 32: MSS. of it are extremely numerous. It was the second
+astronomical book to be printed, the first edition appearing at
+Ferrara in 1472. 65 editions appeared before 1647. It was translated
+into Italian, French, German, and Spanish, and had many commentators.
+_Dict. of Nat. Biog._]
+
+[Footnote 33: Whewell: I, 277.]
+
+[Footnote 34: Blavatski: II, 29, note.]
+
+Aside from the adequacy of this explanation of the universe for the
+times, the attitude of the Church Fathers on the matter was to a
+large degree responsible for this acquiescence. Early in the first
+century A.D., Philo Judæus[35] emphasized the minor importance of
+visible objects compared with intellectual matters,--a foundation
+stone in the Church's theory of an homocentric universe. Clement of
+Alexandria (c. 150 A.D.) calls the heavens solid since what is solid
+is capable of being perceived by the senses.[36] Origen (c. 185-c.
+254.) has recourse to the Holy Scriptures to support his notion that
+the sun, moon, and stars are living beings obeying God's commands.[37]
+Then Lactantius thunders against those who discuss the universe as
+comparable to people discussing "the character of a city they have
+never seen, and whose name only they know." "Such matters cannot be
+found out by inquiry."[38] The existence of the antipodes and the
+rotundity of the earth are "marvelous fictions," and philosophers are
+"defending one absurd opinion by another"[39] when in explanation why
+bodies would not fall off a spherical earth, they claim these are
+borne to the center.
+
+[Footnote 35: Philo Judæus: _Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres._ (IV, 7).]
+
+[Footnote 36: Clement of Alexandria: _Stromatum_, Lib. V, c. 14, (III,
+67).]
+
+[Footnote 37: Origen: _De Principiis_, Lib. I, c. 7, (XI, 171).]
+
+[Footnote 38: Lactantius: _Divinarum Institutionum_, Lib. III, c. 3
+(VI, 355).]
+
+[Footnote 39: Ibid: Lib. III, c. 24, (VI, 425-428).]
+
+How clearly even this brief review illustrates what Henry Osborn
+Taylor calls[40] the fundamental principles of patristic faith: that
+the will of God is the one cause of all things (voluntate Dei
+immobilis manet et stat in sæculum terra.[41] Ambrose: _Hexæmeron_.)
+and that this will is unsearchable. He further points out that
+Augustine's and Ambrose's sole interest in natural fact is as
+"confirmatory evidence of Scriptural truth." The great Augustine
+therefore denies the existence of antipodes since they could not be
+peopled by Adam's children.[42] He indifferently remarks
+elsewhere:[43] "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a
+sphere enclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on
+either side?" Augustine does, however, dispute the claims of
+astrologers accurately to foretell the future by the stars, since the
+fates of twins or those born at the same moment are so diverse.[44]
+
+[Footnote 40: Taylor: _Mediæval Mind_, I, 74.]
+
+[Footnote 41: By the will of God the earth remains motionless and
+stands throughout the age.]
+
+[Footnote 42: Augustine: _De Civitate Dei_, Lib. XVI, c. 9, (41, p.
+437).]
+
+[Footnote 43: Augustine: _De Genesi_, II, c. 9, (v. 34, p. 270).
+(White's translation).]
+
+[Footnote 44: Augustine: _Civitate Dei_, Lib. V, c. 5, (v. 41, p.
+145).]
+
+Philastrius (d. before 397 A.D.) dealing with various heresies,
+denounces those who do not believe the stars are fixed in the heavens
+as "participants in the vanity of pagans and the foolish opinions of
+philosophers," and refers to the widespread idea of the part the
+angels play in guiding and impelling the heavenly bodies in their
+courses.[45]
+
+[Footnote 45: Philastrius: _De Hæresibus_, c. 133, (v. 12, p. 1264).]
+
+It would take a brave man to face such attitudes of scornful
+indifference on the one hand and denunciation on the other, in support
+of a theory the Church considered heretical.
+
+Meanwhile the Church was developing the homocentric notion which
+would, of course, presuppose the central position in the universe for
+man's abiding place. In the pseudo-Dionysius[46] is an elaborately
+worked out hierarchy of the beings in the universe that became the
+accepted plan of later centuries, best known to modern times through
+Dante's blending of it with the Ptolemaic theory in the _Divine
+Comedy_.[47] Isidore of Seville taught that the universe was created
+to serve man's purposes,[48] and Peter Lombard (12th cent.) sums up
+the situation in the definite statement that man was placed at the
+center of the universe to be served by that universe and in turn
+himself to serve God.[49] Supported by the mighty Thomas Aquinas[50]
+this became a fundamental Church doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 46: Pseudo-Dionysius: _De Coelesti Ierarchia_, (v. 122, p.
+10354).]
+
+[Footnote 47: Milman: VIII, p. 228-9. See the _Paradiso_.]
+
+[Footnote 48: Isidore of Seville: _De Ordine Creaturarum_, c. 5, sec.
+3, (v. 83, p. 923).]
+
+[Footnote 49: Lombard: _Sententia_, Bk. II, Dist. I, sec. 8, (v. 192,
+p. 655).]
+
+[Footnote 50: Aquinas: _Summa Theologica_, pt. I, qu. 70, art. 2.
+(_Op. Om. Caietani_, V, 179).]
+
+An adequate explanation of the universe existed. Aristotle, Augustine,
+and the other great authorities of the Middle Ages, all upheld the
+conception of a central earth encircled by the seven planetary spheres
+and by the all embracing starry firmament. In view of the phrases used
+in the Bible about the heavens, and in view of the formation of
+fundamental theological doctrines based on this supposition by the
+Church Fathers, is it surprising that any other than a geocentric
+theory seemed untenable, to be dismissed with a smile when not
+denounced as heretical? Small wonder is it, in the absence of the
+present day mechanical devices for the exact measurement of time and
+space as aids to observation, that the Ptolemaic, or geocentric,
+theory of the universe endured through centuries as it did, upheld by
+the authority both of the Church and, in essence at least, by the
+great philosophers whose works constituted the teachings of the
+schools.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+COPERNICUS AND HIS TIMES.
+
+
+During these centuries, one notable scholar at least stood forth in
+open hostility to the slavish devotion to Aristotle's writings and
+with hearty appreciation for the greater scientific accuracy of
+"infidel philosophers among the Arabians, Hebrews and Greeks."[51] In
+his _Opus Tertium_ (1267), Roger Bacon also pointed out how inaccurate
+were the astronomical tables used by the Church, for in 1267,
+according to these tables "Christians will fast the whole week
+following the true Easter, and will eat flesh instead of fasting at
+Quadragesima for a week--which is absurd," and thus Christians are
+made foolish in the eyes of the heathen.[52] Even the rustic, he
+added, can observe the phases of the moon occurring a week ahead of
+the date set by the calendar.[53] Bacon's protests were unheeded,
+however, and the Church continued using the old tables which grew
+increasingly inaccurate with each year. Pope Sixtus IV sought to
+reform the calendar two centuries later with the aid of Regiomontanus,
+then the greatest astronomer in Europe (1475);[54] the Lateran Council
+appealed to Copernicus for help (1514), but little could be done, as
+Copernicus replied, till the sun's and the moon's positions had been
+observed far more precisely;[55] and the modern scientific calendar
+was not adopted until 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.
+
+[Footnote 51: Roger Bacon: _Opus Tertium_, 295, 30-31.]
+
+[Footnote 52: Ibid: 289.]
+
+[Footnote 53: Ibid: 282.]
+
+[Footnote 54: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 365.]
+
+[Footnote 55: Prowe: II, 67-70.]
+
+What was the state of astronomy in the century of Copernicus's birth?
+Regiomontanus--to use Johann Müller's Latin name--his teacher Pürbach,
+and the great cardinal Nicolas of Cues were the leading astronomers of
+this fifteenth century. Pürbach[56] (1432-1462) died before he had
+fulfilled the promise of his youth, leaving his _Epitome of Ptolemy's
+Almagest_ to be completed by his greater pupil. In his _Theorica
+Planetarum_ (1460) Pürbach sought to explain the motions of the
+planets by placing each planet between the walls of two curved
+surfaces with just sufficient space in which the planet could move. As
+M. Delambre remarked:[57] "These walls might aid the understanding,
+but one must suppose them transparent; and even if they guided the
+planet as was their purpose, they hindered the movement of the comets.
+Therefore they had to be abandoned, and in our own modern physics they
+are absolutely superfluous; they have even been rather harmful, since
+they interfered with the slight irregularities caused by the force of
+attraction in planetary movements which observations have disclosed."
+This scheme gives some indication of the elaborate devices scholars
+evolved in order to cope with the increasing number of seeming
+irregularities observed in "the heavens," and perhaps it makes clearer
+why Copernicus was so dissatisfied with the astronomical hypothesis of
+his day, and longed for some simpler, more harmonious explanation.
+
+[Footnote 56: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 262-272.]
+
+[Footnote 57: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 272.]
+
+Regiomontanus[58] (1436-1476) after Pürbach's death, continued his
+work, and his astronomical tables (pub. 1475) were in general use
+throughout Europe till superseded by the vastly more accurate
+Copernican Tables a century later. It has been said[59] that his fame
+inspired Copernicus (born three years before the other's death in
+1476) to become as great an astronomer. M. Delambre hails him as the
+wisest astronomer Europe had yet produced[60] and certainly his renown
+was approached only by that of the great Cardinal.
+
+[Footnote 58: It has been claimed that Regiomontanus knew of the
+earth's motion around the sun a hundred years before Copernicus; but a
+German writer has definitely disproved this claim by tracing it to its
+source in Schöner's _Opusculum Geographicum_ (1553) which states only
+that he believed in the earth's axial rotation. Ziegler: 62.]
+
+[Footnote 59: Ibid: 62.]
+
+[Footnote 60: Delambre: _Op. cit._: 365.]
+
+Both Janssen,[61] the Catholic historian, and Father Hagen[62] of the
+Vatican Observatory, together with many other Catholic writers, claim
+that a hundred years before Copernicus, Cardinal Nicolas Cusanus[63]
+(c. 1400-1464) had the courage and independence to uphold the theory
+of the earth's motion and its rotation on its axis. As Father Hagen
+remarked: "Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would
+probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental
+work." But the Cardinal stated these views of the earth's motions in a
+mystical, hypothetical way which seems to justify the marginal heading
+"Paradox" (in the edition of 1565).[64] And unfortunately for these
+writers, the Jesuit father, Riccioli, the official spokesman of that
+order in the 17th century after Galileo's condemnation, speaking of
+this paradox, called attention, also, to a passage in one of the
+Cardinal's sermons as indicating that the latter had perhaps
+"forgotten himself" in the _De Docta Ignorantia_, or that this paradox
+"was repugnant to him, or that he had thought better of it."[65] The
+passage he referred to is as follows: "Prayer is more powerful than
+all created things. Although angels, or some kind of beings, move the
+spheres, the Sun and the stars; prayer is more powerful than they are,
+since it impedes motion, as when the prayer of Joshua made the Sun
+stand still."[66] This may explain why Copernicus apparently
+disregarded the Cardinal's paradox, for he made no reference to it in
+his book; and the statement itself, to judge by the absence of
+contemporary comment, aroused no interest at the time. But of late
+years, the Cardinal's position as stated in the _De Docta Ignorantia_
+has been repeatedly cited as an instance of the Church's friendly
+attitude toward scientific thought,[67] to show that Galileo's
+condemnation was due chiefly to his "contumacy and disobedience."
+
+[Footnote 61: Janssen: _Hist. of Ger._, I, 5.]
+
+[Footnote 62: _Cath. Ency._: "Cusanus."]
+
+[Footnote 63: From Cues near Treves.]
+
+[Footnote 64: Cusanus: _De Docta Ignorantia_, Bk. II, c. 11-12:
+"Centrum igitur mundi, coincideret cum circumferentiam, nam si centrum
+haberet et circumferentiam, et sic intra se haberet suum initium et
+finem et esset ad aliquid aliud ipse mundus terminatus, et extra
+mundum esset aluid et locus, quæ omnia veritate carent. Cum igitur non
+sit possibile, mundum claudi intra centrum corporale et
+circumferentiam, non intelligitur mundus, cuius centrum et
+circumferentia sunt Deus: et cum hic non sit mundus infinitus, tamen
+non potest concipi finitus, cum terminis careat, intra quos claudatur.
+Terra igitur, quæ centrum esse nequit, motu omni carere non potest,
+nam eam moveri taliter etiam necesse est, quod per infinitum minus
+moveri posset. Sicut igitur terra non est centram mundi.... Unde licet
+terra quasi stella sit, propinquior polo centrali, tamen movetur, et
+non describit minimum circulum in motu, ut est ostensum.... Terræ
+igitur figura est mobilis et sphærica et eius motus circularis, sed
+perfectior esse posset. Et quia maximum in perfectionibus motibus, et
+figuris in mundo non est, ut ex iam dictis patent: tunc non est verum
+quod terra ista sit vilissima et infima, nam quamvis videatur
+centralior, quo'ad mundum, est tamen etiam, eadem ratione polo
+propinquior, ut est dictum." (pp. 38-39).]
+
+[Footnote 65: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._, II, 292.]
+
+[Footnote 66: Cusanus: _Opera_, 549: Excitationum, Lib. VII, ex
+sermone: _Debitores sumus_: "Est enim oratio, omnibus creaturis
+potentior. Nam angeli seu intelligentiæ, movent orbes, Solem et
+stellas: sed oratio potentior, quia impedit motum, sicut oratio Josuæ,
+fecit sistere Solem."]
+
+[Footnote 67: Di Bruno: 284, 286a; Walsh: _An Early Allusion_, 2-3.]
+
+Copernicus[68] himself was born in Thorn on February 19, 1473,[69]
+seven years after that Hansa town founded by the Teutonic Order in
+1231 had come under the sway of the king of Poland by the Second Peace
+of Thorn.[70] His father,[71] Niklas Koppernigk, was a wholesale
+merchant of Cracow who had removed to Thorn before 1458, married
+Barbara Watzelrode of an old patrician Thorn family, and there had
+served as town councillor for nineteen years until his death in
+1483.[72] Thereupon his mother's brother, Lucas Watzelrode, later
+bishop of Ermeland, became his guardian, benefactor and close
+friend.[73]
+
+[Footnote 68: _Nicolaus Coppernicus_ (Berlin, 1883-4; 3 vol.; Pt. I,
+Biography, Pt. II, Sources), by Dr. Leopold Prowe gives an exhaustive
+account of all the known details in regard to Copernicus collected
+from earlier biographers and tested most painstakingly by the
+documentary evidence Dr. Prowe and his fellow-workers unearthed during
+a lifetime devoted to this subject. (_Allgemeine Deutsche
+Biographie._) The manuscript authority Dr. Prowe cites (Prowe: I,
+19-27 and footnotes), requires the double p in Copernicus's name, as
+Copernicus himself invariably used the two p's in the Latinized form
+_Coppernic_ without the termination _us_, and usually when this
+termination was added. Also official records and the letters from his
+friends usually give the double p; though the name is found in many
+variants--Koppernig, Copperinck, etc. His signatures in his books, his
+name in the letter he published in 1509, and the Latin form of it used
+by his friends all bear testimony to his use of the double p. But
+custom has for so many centuries sanctioned the simpler spelling, that
+it seems unwise not to conform in this instance to the time-honored
+usage.]
+
+[Footnote 69: Prowe: I, 85.]
+
+[Footnote 70: _Ency. Brit._: "Thorn."]
+
+[Footnote 71: Prowe: I, 47-53.]
+
+[Footnote 72: These facts would seem to justify the Poles today in
+claiming Copernicus as their fellow-countryman by right of his
+father's nationality and that of his native city. Dr. Prowe, however,
+claims him as a "Prussian" both because of his long residence in the
+Prussian-Polish bishopric of Ermeland, and because of Copernicus's own
+reference to Prussia as "unser lieber Vaterland." (Prowe: II, 197.)]
+
+[Footnote 73: Prowe: I, 73-82.]
+
+After the elementary training in the Thorn school,[74] the lad entered
+the university at Cracow, his father's former home, where he studied
+under the faculty of arts from 1491-1494.[75] Nowhere else north of
+the Alps at this time were mathematics and astronomy in better
+standing than at this university.[76] Sixteen teachers taught these
+subjects there during the years of Copernicus's stay, but no record
+exists of his work under any of them.[77] That he must have studied
+these two sciences there, however, is proved by Rheticus's remark in
+the _Narratio Prima_[78] that Copernicus, after leaving Cracow, went
+to Bologna to work with Dominicus Maria di Novara "non tarn discipulus
+quam adjutor." He left Cracow without receiving a degree,[79] returned
+to Thorn in 1494 when he and his family decided he should enter the
+Church after first studying in Italy.[80] Consequently he crossed the
+Alps in 1496 and was that winter matriculated at Bologna in the
+"German nation."[81] The following summer he received word of his
+appointment to fill a vacancy among the canons of the cathedral
+chapter at Ermeland where his uncle had been bishop since 1489.[82] He
+remained in Italy, however, about ten years altogether, studying civil
+law at Bologna, and canon law and medicine at Padua,[83] yet receiving
+his degree as doctor of canon law from the university of Ferrara in
+1503.[84] He was also in Rome for several months during the Jubilee
+year, 1500.
+
+[Footnote 74: Ibid: I, 111.]
+
+[Footnote 75: Ibid: I, 124-129.]
+
+[Footnote 76: Ibid: I, 137.]
+
+[Footnote 77: Ibid: I, 141-143.]
+
+[Footnote 78: Rheticus: _Narratio Prima_, 448 (Thorn edit.).]
+
+[Footnote 79: Prowe: I, 154.]
+
+[Footnote 80: Ibid: I, 169.]
+
+[Footnote 81: Ibid: I, 174.]
+
+[Footnote 82: Ibid: I, 175. This insured him an annual income which
+amounted to a sum equalling about $2250 today. Later he received a
+sinecure appointment besides at Breslau. (Holden in _Pop. Sci._,
+111.)]
+
+[Footnote 83: Prowe: I, 224.]
+
+[Footnote 84: Ibid: I, 308.]
+
+At this period the professor of astronomy at Bologna was the famous
+teacher Dominicus Maria di Novara (1454-1504), a man "ingenio et animo
+liber" who dared to attack the immutability of the Ptolemaic system,
+since his own observations, especially of the Pole Star, differed by a
+degree and more from the traditional ones.[85] He dared to criticise
+the long accepted system and to emphasize the Pythagorean notion of
+the underlying harmony and simplicity in nature[86]; and from him
+Copernicus may have acquired these ideas, for whether they lived
+together or not in Bologna, they were closely associated. It was here,
+too, that Copernicus began his study of Greek which later was to be
+the means[87] of encouraging him in his own theorizing by acquainting
+him with the ancients who had thought along similar lines.
+
+[Footnote 85: Ibid: I, 240 and note. Little is known about him today,
+except that he was primarily an observer, and was highly esteemed by
+his immediate successors; see Gilbert: _De Magnete_.]
+
+[Footnote 86: Clerke in _Ency. Brit._, "Novara."]
+
+[Footnote 87: Prowe: I, 249.]
+
+In the spring of the year (1501) following his visit to Rome,[88]
+Copernicus returned to the Chapter at Frauenburg to get further leave
+of absence to study medicine at the University of Padua.[89] Whether
+he received a degree at Padua or not and how long he stayed there are
+uncertain points.[90] He was back in Ermeland early in 1506.
+
+[Footnote 88: Prowe: I, 279.]
+
+[Footnote 89: Ibid, 294.]
+
+[Footnote 90: Ibid: I, 319.]
+
+His student days were ended. And now for many years he led a very
+active life, first as companion and assistant to his uncle the Bishop,
+with whom he stayed at Schloss Heilsberg till after the Bishop's death
+in 1512; then as one of the leading canons of the chapter at
+Frauenburg, where he lived most of the rest of his life.[91] As the
+chapter representative for five years (at intervals) he had oversight
+of the spiritual and temporal affairs of two large districts in the
+care of the chapter.[92] He went on various diplomatic and other
+missions to the King of Poland,[93] to Duke Albrecht of the Teutonic
+Order,[94] and to the councils of the German states.[95] He wrote a
+paper of considerable weight upon the much needed reform of the
+Prussian currency.[96] His skill as a physician was in demand not only
+in his immediate circle[97] but in adjoining countries, Duke Albrecht
+once summoning him to Königsberg to attend one of his courtiers.[98]
+He was a humanist as well as a Catholic Churchman, and though he did
+not approve of the Protestant Revolt, he favored reform and
+toleration.[99] Gassendi claims that he was also a painter, at least
+in his student days, and that he painted portraits well received by
+his contemporaries.[100] But his interest and skill in astronomy must
+have been recognized early in his life for in 1514 the committee of
+the Lateran Council in charge of the reform of the calendar summoned
+him to their aid.[101]
+
+[Footnote 91: Prowe: I, 335-380.]
+
+[Footnote 92: Ibid: II, 75-110, 116, 124.]
+
+[Footnote 93: Ibid: II, 204-8.]
+
+[Footnote 94: Ibid: II, 110.]
+
+[Footnote 95: Ibid: II, 144.]
+
+[Footnote 96: Ibid: II, 146.]
+
+[Footnote 97: Ibid: II, 293-319.]
+
+[Footnote 98: Ibid: II, 464-472.]
+
+[Footnote 99: Ibid: II, 170-187.]
+
+[Footnote 100: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 109.]
+
+[Footnote 101: Prowe: II, 67-70.]
+
+He was no cloistered monk devoting all his time to the study of the
+heavens, but a cultivated man of affairs, of recognized ability in
+business and statesmanship, and a leader among his fellow canons. His
+mathematical and astronomical pursuits were the occupations of his
+somewhat rare leisure moments, except perhaps during the six years
+with his uncle in the comparative freedom of the bishop's castle, and
+during the last ten or twelve years of his life, after his request for
+a coadjutor had resulted in lightening his duties. In his masterwork
+_De Revolutionibus_[102] there are recorded only 27 of his own
+astronomical observations, and these extend over the years from 1497
+to 1529. The first was made at Bologna, the second at Rome in 1500,
+and seven of the others at Frauenburg, where the rest were also
+probably made. It is believed the greater part of the _De
+Revolutionibus_ was written at Heilsburg[103] where Copernicus was
+free from his chapter duties, for as he himself says[104] in the
+Dedication to the Pope (dated 1543) his work had been formulated not
+merely nine years but for "more than three nines of years." It had not
+been neglected all this time, however, as the original MS. (now in the
+Prague Library) with its innumerable changes and corrections shows how
+continually he worked over it, altering and correcting the tables and
+verifying his statements.[105]
+
+[Footnote 102: Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, Thorn edit., 444. The
+last two words of the full title: _De Revolutionibus Orbium
+Coelestium_ are not on the original MS. and are believed to have
+been added by Osiander. Prowe: II, 541, note.]
+
+[Footnote 103: Ibid: II, 490-1.]
+
+[Footnote 104: Copernicus: Dedication, 4. (Thorn edit.)]
+
+[Footnote 105: Prowe: II, 503-508.]
+
+Copernicus was a philosopher.[106] He thought out a new explanation of
+the world machine with relatively little practical work of his
+own,[107] though we know he controlled his results by the accumulated
+observations of the ages.[108] His instruments were inadequate,
+inaccurate and out of date even in his time, for much better ones were
+then being made at Nürnberg[109]; and the cloudy climate of Ermeland
+as well as his own active career prevented him from the
+long-continued, painstaking observing, which men like Tycho Brahe were
+to carry on later. Despite such handicaps, because of his
+dissatisfaction with the complexities and intricacies of the Ptolemaic
+system and because of his conviction that the laws of nature were
+simple and harmonious, Copernicus searched the writings of the classic
+philosophers, as he himself tells us,[110] to see what other
+explanation of the universe had been suggested. "And I found first in
+Cicero that a certain Nicetas had thought the earth moved. Later in
+Plutarch I found certain others had been of the same opinion." He
+quoted the Greek referring to Philolaus the Pythagorean, Heraclides of
+Pontus, and Ecphantes the Pythagorean.[111] As a result he began to
+consider the mobility of the earth and found that such an explanation
+seemingly solved many astronomical problems with a simplicity and a
+harmony utterly lacking in the old traditional scheme. Unaided by a
+telescope, he worked out in part the right theory of the universe and
+for the first time in history placed all the then known planets in
+their true positions with the sun at the center. He claimed that the
+earth turns on its axis as it travels around the sun, and careens
+slowly as it goes, thus by these three motions explaining many of the
+apparent movements of the sun and the planets. He retained,[112]
+however, the immobile heaven of the fixed stars (though vastly farther
+off in order to account for the non-observance of any stellar
+parallax[113]), the "perfect" and therefore circular orbits of the
+planets, certain of the old eccentrics, and 34 new epicycles in place
+of all the old ones which he had cast aside.[114] He accepted the
+false notion of trepidation enunciated by the Arabs in the 9th century
+and later overthrown by Tycho Brahe.[115] His calculations were
+weak.[116] But his great book is a sane and modern work in an age of
+astrology and superstition.[117] His theory is a triumph of reason and
+imagination and with its almost complete independence of authority is
+perhaps as original a work as an human being may be expected to
+produce.
+
+[Footnote 106: Ibid: II, 64.]
+
+[Footnote 107: Ibid: II, 58-9.]
+
+[Footnote 108: Rheticus: _Narratio Prima_.]
+
+[Footnote 109: Prowe: II, 56.]
+
+[Footnote 110: Copernicus: Dedication, 5-6. See Appendix B.]
+
+[Footnote 111: For a translation of this dedication in full, see
+Appendix B.
+
+In the original MS. occurs a reference (struck out) to Aristarchus of
+Samos as holding the theory of the earth's motion. (Prowe: II, 507,
+note.) The finding of this passage proves that Copernicus had at least
+heard of Aristarchus, but his apparent indifference is the more
+strange since an account of his teaching occurs in the same book of
+Plutarch from which Copernicus learned about Philolaus. But the chief
+source of our knowledge about Aristarchus is through Archimedes, and
+the editio princeps of his works did not appear till 1544, a year
+after the death of Copernicus. C.R. Eastman in _Pop. Sci._ 68:325.]
+
+[Footnote 112: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._ pp. xi-xii.]
+
+[Footnote 113: As the earth moves, the position in the heavens of a
+fixed star seen from the earth should differ slightly from its
+position observed six months later when the earth is on the opposite
+side of its orbit. The distance to the fixed stars is so vast,
+however, that this final proof of the earth's motion was not attained
+till 1838 when Bessel (1784-1846) observed stellar parallax from
+Königsberg. Berry: 123-24.]
+
+[Footnote 114: _Commentariolus_ in Prowe: III, 202.]
+
+[Footnote 115: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 117.]
+
+[Footnote 116: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._, p. xi.]
+
+[Footnote 117: Snyder: 165.]
+
+Copernicus was extremely reluctant to publish his book because of the
+misunderstandings and malicious attacks it would unquestionably
+arouse.[118] Possibly, too, he was thinking of the hostility already
+existing between himself and his Bishop, Dantiscus,[119] whom he did
+not wish to antagonize further. But his devoted pupil and friend,
+Rheticus, aided by Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm and a lifelong
+friend, at length (1542) persuaded him.[120] So he entrusted the
+matter to Giese who passed it on to Rheticus, then connected with the
+University at Wittenberg as professor of mathematics.[121] Rheticus,
+securing leave of absence from Melancthon his superior, went to
+Nürnberg to supervise the printing.[122] This was done by Petrejus.
+Upon his return to Wittenberg, Rheticus left in charge Johann Schöner,
+a famous mathematician and astronomer, and Andreas Osiander, a
+Lutheran preacher interested in astronomy. The printed book[123] was
+placed in Copernicus's hands at Frauenburg on May 24th, 1543, as he
+lay dying of paralysis.[124]
+
+[Footnote 118: Copernicus: Dedication, 3.]
+
+[Footnote 119: Prowe: II, 362-7.]
+
+[Footnote 120: Ibid: II, 406.]
+
+[Footnote 121: Ibid: II, 501.]
+
+[Footnote 122: Ibid: II, 517-20.]
+
+[Footnote 123: Four other editions have since appeared; at Basel,
+1566, Amsterdam 1617, Warsaw 1847, and Thorn 1873. For further
+details, see Prowe: II, 543-7, and Thorn edition pp. xii-xx. The
+edition cited in this study is the Thorn one of 1873.]
+
+[Footnote 124: Prowe: II, 553-4.]
+
+Copernicus passed away that day in ignorance that his life's work
+appeared before the world not as a truth but as an hypothesis; for
+there had been inserted an anonymous preface "ad lectorem de
+hypothesibus huius opera" stating this was but another hypothesis for
+the greater convenience of astronomers.[125] "Neque enim necesse est
+eas hypotheses esse veras, imo ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufficit hoc
+unum, si calculum observationibus congruentem exhibeant."[126] For
+years Copernicus was thought to have written this preface to disarm
+criticism. Kepler sixty years later (1601) called attention to this
+error,[127] and quoted Osiander's letters to Copernicus and to
+Rheticus of May, 1541, suggesting that the system be called an
+hypothesis to avert attacks by theologians and Aristotelians. He
+claimed that Osiander had written the preface; but Kepler's article
+never was finished and remained unpublished till 1858.[128] Giese and
+Rheticus of course knew that the preface falsified Copernicus's work,
+and Giese, highly indignant at the "impiety" of the printer (who he
+thought had written it to save himself from blame) wrote Rheticus
+urging him to write another "præfatiunculus" purging the book of this
+falsehood.[129] This letter is dated July 26, 1543, and the book had
+appeared in April. Apparently nothing was done and the preface was
+accepted without further challenge.
+
+[Footnote 125: Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, I. "To the reader on
+the hypotheses of this book."]
+
+[Footnote 126: "For it is not necessary that these hypotheses be true,
+nor even probable, but this alone is sufficient, if they show
+reasoning fitting the observations."]
+
+[Footnote 127: Kepler: _Apologia Tychonis contra Ursum_ in _Op. Om._:
+I, 244-246.]
+
+[Footnote 128: Prowe: II, 251, note.]
+
+[Footnote 129: Ibid: II, 537-9.]
+
+It remains to ask whether people other than Copernicus's intimates had
+known of his theory before 1543. Peucer, Melancthon's nephew, declared
+Copernicus was famous by 1525,[130] and the invitation from the
+Lateran Council committee indicates his renown as early as 1514. In
+Vienna in 1873[131] there was found a _Commentariolus_, or summary of
+his great work,[132] written by Copernicus for the scholars friendly
+to him. It was probably written soon after 1530, and gives a full
+statement of his views following a series of seven axioms or theses
+summing up the new theory. This little book probably occasioned the
+order from Pope Clement VII in 1533 to Widmanstadt to report to him on
+the new scheme.[133] This Widmanstadt did in the papal gardens before
+the Pope with several of the cardinals and bishops, and was presented
+with a book as his reward.
+
+[Footnote 130: Ibid: II, 273.]
+
+[Footnote 131: Ibid: II, 286-7.]
+
+[Footnote 132: A second copy was found at Upsala shortly afterwards,
+though for centuries its existence was unknown save for two slight
+references to such a book, one by Gemma Frisius, the other by Tycho
+Brahe. Prowe: II, 284.]
+
+[Footnote 133: Ibid: II, 273-4.]
+
+In 1536, the Cardinal Bishop of Capua, Nicolas von Schönberg,
+apparently with the intent to pave the way for the theory at Rome,
+wrote for a report of it.[134] It is not known whether the report was
+sent, and the cardinal died the following year. But that Copernicus
+was pleased by this recognition is evident from the prominence he gave
+to the cardinal's letter, as he printed it in his book at the
+beginning, even before the dedication to the Pope.
+
+[Footnote 134: Prowe: II, 274, note.]
+
+The most widely circulated account at this time, however, was the
+_Narratio Prima_, a letter from Georg Joachim of Rhaetia (better known
+as Rheticus), written in October, 1539, from Frauenburg to Johann
+Schöner at Nürnberg.[135] Rheticus,[136] at twenty-five years of age
+professor of mathematics at Wittenberg, had gone uninvited to
+Frauenburg early that summer to visit Copernicus and learn for himself
+more in detail about this new system. This was rather a daring
+undertaking, for not only were Luther and Melancthon outspoken in
+their condemnation of Copernicus, but Rheticus was going from
+Wittenberg, the headquarters of the Lutheran heresy, into the
+bishopric of Ermeland where to the Bishop and the King his overlord,
+the very name of Luther was anathema. Nothing daunted, Rheticus
+departed for Frauenberg and could not speak too highly of the cordial
+welcome he received from the old astronomer. He came for a few weeks,
+and remained two years to return to Wittenberg as an avowed believer
+in the system and its first teacher and promulgator. Not only did he
+write the _Narratio Prima_ and an _Encomium Borussæ_, both extolling
+Copernicus, but what is more important, he succeeded in persuading him
+to allow the publication of the _De Revolutionibus_. Rheticus returned
+to his post in 1541, to resign it the next year and become Dean of the
+Faculty of Arts. In all probability the conflict was too intense
+between his new scientific beliefs and the statements required of him
+as professor of the old mathematics and astronomy.
+
+[Footnote 135: Prowe: II, 426-440.]
+
+[Footnote 136: Ibid: II, 387-405.]
+
+His colleague, Erasmus Reinhold, continued to teach astronomy there,
+though he, too, accepted the Copernican system.[137] He published a
+series of tables (_Tabulæ Prutenicæ_, 1551) based on the Copernican
+calculations to supersede the inaccurate ones by Regiomontanus; and
+these were in general use throughout Europe for the next seventy-odd
+years. As he himself declared, the series was based in its principles
+and fundamentals upon the observations of the famous Nicolaus
+Copernicus. The almanacs deduced from these calculations probably did
+more to bring the new system into general recognition and gradual
+acceptance than did the theoretical works.[138]
+
+[Footnote 137: Ibid: II, 391.]
+
+[Footnote 138: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 119.]
+
+Opposition to the theory had not yet gathered serious headway. There
+is record[139] of a play poking fun at the system and its originator,
+written by the Elbing schoolmaster (a Dutch refugee from the
+Inquisition) and given in 1531 by the villagers at Elbing (3 miles
+from Frauenburg). Elbing and Ermeland were hostile to each other,
+Copernicus was well known in Elbing though probably from afar, for
+there seems to have been almost no personal intercourse between canons
+and people, and the spread of Luther's teachings had intensified the
+hostility of the villagers towards the Church and its representatives.
+But not until Giordano Bruno made the Copernican system the
+starting-point of his philosophy was the Roman Catholic Church
+seriously aroused to combat it. Possibly Osiander's preface turned
+opposition aside, and certainly the non-acceptance of the system as a
+whole by Tycho Brahe, the leading astronomer of Europe at that time,
+made people slow to consider it.
+
+[Footnote 139: Prowe: II, 233-244.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+THE LATER DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENTIFIC DEFENSE OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.
+
+
+Copernicus accomplished much, but even his genius could not far outrun
+the times in which he lived. When one realizes that not only all the
+astronomers before him, but he and his immediate successor, Tycho
+Brahe, made all their observations and calculations unaided by even
+the simplest telescope, by logarithms or by pendulum clocks for
+accurate measurement of time,[140] one marvels not at their errors,
+but at the greatness of their genius in rising above such
+difficulties. This lack of material aids makes the work of Tycho
+Brahe,[141] accounted one of the greatest observers that has ever
+lived,[142] as notable in its way perhaps as that of Copernicus.
+
+[Footnote 140: Burckhardt: 8.]
+
+[Footnote 141: The two standard lives of Tycho Brahe are the _Vita
+Tychonis Brahei_ by Gassendi (1655) till recently the sole source of
+information, and Dreyer's _Tycho Brahe_ (1890) based not only on
+Gassendi but on the documentary evidence disclosed by the researches
+of the 19th century. For Tycho's works I have used the _Opera Omnia_
+published at Frankfort in 1648. The Danish Royal Scientific Society
+has issued a reprint (1901) of the rare 1573 edition of the _De Nova
+Stella_.]
+
+[Footnote 142: Bridges: 206.]
+
+His life[143] was a somewhat romantic one. Born of noble family on
+December 14th, 1546, at Knudstrup in Denmark, Tyge Brahe, the second
+of ten children,[144] was early practically adopted by his father's
+brother. His family wished him to become a statesman and sent him in
+1559 to the university at Copenhagen to prepare for that career. A
+partial eclipse of the sun on August 21st, 1560 as foretold by the
+astronomers thrilled the lad and determined him to study a science
+that could foretell the future and so affect men's lives.[145] When he
+was sent to Leipsic with a tutor in 1562 to study law, he devoted his
+time and money to the study of mathematics and astronomy. Two years
+later when eighteen years of age, he resolved to perform anew the task
+of Hipparchos and Ptolemy and make a catalogue of the stars more
+accurate than theirs. His family hotly opposed these plans; and for
+six years he wandered through the German states, now at Wittenberg,
+now at Rostock (where he fought the duel in which he lost part of his
+nose and had to have it replaced by one of gold and silver)[146] or at
+Augsburg--everywhere working on his chosen subjects. But upon his
+return to Denmark (1570) he spent two years on chemistry and medicine,
+till the startling appearance of the New Star in the constellation of
+Cassiopæa (November, 1572) recalled him to what became his life
+work.[147]
+
+[Footnote 143: Dreyer: 11-84.]
+
+[Footnote 144: Gassendi: 2.]
+
+[Footnote 145: Dreyer: 13.]
+
+[Footnote 146: Gassendi: 9-10.]
+
+[Footnote 147: Dreyer: 38-44.]
+
+Through the interest and favor of King Frederick II, he was given the
+island of Hveen near Elsinore, with money to build an observatory and
+the pledge of an annual income from the state treasury for his
+support.[148] There at Uraniborg from 1576 to 1597 he and his pupils
+made the great catalogue of the stars, and studied comets and the
+moon. When he was forced to leave Hveen by the hostility and the
+economical tendencies of the young king,[149] after two years of
+wandering he accepted the invitation of the Emperor Rudolphus and
+established himself at Prague in Bohemia. Among his assistants at
+Prague was young Johann Kepler who till Tycho's death (on October 24,
+1601) was his chief helper for twenty months, and who afterwards
+completed his observations, publishing the results in the Rudolphine
+Tables of 1627.
+
+[Footnote 148: Ibid: 84.]
+
+[Footnote 149: Ibid: 234-5.]
+
+This "Phoenix among Astronomers"--as Kepler calls him,[150]--was the
+father of modern practical astronomy.[151] He also propounded a third
+system of the universe, a compromise between the Ptolemaic and the
+Copernican. In this the Tychonic system,[152] the earth is motionless
+and is the center of the orbits of the sun, the moon, and the sphere
+of the fixed stars, while the sun is the center of the orbits of the
+five planets.[153] Mercury and Venus move in orbits with radii shorter
+than the sun's radius, and the other three planets include the earth
+within their circuits. This system was in harmony with the Bible and
+accounted as satisfactorily by geometry as either of the other two
+systems for the observed phenomena.[154] To Tycho Brahe, the Ptolemaic
+system was too complex,[155] and the Copernican absurd, the latter
+because to account for the absence of stellar parallax it left vacant
+and purposeless a vast space between Saturn and the sphere of the
+fixed stars,[156] and because Tycho's observations did not show any
+trace of the stellar parallax that must exist if the earth moves.[157]
+
+[Footnote 150: Kepler: _Tabulæ Rudolphinæ_. Title page.]
+
+[Footnote 151: Dreyer: 317-363.]
+
+[Footnote 152: As stated in his Book on the Comet of 1577 (pub.
+1588).]
+
+[Footnote 153: Dreyer: 168-9.]
+
+[Footnote 154: Schiaparelli in Snyder: 165.]
+
+[Footnote 155: Brahe: _Op. Om._, pt. I, p. 337.]
+
+[Footnote 156: Ibid: 409-410.]
+
+[Footnote 157: The Tychonic system has supporters to this day. See
+chap. viii.]
+
+Though Tycho thus rejected the Copernican theory, his own proved to be
+the stepping stone toward the one he rejected,[158] for by it and by
+his study of comets he completely destroyed the ideas of solid
+crystalline spheres to the discredit of the scholastics; and his
+promulgation of a third theory of the universe helped to diminish
+men's confidence in authority and to stimulate independent thinking.
+
+[Footnote 158: Dreyer: 181.]
+
+Copernicus worked out his system by mathematics with but slight aid
+from his own observations. It was a theory not yet proven true. Tycho
+Brahe, though denying its validity, contributed in his mass of
+painstaking, accurate observations the raw material of facts to be
+worked up by Kepler into the great laws of the planets attesting the
+fundamental truth of the Copernican hypothesis.
+
+Johann Kepler[159] earned for himself the proud title of "lawmaker for
+the universe" in defiance of his handicaps of ill-health, family
+troubles, and straitened finances.[160] Born in Weil, Wurtemberg,
+(December 27, 1571) of noble but indigent parents, he was a sickly
+child unable for years to attend school regularly. He finally left the
+monastery school in Mulifontane in 1586 and entered the university at
+Tübingen to stay for four and a half years. There he studied
+philosophy, mathematics, and theology (he was a Lutheran) receiving
+the degree of Master of Arts in 1591. While at the university he
+studied under Mæstlin, professor of mathematics and astronomy, and a
+believer in the Copernican theory. Because of Mæstlin's teaching
+Kepler developed into a confirmed and enthusiastic adherent to the new
+doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 159: The authoritative biography is the _Vita_ by Frisch in
+vol. VIII, pp. 668-1028 of _Op. Om. Kep._]
+
+[Footnote 160: Frisch: VIII, 718. [Transcriber's Note: Missing
+footnote reference in original text has been added above in a logical
+place.]]
+
+In 1594 he reluctantly abandoned his favorite study, philosophy, and
+accepted a professorship in mathematics at Grætz in Styria. Two years
+later he published his first work: _Prodromus Dissertationum continens
+mysterium cosmographicum_ etc. (1596) in which he sought to prove that
+the Creator in arranging the universe had thought of the five regular
+bodies which can be inscribed in a sphere according to which He had
+regulated the order, the number and the proportions of the heavens and
+their movements.[161] The book is important not only because of its
+novelty, but because it gave the Copernican doctrine public
+explanation and defense.[162] Kepler himself valued it enough to
+reprint it with his _Harmonia Mundi_ twenty-five years later. And it
+won for him appreciative letters from various scientists, notably from
+Tycho Brahe and Galileo.[163]
+
+[Footnote 161: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._ 314-315.]
+
+[Footnote 162: Frisch: VIII, 999.]
+
+[Footnote 163: Ibid: VIII, 696.]
+
+As Kepler, a Lutheran, was having difficulties in Grætz, a Catholic
+city, he finally accepted Tycho's urgent invitation to come to
+Prague.[164] He came early in 1600, and after some adjustments had
+been made between the two,[165] he and his family settled with Tycho
+that autumn to remain till the latter's death the following November.
+Kepler himself then held the office of imperial mathematician by
+appointment for many years thereafter.[166]
+
+[Footnote 164: Ibid: VIII, 699-715.]
+
+[Footnote 165: Dreyer: 290-309.]
+
+[Footnote 166: Frisch: VIII, 715.]
+
+With the researches of Tycho's lifetime placed at his disposal, Kepler
+worked out two of his three great planetary laws from Tycho's
+observations of the planet Mars. Yet, as M. Bertrand remarks,[167] it
+was well for Kepler that his material was not too accurate or its
+variations (due to the then unmeasured force of attraction) might have
+hindered him from proving his laws; and luckily for him the earth's
+orbit is so nearly circular that in calculating the orbit of Mars to
+prove its elliptical form, he could base his work on the earth's orbit
+as a circle without vitiating his results for Mars.[168] That a
+planet's orbit is an ellipse and not the perfect circle was of course
+a triumph for the new science over the scholastics and Aristotelians.
+But they had yet to learn what held the planets in their courses.
+
+[Footnote 167: Bertrand: p. 870-1.]
+
+[Footnote 168: The two laws first appeared in 1609 in his _Physica
+Coelestis tradita commentarius de motu stellæ martis_. (Frisch:
+VIII, 964.) The third he enunciated in his _Harmonia Mundi_, 1619.
+(Ibid: VIII, 1013-1017.)]
+
+From Kepler's student days under Mæstlin when as the subject of his
+disputation he upheld the Copernican theory, to his death in 1630, he
+was a staunch supporter of the new teaching.[169] In his _Epitome
+Astronomiæ Copernicanæ_ (1616) he answered objections to it at
+length.[170] He took infinite pains to convert his friends to the new
+system. It was in vain that Tycho on his deathbed had urged Kepler to
+carry on their work not on the Copernican but on the Tychonic
+scheme.[171]
+
+[Footnote 169: "Cor et animam meam": Kepler's expression in regard to
+the Copernician theory. Ibid: VIII, 957.]
+
+[Footnote 170: Ibid: VIII, 838.]
+
+[Footnote 171: Ibid: VIII, 742.]
+
+Kepler had reasoned out according to physics the laws by which the
+planets moved.[172] In Italy at this same time Galileo with his optic
+tube (invented 1609) was demonstrating that Venus had phases even as
+Copernicus had declared, that Jupiter had satellites, and that the
+moon was scarred and roughened--ocular proof that the old system with
+its heavenly perfection in number (7 planets) and in appearance must
+be cast aside. Within a year after Galileo's death Newton was
+born[173] (January 4, 1643). His demonstration of the universal
+application of the law of gravitation (1687) was perhaps the climax in
+the development of the Copernican system. Complete and final proof
+was adding in the succeeding years by Roemer's (1644-1710) discovery
+of the velocity of light, by Bradley's (1693-1762) study of its
+aberration,[174] by Bessel's discovery of stellar parallax in
+1838,[175] and by Foucault's experimental demonstration of the earth's
+axial motion with a pendulum in 1851.[176]
+
+[Footnote 172: Kepler: _Op. Om._, I, 106: _Præfatio ad Lectorem_.]
+
+[Footnote 173: Berry: 210.]
+
+[Footnote 174: Berry: 265.]
+
+[Footnote 175: Ibid: 359.]
+
+[Footnote 176: Jacoby: 89.]
+
+
+
+
+PART TWO
+
+THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+OPINIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
+
+
+During the lifetime of Copernicus, Roman Catholic churchmen had been
+interested in his work: Cardinal Schönberg wrote for full information,
+Widmanstadt reported on it to Pope Clement VII and Copernicus had
+dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.[177] But after his death, the
+Church authorities apparently paid little heed to his theory until
+some fifty years later when Giordano Bruno forced it upon their
+attention in his philosophical teachings. Osiander's preface had
+probably blinded their eyes to its implications.
+
+[Footnote 177: See before, p. 30.]
+
+The Protestant leaders were not quite so urbane in their attitude.
+While Copernicus was still alive, Luther is reported[178] to have
+referred to this "new astrologer" who sought to prove that the earth
+and not the firmament swung around, saying: "The fool will overturn
+the whole science of astronomy. But as the Holy Scriptures state,
+Joshua bade the sun stand still and not the earth." Melancthon was
+more interested in this new idea, perhaps because of the influence of
+Rheticus, his colleague in the University of Wittenberg and
+Copernicus's great friend and supporter; but he too preferred not to
+dissent from the accepted opinion of the ages.[179] Informally in a
+letter to a friend he implies the absurdity of the new teaching,[180]
+and in his _Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ_ he goes to some pains to disprove
+the new assumption not merely by mathematics but by the Bible, though
+with a kind of apology to other physicists for quoting the Divine
+Witness.[181] He refers to the phrase in Psalm XIX likening the sun in
+its course "to a strong man about to run a race," proving that the sun
+moves. Another Psalm states that the earth was founded not to be moved
+for eternity, and a similar phrase occurs in the first chapter of
+Ecclesiastes. Then there was the miracle when Joshua bade the sun
+stand still. While this is a sufficient witness to the truths there
+are other proofs: First, in the turning of a circumference, the center
+remains motionless. Next, changes in the length of the day and of the
+seasons would ensue, were the position of the earth in the universe
+not central, and it would not be equidistant from the two poles. (He
+has previously disposed of infinity by stating that the heavens
+revolve around the pole, which could not happen if a line drawn from
+the center of the universe were infinitely projected).[182]
+Furthermore, the earth must be at the center for its shadow to fall
+upon the moon in an eclipse. He refers next to the Aristotelian
+statement that to a simple body belongs one motion: the earth is a
+simple body; therefore it can have but one motion. What is true of the
+parts applies to the whole; all the parts of the earth are borne
+toward the earth and there rest; therefore the whole earth is at rest.
+Quiet is essential to growth. Lastly, if the earth moved as fast as it
+must if it moves at all, everything would fly to pieces.[183]
+
+[Footnote 178: Luther: _Tischreden_, IV, 575; "Der Narr will die ganze
+Kunst Astronomiæ umkehren. Aber wie die heilige Schrift anzeigt, so
+heiss Josua die Sonne still stehen, und nicht das Erdreich."]
+
+[Footnote 179: "Non est autem hominis bene instituti dissentire a
+consensu tot sæculorum." Præfatio Philippi Melanthonis, 1531, in
+Sacro-Busto: _Libellus de Sphæra_ (no date).]
+
+[Footnote 180: "Vidi dialogum et fui dissuassor editionis. Fabula per
+sese paulatim consilescet; sed quidam putant esse egregiam
+_katorthoma_ rem tam absurdam ornare, sicut ille Sarmaticus Astronomis
+qui movet terram et figet solem. Profecto sapientes gubernatores
+deberent ingeniorum petulantia cohercere." _Epistola B. Mithobio_, 16
+Oct. 1541. P. Melancthon: _Opera_: IV, 679.]
+
+[Footnote 181: "Quamquam autem rident aliqui Physicum testimonia
+divina citantem, tamen nos honestum esse censemus, Philosophiam
+conferre ad coelestia dicta, et in tanta caligine humanæ mentis
+autoritatem divinam consulere ubicunque possumus." Melancthon: _Initia
+Doctrinæ Physicæ_: Bk. I, 63.]
+
+[Footnote 182: Ibid: 60.]
+
+[Footnote 183: Ibid: 59-67.]
+
+Melancthon thus sums up the usual arguments from the Scriptures, from
+Aristotle, Ptolemy and the then current physics, in opposition to this
+theory. Not only did he publish his own textbook on physics, but he
+republished Sacrobosco's famous introduction to astronomy, writing for
+it a preface urging diligent study of this little text endorsed by so
+many generations of scholars.
+
+Calvin, the great teacher of the Protestant Revolt, apparently was
+little touched by this new intellectual current.[184] He did write a
+semi-popular tract[185] against the so called "judicial" astrology,
+then widely accepted, which he, like Luther, condemns as a foolish
+superstition, though he values "la vraie science d'astrologie" from
+which men understand not merely the order and place of the stars and
+planets, but the causes of things. In his _Commentaries_, he accepts
+the miracle of the sun's standing still at Joshua's command as proof
+of the faith Christ commended, so strong that it will remove
+mountains; and he makes reference only to the time-honored Ptolemaic
+theory in his discussion of Psalm XIX.[186]
+
+[Footnote 184: Farrar: _Hist. of Interpretation_: Preface, xviii:
+"Who," asks Calvin, "will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
+above that of the Holy Spirit?"]
+
+[Footnote 185: Calvin: _Oeuvres François_: _Traité ... contre
+l'Astrologie_, 110-112.]
+
+[Footnote 186: Calvin: _Op. Om._ in _Corpus Reformatorum_: vol. 25,
+499-500; vol. 59, 195-196.]
+
+For the absolute authority of the Pope the Protestant leaders
+substituted the absolute authority of the Bible. It is not strange,
+then, that they ignored or derided a theory as yet unsupported by
+proof and so difficult to harmonize with a literally accepted Bible.
+
+How widespread among the people generally did this theory become in
+the years immediately following the publication of the _De
+Revolutionibus_? M. Flammarion, in his _Vie de Copernic_ (1872),
+refers[187] to the famous clock in the Strasburg Cathedral as having
+been constructed by the University of Strasburg in protest against the
+action taken by the Holy Office against Galileo, (though the clock
+was constructed in 1571 and Galileo was not condemned until 1633).
+This astronomical clock constructed only thirty years after the death
+of Copernicus, he claims represented the Copernican system of the
+universe with the planets revolving around the sun, and explained
+clearly in the sight of the people what was the thought of the makers.
+Lest no one should miscomprehend, he adds, the portrait of Copernicus
+was placed there with this inscription: Nicolai Copernici vera
+effigies, ex ipsius autographo depicta.
+
+[Footnote 187: P. 78-79: "Ce planétaire ... represente le système du
+monde tel qu'il a été expliqué par Copernic."]
+
+This would be important evidence of the spread of the theory were it
+true. But M. Flammarion must have failed to see a brief description of
+the Strasburg Clock written in 1856 by Charles Schwilgué, son of the
+man who renovated its mechanism in 1838-1842. He describes the clock
+as it was before his father made it over and as it is today.
+Originally constructed in 1352, it was replaced in 1571 by an
+astrolabe based on the Ptolemaic system; six hands with the zodiacal
+signs of the planets gave their daily movements and, together with a
+seventh representing the sun, revolved around a map of the world.[188]
+When M. Schwilgué repaired the clock in 1838, he changed it to
+harmonize with the Copernican system.[189]
+
+[Footnote 188: Schwilgué: p. 15.]
+
+[Footnote 189: Ibid: p. 48.]
+
+But within eighteen years after the publication of the _De
+Revolutionibus_, proof of its influence is to be found in such widely
+separated places as London and the great Spanish University of
+Salamanca. In 1551, Robert Recorde, court physician to Edward and to
+Mary and teacher of mathematics, published in London his _Castle of
+Knowledge_, an introduction to astronomy and the first book printed in
+England describing the Copernican system.[190] He evidently did not
+consider the times quite ripe for a full avowal of his own allegiance
+to the new doctrine, but the remarks of the _Maister_ and the
+_Scholler_ are worth repeating:[191]
+
+     "MAISTER: ... howbeit Copernicus a man of great learning, of
+     much experience, and of wonderfull diligence in observation,
+     hath renewed the opinion of Aristarchus Samius, affirming
+     that the earth, not onely moveth circularly about his owne
+     centre, but also may be, yea and is, continually out of the
+     precise centre of the world eight and thirty hundred
+     thousand miles: but because the understanding of that
+     controversie depends of profounder knowledge than in this
+     Introduction may be uttered conveniently, I wil let it passe
+     til some other time.
+
+     "SCHOLLER: Nay sit, in good faith, I desire not to heare
+     such vaine fantasies, so farre against the common reason,
+     and repugnant to the content of all the learned multitude of
+     Writers, and therefore let it passe for ever and a day
+     longer.
+
+     "MAISTER: You are too yong to be a good judge in so great a
+     matter: it passeth farre your learning, and their's also,
+     that are much better learned than you, to improuve his
+     supposition by good arguments, and therefore you were best
+     condemne nothing that you do not well understand: but an
+     other time, as I saide, I will so declare his supposition,
+     that you shall not onely wonder to heare it, but also
+     peradventure be as earnest then to credite it, as you are
+     now to condemne it: in the meane season let us proceed
+     forward in our former order...."
+
+[Footnote 190: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Recorde."]
+
+[Footnote 191: Quoted (p. 135), from the edition of 1596 in the
+library of Mr. George A. Plimpton. See also Recorde's _Whetstone of
+Witte_ (1557) as cited by Berry, 127.]
+
+This little book, reprinted in 1556 and in 1596, and one of the most
+popular of the mathematical writings in England during that century,
+must have interested the English in the new doctrine even before
+Bruno's emphatic presentation of it to them in the eighties.
+
+Yet the English did not welcome it cordially. One of the most popular
+books of this period was Sylvester's translation (1591) of DuBartas's
+_The Divine Weeks_ which appeared in France in 1578, a book loved
+especially by Milton.[192] DuBartas writes:[193]
+
+    "Those clerks that think--think how absurd a jest!
+    That neither heavens nor stars do turn at all,
+    Nor dance around this great, round earthly ball,
+    But the earth itself, this massy globe of our's,
+    Turns round about once every twice twelve hours!
+    And we resemble land-bred novices
+    New brought aboard to venture on the seas;
+    Who at first launching from the shore suppose
+    The ship stands still and that the firm earth goes."
+
+[Footnote 192: DuBartas: _The Divine Weeks_ (Sylvester's trans. edited
+by Haight): Preface, pp. xx-xxiii and note.]
+
+[Footnote 193: _Op. cit._: 72.]
+
+Quite otherwise was the situation in the sixteenth century at the
+University of Salamanca. A new set of regulations for the University,
+drawn up at the King's order by Bishop Covarrubias, was published in
+1561. It contained the provision in the curriculum that "Mathematics
+and Astrology are to be given in three years, the first, Astrology,
+the second, Euclid, Ptolemy or Copernicus _ad vota audientium_," which
+also indicates, as Vicente de la Fuente points out, that at this
+University "the choice of the subject-matter to be taught lay not with
+the teachers but with the students, a rare situation."[194] One
+wonders what happened there when the professors and students received
+word[195] from the Cardinal Nuncio at Madrid in 1633 that the
+Congregations of the Index had decreed the Copernican doctrine was
+thereafter in no way to be held, taught or defended.
+
+[Footnote 194: La Fuente: _Historia de la Universidades ... de
+España_: II, 314.]
+
+[Footnote 195: _Doc. 86_ in Favaro: 130.]
+
+One of the graduates of this University, Father Zuñiga,[196] (better
+known as Didacus à Stunica), wrote a commentary on Job that was
+licensed to be printed in 1579, but was not published until 1584 at
+Toledo. Another edition appeared at Rome seven years later. It
+evidently was widely read for it was condemned _donec corrigatur_ by
+the Index in 1616 and the mathematical literature of the next half
+century contains many allusions to his remarks on Job: IX: 6; "Who
+shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."
+After commenting here upon the greater clarity and simplicity of the
+Copernican theory, Didacus à Stunica then states that the theory is
+not contradicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, as that "text signifieth
+no more but this, that although the succession of ages, and
+generations of men on earth be various, yet the earth itself is still
+one and the same, and continueth without any sensible variation" ...
+and "it hath no coherence with its context (as Philosophers show) if
+it be expounded to speak of the earth's immobility. The motion that
+belongs to the earth by way of speech is assigned to the sun even by
+Copernicus himself, and those who are his followers.... To conclude,
+no place can be produced out of Holy Scriptures which so clearly
+speaks the earth's immobility as this doth its mobility. Therefore
+this text of which we have spoken is easily reconciled to this
+opinion. And to set forth the wonderful power and wisdom of God who
+can indue the frame of the whole earth (it being of monstrous weight
+by nature) with motion, this our Divine pen-man added; 'And the
+pillars thereof tremble:' As if he would teach us, from the doctrine
+laid down, that it is moved from its foundations."[197]
+
+[Footnote 196: _Diccionario Enciclopédico Hispano-Americano de
+literatura, ciencias y artes_ (Barcelona, 1898).]
+
+[Footnote 197: Quoted in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: I, 468-470 (1661),
+as a work inaccessible to most readers at that time because of its
+extreme rarity. It remained on the Index until the edition of 1835.]
+
+French thinkers, like the English, did not encourage the new doctrine
+at this time. Montaigne[198] was characteristically indifferent: "What
+shall we reape by it, but only that we neede not care which of the two
+it be? And who knoweth whether a hundred yeares hence a third opinion
+will arise which happily shall overthrow these two præcedent?" The
+famous political theorist, Jean Bodin, (1530-1596), was as thoroughly
+opposed to it as DuBartas had been. In the last year of his life,
+Bodin wrote his _Universæ Naturæ Theatrum_[199] in which he discussed
+the origin and composition of the universe and of the animal,
+vegetable, mineral and spiritual kingdoms. These five books (or
+divisions) reveal his amazing ideas of geology, physics and astronomy
+while at the same time they show a mind thoroughly at home in Hebrew
+and Arabian literature as well as in the classics. His answer to the
+Copernican doctrine is worth quoting to illustrate the attitude of one
+of the keenest thinkers in a brilliant era:
+
+     "THEORIST: Since the sun's heat is so intense that we read
+     it has sometimes burned crops, houses and cities in
+     Scythia,[200] would it not be more reasonable that the sun
+     is still and the earth indeed revolves?
+
+     "MYSTIC: Such was the old idea of Philolaus, Timæus,
+     Ecphantes, Seleucus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes and
+     Eudoxus, which Copernicus has renewed in our time. But it
+     can easily be refuted by its shallowness although no one has
+     done it thoroughly.
+
+     "THE.: What arguments do they rely on who hold that the
+     earth is revolved and that the sun forsooth is still?
+
+     "MYS.: Because the comprehension of the human mind cannot
+     grasp the incredible speed of the heavenly spheres and
+     especially of the tenth sphere which must be ten times
+     greater than that of the eighth, for in twenty-four hours it
+     must traverse 469,562,845 miles, so that the earth seems
+     like a dot in the universe. This is the chief argument.
+     Besides this, we get rid entirely of epicycles in
+     representing the motions of the planets and what is taught
+     concerning the motion of trepidation in the eighth sphere
+     vanishes. Also, there is no need for the ninth and tenth
+     spheres. There is one argument which they have omitted but
+     which seems to me more efficacious than any, viz.: rest is
+     nobler than movement, and that celestial and divine things
+     have a stable nature while elemental things have motion,
+     disturbance and unrest; therefore it seems more probable
+     that the latter move rather than the former. But while
+     serious absurdities result from the idea of Eudoxus, far
+     more serious ones result from that of Copernicus.
+
+     "THE.: What are these absurdities?
+
+     "MYS.: Eudoxus knew nothing of trepidation, so his idea
+     seems to be less in error. But Copernicus, in order to
+     uphold his own hypothesis, claims the earth has three
+     motions, its diurnal and annual ones, and trepidation; if we
+     add to these the pull of weight towards the center, we are
+     attributing four natural motions to one and the same body.
+     If this is granted, then the very foundations of physics
+     must fall into ruins; for all are agreed upon this that each
+     natural body has but one motion of its own, and that all
+     others are said to be either violent or voluntary.
+     Therefore, since he claims the earth is agitated by four
+     motions, one only can be its own, the others must be
+     confessedly violent; yet nothing violent in nature can
+     endure continuously. Furthermore the earth is not moved by
+     water, much less by the motion of air or fire in the way we
+     have stated the heavens are moved by the revolutions of the
+     enveloping heavens. Copernicus further does not claim that
+     all the heavens are immobile but that some are moved, that
+     is, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. But
+     why such diversity? No one in his senses, or imbued with the
+     slightest knowledge of physics, will ever think that the
+     earth, heavy and unwieldy from its own weight and mass,
+     staggers up and down around its own center and that of the
+     sun; for at the slightest jar of the earth, we would see
+     cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down. A
+     certain courtier Aulicus, when some astrologer in court was
+     upholding Copernicus's idea before Duke Albert of Prussia,
+     turning to the servant who was pouring the Falernian, said:
+     "Take care that the flagon is not spilled."[201] For if the
+     earth were to be moved, neither an arrow shot straight up,
+     nor a stone dropped from the top of a tower would fall
+     perpendicularly, but either ahead or behind. With this
+     argument Ptolemy refuted Eudoxus. But if we search into the
+     secrets of the Hebrews and penetrate their sacred
+     sanctuaries, all these arguments can easily be confirmed;
+     for when the Lord of Wisdom said the sun swept in its swift
+     course from the eastern shore to the west, he added this:
+     Terra vero stat æternam. Lastly, all things on finding
+     places suitable to their natures, remain there, as Aristotle
+     writes. Since therefore the earth has been alloted a place
+     fitting its nature, it cannot be whirled around by other
+     motion than its own.
+
+     "THE.: I certainly agree to all the rest with you, but
+     Aristotle's law I think involves a paralogism, for by this
+     argument the heavens should be immobile since they are in a
+     place fitting their nature.
+
+     "MYS.: You argue subtly indeed, but in truth this argument
+     does not seem necessary to me; for what Aristotle admitted,
+     that, while forsooth all the parts of the firmament changed
+     their places, the firmament as a whole did not, is
+     exceedingly absurd. For either the whole heaven is at rest
+     or the whole heaven is moved. The senses themselves disprove
+     that it is at rest; therefore it is moved. For it does not
+     follow that if a body is not moved away from its place, it
+     is not moved in that place. Furthermore, since we have the
+     most certain proof of the movement of trepidation, not only
+     all the parts of the firmament, but also the eight spheres,
+     must necessarily leave their places and move up and down,
+     forward and back."[202]
+
+[Footnote 198: Montaigne: _Essays_: Bk. II, c. 2: _An Apologie of
+Raymonde Sebonde_ (II, 352).]
+
+[Footnote 199: This book, published at Frankfort in 1597, was
+translated into French by M. Fougerolles and printed in Lyons that
+same year. It has become extremely rare since its "atheistic
+atmosphere" (Peignot: _Dictionnaire_) caused the Roman Church to place
+it upon the Index by decree of 1628, where it has remained to this
+day.]
+
+[Footnote 200: Cromer in History of Poland.]
+
+[Footnote 201: Cromer in History of Poland.[A]]
+
+[Footnote A: I could not find this reference in either of Martin
+Kromer's books; _De Origine et Rebus Gestis Polonorum, ad 1511_, or in
+his _Res Publicæ sive Status Regni Poloniæ_.]
+
+[Footnote 202: Bodin: _Univ. Nat. Theatrum_: Bk. V, sec. 2 (end).]
+
+This was the opinion of a profound thinker and experienced man of
+affairs living when Tycho Brahe and Bruno were still alive and Kepler
+and Galileo were beginning their astronomical investigations. But he
+was not alone in his views, as we shall see; for at the close of the
+sixteenth century, the Copernican doctrine had few avowed supporters.
+The Roman Church was still indifferent; the Protestants clinging to
+the literal interpretation of the Bible were openly antagonistic; the
+professors as a whole were too Aristotelian to accept or pay much
+attention to this novelty, except Kepler and his teacher Mæstlin
+(though the latter refused to uphold it in his textbook);[203] while
+astronomers and mathematicians who realized the insuperable objections
+to the Ptolemaic conception, welcomed the Tychonic system as a _via
+media_; and the common folk, if they heard of it at all, must have
+ridiculed it because it was so plainly opposed to what they saw in the
+heavens every day. In the same way their intellectual superiors
+exclaimed at the "delirium" of those supporting such a notion.[204]
+One thinker, however was to see far more in the doctrine than
+Copernicus himself had conceived, and by Giordano Bruno the Roman
+Church was to be aroused.
+
+[Footnote 203: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 663.]
+
+[Footnote 204: Justus-Lipsius: _Physiologiæ Stoicorum_: Bk. II,
+dissert. 19 (Dedication 1604, Louvain), (IV, 947); "Vides deliria,
+quomodo aliter appellent?"]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+BRUNO AND GALILEO.
+
+
+When the Roman Catholic authorities awoke to the dangers of the new
+teaching, they struck with force. The first to suffer was the famous
+monk-philosopher, Giordano Bruno, whose trial by the Holy Office was
+premonitory of trouble to come for Galileo.[205]
+
+[Footnote 205: Berti: 285.]
+
+After an elementary education at Naples near his birth-place,
+Nola,[206] Filippo Bruno[207] entered the Dominican monastery in 1562
+or 1563 when about fourteen years old, assuming the name Giordano at
+that time. Before 1572, when he entered the priesthood, he had fully
+accepted the Copernican theory which later became the basis of all his
+philosophical thought. Bruno soon showed he was not made for the
+monastic life. Various processes were started against him, and fleeing
+to Rome he abandoned his monk's garments and entered upon the sixteen
+years of wandering over Europe, a peripatetic teacher of the
+philosophy of an infinite universe as deduced from the Copernican
+doctrine and thus in a way its herald.[208] He reached Geneva in 1579
+(where he did not accept Calvinism as was formerly thought),[209] but
+decided before many months had passed that it was wise to depart
+elsewhere because of the unpleasant position in which he found himself
+there. He had been brought before the Council for printing invectives
+against one of the professors, pointing out some twenty of his
+errors. The Council sent him to the Consistory, the governing body of
+the church, where a formal sentence of excommunication was passed
+against him. When he apologized it was withdrawn. Probably a certain
+stigma remained, and he left Geneva soon thereafter with a warm
+dislike for Calvinism. After lecturing at the University of Toulouse
+he appeared in Paris in 1581, where he held an extraordinary
+readership. Two years later he was in England, for he lectured at
+Oxford during the spring months and defended the Copernican theory
+before the Polish prince Alasco during the latter's visit there in
+June.[210]
+
+[Footnote 206: McIntyre: 3-15.]
+
+[Footnote 207: Four lives of Bruno have been written within the last
+seventy-five years. The first is _Jordano Bruno_ by Christian
+Bartholmèss (2 vol., Paris 1846). The next, _Vita di Giordano Bruno da
+Nola_ by Domenico Berti (1868, Turin), quotes in full the official
+documents of his trial. Frith's _Life of Giordano Bruno_ (London,
+1887), has been rendered out of date by J.L. McIntyre's _Giordano
+Bruno_ (London, 1903), which includes a critical bibliography. In
+addition, W.R. Thayer's _Throne Makers_ (New York, 1899), gives
+translations of Bruno's confessions to the Venetian Inquisition.
+Bruno's Latin works (_Opera Latina Conscripta_), have been republished
+by Fiorentino (3 vol., Naples, 1879), and the _Opere Italiane_ by
+Gentile (3 vol., Naples, 1907).]
+
+[Footnote 208: Bartholmèss: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 209: Libri: IV, 144.]
+
+[Footnote 210: McIntyre: 16-40.]
+
+To Bruno belongs the glory of the first public proclamation in England
+of the new doctrine,[211] though only Gilbert[212] and possibly Wright
+seem to have accepted it at the time. Upon Bruno's return to London,
+he entered the home of the French ambassador as a kind of secretary,
+and there spent the happiest years of his life till the ambassador's
+recall in October, 1585. It was during this period that he wrote some
+of his most famous books. In _La Cena de la Ceneri_ he defended the
+Copernican theory, incidentally criticising the Oxford dons most
+severely,[213] for which he apologized in _De la Causa, Principio et
+Uno_. He developed his philosophy of an infinite universe in _De
+l'Infinito e Mondi_, and in the _Spaccio de la Bestia Trionphante_
+"attacked all religions of mere credulity as opposed to religions of
+truth and deeds."[214] This last book was at once thought to be a
+biting attack upon the Roman Church and later became one of the
+grounds of the Inquisition's charges against him. During this time in
+London also, he came to know Sir Philip Sydney intimately, and Fulk
+Greville as well as others of that brilliant period. He may have known
+Bacon;[215] but it is highly improbable that he and Shakespeare
+met,[216] or that Shakespeare ever was influenced by the other's
+philosophy.[217]
+
+[Footnote 211: Bartholmèss: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 212: Gilbert: _De Magnete_ (London, 1600).]
+
+[Footnote 213: Berti: 369, Doc. XIII.]
+
+[Footnote 214: McIntyre: 16-40.]
+
+[Footnote 215: Bartholmèss: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 216: Beyersdorf: _Giordano Bruno und Shakespear_, 8-36.]
+
+[Footnote 217: Such passages as _Troilus and Cressida_: Act I, sc. 3;
+_King John_, Act III, sc. 1; and _Merry Wives_, Act III, sc. 2,
+indicate that Shakespeare accepted fully the Ptolemaic conception of a
+central, immovable earth. See also Beyersdorf: _op. cit._]
+
+Leaving Paris soon after his return thither, Bruno wandered into
+southern Germany. At Marburg he was not permitted to teach, but at
+Wittenberg the Lutherans cordially welcomed him into the university.
+After a stay of a year and a half, he moved on to Prague for a few
+months, then to Helmstadt, Frankfort and Zurich, and back to Frankfort
+again where, in 1591, he received an invitation from a young Venetian
+patrician, Moecenigo, to come to Venice as his tutor. He re-entered
+Italy, therefore, in August, much to the amazement of his
+contemporaries. It is probable that Moecenigo was acting for the
+Inquisition.[218] At any rate, he soon denounced Bruno to that body
+and in May, 1592, surrendered him to it.[219]
+
+[Footnote 218: McIntyre: 68.]
+
+[Footnote 219: Ibid: 47-72.]
+
+In his trial before the Venetian Inquisition,[220] Bruno told the
+story of his life and stated his beliefs in answer to the charges
+against him, based mainly on travesties of his opinions. In this
+statement as well as in _La Cena de le Ceneri_, and in _De Immenso et
+Innumerabilis_,[221] Bruno shows how completely he had not merely
+accepted the Copernican doctrine, but had expanded it far beyond its
+author's conception. The universe according to Copernicus, though
+vastly greater than that conceived by Aristotle and Ptolemy, was still
+finite because enclosed within the sphere of the fixed stars. Bruno
+declared that not only was the earth only a lesser planet, but "this
+world itself was merely one of an infinite number of particular worlds
+similar to this, and that all the planets and other stars are infinite
+worlds without number composing an infinite universe, so that there is
+a double infinitude, that of the greatness of the universe, and that
+of the multitude of worlds."[222] How important this would be to the
+Church authorities may be realized by recalling the patristic doctrine
+that the universe was created for man and that his home is its center.
+Of course their cherished belief must be defended from such an attack,
+and naturally enough, the Copernican doctrine as the starting point of
+Bruno's theory of an infinite universe was thus brought into
+question;[223] for, as M. Berti has said,[224] Bruno's doctrine was
+equally an astro-theology or a theological astronomy.
+
+[Footnote 220: See official documents in Berti: 327-395.]
+
+[Footnote 221: Bruno: _De Immenso et Innumerabilis_: Lib. III, cap. 9
+(vol. 1, pt. 1, 380-386).]
+
+[Footnote 222: Thayer: 268.]
+
+[Footnote 223: Berti: 285.]
+
+[Footnote 224: Ibid: 282.]
+
+The Roman Inquisition was not content to let the Venetian court deal
+with this arch heretic, but wrote in September, 1592, demanding his
+extradition. The Venetian body referred its consent to the state for
+ratification which the Doge and Council refused to grant. Finally,
+when the Papal Nuncio had represented that Bruno was not a Venetian
+but a Neapolitan, and that cases against him were still outstanding
+both in Naples and in Rome, the state consented, and in February of
+the next year, Bruno entered Rome, a prisoner of the Inquisition.
+Nothing further is known about him until the Congregations took up his
+case on February 4th, 1599. Perhaps Pope Clement had hoped to win back
+to the true faith this prince of heretics.[225] However Bruno stood
+firm, and early in the following year he was degraded, sentenced and
+handed over to the secular authorities, who burned him at the stake in
+the Campo di Fiori, February 17, 1600.[226] All his books were put on
+the Index by decree of February 8, 1600, (where they remain to this
+day), and as a consequence they became extremely rare. It is well to
+remember Bruno's fate, when considering Galileo's case, for
+Galileo[227] was at that time professor of mathematics in the
+university of Padua and fully cognizant of the event.
+
+[Footnote 225: Fahie: 82-89.]
+
+[Footnote 226: Thayer: 299.]
+
+[Footnote 227: The publication of A. Favaro's _Galileo e
+l'Inquisizione: Documenti del Processo Galileiano ... per la prima
+volta integralmente pubblicati_, (Firenze, 1907), together with that
+of the National Edition (in 20 vols.) of Galileo's works, edited by
+Favaro (Firenze, completed 1909), renders somewhat obsolete all
+earlier lives of Galileo. The more valuable, however, of these books
+are: Martin's _Galilée_ (Paris, 1868), a scholarly Catholic study
+containing valuable bibliographical notes; Anon. (Mrs. Olney):
+_Private Life of Galileo_, based largely on his correspondence with
+his daughter from which many extracts are given; and von Gebler's
+_Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia_ (trans. by Mrs. Sturge, London,
+1879), which includes in the appendix the various decrees in the
+original. Fahie's _Life of Galileo_ (London, 1903), is based on
+Favaro's researches and is reliable. The documents of the trial have
+been published in part by de l'Epinois, von Gebler and Berti, but
+Favaro's is the complete and authoritative edition.]
+
+Galileo's father, though himself a skilled mathematician, had
+intended that his son (born at Pisa, February 15, 1564), should be a
+cloth-dealer, but at length permitted him to study medicine instead at
+the university of Pisa, after an elementary education at the monastery
+of Vallombrosa near Florence. At the Tuscan Court in Pisa, Galileo
+received his first lesson in mathematics, which thereupon became his
+absorbing interest. After nearly four years he withdrew from the
+university to Florence and devoted himself to that science and to
+physics. His services as a professor at this time were refused by five
+of the Italian universities; finally, in 1589, he obtained the
+appointment to the chair of physics at Pisa. He became so unpopular
+there, however, through his attacks on the Aristotelian physics of the
+day, that after three years he resigned and accepted a similar
+position at Padua.[228] He remained here nearly eighteen years till
+his longing for leisure in which to pursue his researches, and the
+patronage of his good friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, brought him a
+professorship at the university of Pisa again, this time without
+obligation of residence nor of lecturing. He took up his residence in
+Florence in 1610; and later (1626), purchased a villa at Arcetri
+outside the city, in order to be near the convent where his favorite
+daughter "Suor Maria Celeste" was a religious.[229]
+
+[Footnote 228: Fahie: 20-40.]
+
+[Footnote 229: Ibid: 121.]
+
+During the greater part of his lectureship at Padua, Galileo taught
+according to the Ptolemaic cosmogony out of compliance with popular
+feeling, though himself a Copernican. In a letter to Kepler (August 4,
+1597)[230] he speaks of his entire acceptance of the new system for
+some years; but not until after the appearance of the New Star in the
+heavens in 1604 and 1605, and the controversy that its appearance
+aroused over the Aristotelian notion of the perfect and unchangeable
+heavens, did he publicly repudiate the old scheme and teach the new.
+The only information we have as to how he came to adopt the Copernican
+scheme for himself is the account given by "_Sagredo_," Galileo's
+spokesman in the famous _Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems_
+(1632):
+
+     "Being very young and having scarcely finished my course of
+     Philosophy which I left off, as being set upon other
+     employments, there chanced to come into these parts a
+     certain foreigner of Rostock, whose name as I remember, was
+     Christianus Vurstitius, a follower of Copernicus, who in an
+     Academy made two or three lectures upon this point, to whom
+     many flock't as auditors; but I thinking they went more for
+     the novelty of the subject than otherwise, did not go to
+     hear him; for I had concluded with myself that that opinion
+     could be no other than a solemn madnesse. And questioning
+     some of those who had been there, I perceived they all made
+     a jest thereof, except one, who told me that the business
+     was not altogether to be laugh't at, and because this man
+     was reputed by me to be very intelligent and wary, I
+     repented that I was not there, and began from that time
+     forward as oft as I met with anyone of the Copernican
+     persuasion, to demand of them, if they had always been of
+     the same judgment; and of as many as I examined, I found not
+     so much as one, who told me not that he had been a long time
+     of the contrary opinion, but to have changed it for this, as
+     convinced by the reasons proving the same: and afterwards
+     questioning them, one by one, to see whether they were well
+     possest of the reasons of the other side, I found them all
+     to be very ready and perfect in them; so that I could not
+     truly say that they had took up this opinion out of
+     ignorance, vanity, or to show the acuteness of their wits.
+     On the contrary, of as many of the Peripateticks and
+     Ptolemeans as I have asked (and out of curiosity I have
+     talked with many) what pains they had taken in the Book of
+     Copernicus, I found very few that had so much as
+     superficially perused it: but of those whom, I thought, had
+     understood the same, not one; and moreover, I have enquired
+     amongst the followers of the Peripatetick Doctrine, if ever
+     any of them had held the contrary opinion, and likewise
+     found that none had. Whereupon considering that there was no
+     man who followed the opinion of Copernicus that had not been
+     first on the contrary side, and that was not very well
+     acquainted with the reasons of Aristotle and Ptolemy; and on
+     the contrary, that there is not one of the followers of
+     Ptolemy that had ever been of the judgment of Copernicus,
+     and that had left that to embrace this of Aristotle,
+     considering, I say, these things, I began to think that one,
+     who leaveth an opinion imbued with his milk, and followed by
+     very many, to take up another owned by very few, and denied
+     by all the Schools, and that really seems a very great
+     Parodox, must needs have been moved, not to say forced, by
+     more powerful reasons. For this cause I am become very
+     curious to dive, as they say, into the bottom of this
+     business ... and bring myself to a certainty in this
+     subject."[231]
+
+[Footnote 230: Galileo: _Opere_, X, 68.]
+
+[Footnote 231: 'The Second Day' in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._ I,
+110-111.]
+
+Galileo's brilliant work in mechanics and his great popularity--for
+his lectures were thronged--combined with his skilled and witty
+attacks upon the accepted scientific ideas of the age, embittered and
+antagonized many who were both conservative and jealous.[232] The
+Jesuits particularly resented his influence and power, for they
+claimed the leadership in the educational world and were jealous of
+intruders. Furthermore, they were bound by the decree of the fiftieth
+General Congregation of their society in 1593 to defend Aristotle, a
+decree strictly enforced.[233] While a few of the Jesuits were
+friendly disposed to Galileo at first, the controversies in which he
+and they became involved and their bitter attacks upon him made him
+feel by 1633 that they were among his chief enemies.[234]
+
+[Footnote 232: Fahie: 265.]
+
+[Footnote 233: Conway: 46-47.]
+
+[Footnote 234: Conway: 46-47.]
+
+Early in 1609, Galileo heard a rumor of a spy-glass having been made
+in Flanders, and proceeded to work one out for himself according to
+the laws of perspective. The fifth telescope that he made magnified
+thirty diameters, and it was with such instruments of his own
+manufacture that he made in the next three years his famous
+discoveries: Jupiter's four satellites (which he named the Medicean
+Planets), Saturn's "tripartite" character (the rings were not
+recognized as such for several decades thereafter), the stars of the
+Milky Way, the crescent form of Venus, the mountains of the moon, many
+more fixed stars, and the spots on the sun. Popular interest waxed
+with each new discovery and from all sides came requests for
+telescopes; yet there were those who absolutely refused even to look
+through a telescope lest they be compelled to admit Aristotle was
+mistaken, and others claimed that Jupiter's moons were merely defects
+in the instrument. The formal announcement of the first of these
+discoveries was made in the _Sidereus Nuncius_ (1610), a book that
+aroused no little opposition. Kepler, however, had it reprinted at
+once in Prague with a long appreciative preface of his own.[235]
+
+[Footnote 235: Fahie: 77-126.]
+
+The following March Galileo went to Rome to show his discoveries and
+was received with the utmost distinction by princes and church
+dignitaries alike. A commission of four scientific members of the
+Roman College had previously examined his claims at Cardinal
+Bellarmin's suggestion, and had admitted their truth. Now Pope Paul V
+gave him long audiences; the Academia dei Lincei elected him a member,
+and everywhere he was acclaimed. Nevertheless his name appears on the
+secret books of the Holy Office as early as May of that year
+(1611).[236] Already he was a suspect.
+
+[Footnote 236: Doc. in Favaro: 13.]
+
+His _Delle Macchie Solari_ (1611) brought on a sharp contest over the
+question of priority of discovery between him and the Jesuit father,
+Christopher Scheiner of Ingolstadt, from which Galileo emerged
+victorious and more disliked than before by that order. Opposition was
+becoming active; Father Castelli, for instance, the professor of
+mathematics at Pisa and Galileo's intimate friend, was forbidden to
+discuss in his lectures the double motion of the earth or even to hint
+at its probability. This same father wrote to his friend early in
+December, 1613, to tell him of a dinner-table conversation on this
+matter at the Tuscan Court, then wintering at Pisa. Castelli told how
+the Dowager Grand Duchess Cristina had had her religious scruples
+aroused by a remark that the earth's motion must be wrong because it
+contradicted the Scriptures, a statement that he had tried to
+refute.[237] Galileo wrote in reply (December 21, 1613), the
+letter[238] that was to cause him endless trouble, in which he marked
+out the boundaries between science and religion and declared it a
+mistake to take the literal interpretation of passages in Scripture
+that were obviously written according to the understanding of the
+common people. He pointed out in addition how futile the miracle of
+the sun's standing still was as an argument against the Copernican
+doctrine for, even according to the Ptolemaic system, not the sun but
+the _primum mobile_ must be stayed for the day to be lengthened.
+
+[Footnote 237: Fahie: 149.]
+
+[Footnote 238: Galileo: _Opere_, V, 281-288.]
+
+Father Castelli allowed others to read and to copy this supposedly
+private letter; copies went from hand to hand in Florence and
+discussion ran high. On the fourth Sunday in December, 1614, Father
+Caccini of the Dominicans preached a sermon in the church of S.M.
+Novella on Joshua's miracle, in which he sharply denounced the
+Copernican doctrine taught by Galileo as heretical, so he
+believed.[239] The Copernicans found a Neapolitan Jesuit who replied
+to Caccini the following Sunday from the pulpit of the Duomo.[240]
+
+[Footnote 239: Doc. in Favaro: 48-49.]
+
+[Footnote 240: Doc. in Favaro: 49.]
+
+In February (1615), came the formal denunciation of Galileo to the
+Holy Office at Rome by Father Lorini, a Dominican associate of
+Caccini's at the Convent San Marco. The father sent with his "friendly
+warning," a copy of the letter to Castelli charging that it contained
+"many propositions which were either suspect or temerarious," and, he
+added, "though the _Galileisti_ were good Christians they were rather
+stubborn and obstinate in their opinions."[241] The machinery of the
+Inquisition began secretly to turn. The authorities failed to get the
+original of the letter, for Castelli had returned that to Galileo at
+the latter's request.[242] Pope Paul sent word to Father Caccini to
+appear before the Holy Office in Rome to depose on this matter of
+Galileo's errors "pro exoneratione suæ conscientiæ."[243] This he did
+"freely" in March and was of course sworn to secrecy. He named a
+certain nobleman, a Copernican, as the source of his information about
+Galileo, for he did not know the latter even by sight. This nobleman
+was by order of the Pope examined in November after some delay by the
+Inquisitor at Florence. His testimony was to the effect that he
+considered Galileo the best of Catholics.[244]
+
+[Footnote 241: Ibid: 38: "amorevole avviso."]
+
+[Footnote 242: Ibid: 46, 47, 51.]
+
+[Footnote 243: Ibid: 47.]
+
+[Footnote 244: Ibid: 49.]
+
+Meanwhile the Consultors of the Holy Office had examined Lorini's copy
+of the letter and reported the finding of only three objectionable
+places all of which, they stated, could be amended by changing certain
+doubtful phrases; otherwise it did not deviate from the true faith. It
+is interesting to note that the copy they had differed in many minor
+respects from the original letter, and in one place heightened a
+passage with which the Examiners found fault as imputing falsehood to
+the Scriptures although they are infallible.[245] Galileo's own
+statement ran that there were many passages in the Scriptures which
+according to the literal meaning of the words, "hanno aspetto diverso
+dal vero...." The copy read, "molte propositioni falso quanto al nudo
+senso delle parole."
+
+[Footnote 245: Ibid: 43-45, see original in Galileo: _Opere_, V,
+281-285.]
+
+Rumors of trouble reached Galileo and, urged on by his friends, in
+1615 he wrote a long formal elaboration of the earlier letter,
+addressing this one to the Dowager Grand Duchess, but he had only
+added fuel to the fire. At the end of the year he voluntarily went to
+Rome, regardless of any possible danger to himself, to see if he could
+not prevent a condemnation of the doctrine.[246] It came as a decided
+surprise to him to receive an order to appear before Cardinal
+Bellarmin on February 26, 1616,[2] and there to learn that the Holy
+Office had already condemned it two days before. He was told that the
+Holy Office had declared: first, "that the proposition that the sun is
+the center of the universe and is immobile is foolish and absurd in
+philosophy and formally heretical since it contradicts the express
+words of the Scriptures in many places, according to the meaning of
+the words and the common interpretation and sense of the Fathers and
+the doctors of theology; and, secondly, that the proposition that the
+earth is not the center of the universe nor immobile receives the same
+censure in philosophy and in regard to its theological truth, it at
+least is erroneous in Faith."[247]
+
+[Footnote 246: Doc. in Favaro: 78.]
+
+[Footnote 247: Ibid: 61.]
+
+Exactly what was said at that meeting between the two men became the
+crucial point in Galileo's trial sixteen years later, hence a somewhat
+detailed study is important. At the meeting of the Congregation on
+February 25th, the Pope ordered Cardinal Bellarmin to summon Galileo
+and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove
+recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way
+to abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it; if he did not
+acquiesce, he was to be imprisoned.[248] The Secret Archives of the
+Vatican contain a minute reporting this interview (dated February 26,
+1616), in which the Cardinal is said to have ordered Galileo to
+relinquish this condemned proposition, "nec eam de cætero, quovis
+modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis," and that
+Galileo promised to obey.[249] Rumors evidently were rife in Rome at
+the time as to what had happened at this secret interview, for Galileo
+wrote to the Cardinal in May asking for a statement of what actually
+had occurred so that he might silence his enemies. The Cardinal
+replied:
+
+     "We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmin, having heard that Signor
+     Galileo was calumniated and charged with having abjured in
+     our hand, and also of being punished by salutary penance,
+     and being requested to give the truth, state that the
+     aforesaid Signor Galileo has not abjured in our hand nor in
+     the hand of any other person in Rome, still less in any
+     other place, so far as we know, any of his opinions and
+     teachings, nor has he received salutary penance nor any
+     other kind; but only was he informed of the declaration made
+     by his Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of
+     the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine
+     attributed to Copernicus,--that the earth moves around the
+     sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world
+     without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the
+     Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held
+     (non si possa difendere né tenere). And in witness of this
+     we have written and signed these presents with our own hand,
+     this 26th day of May, 1616.
+
+     ROBERT CARDINAL BELLARMIN."[250]
+
+[Footnote 248: Ibid: 61.]
+
+[Footnote 249: Doc. in Favaro: 61-62.]
+
+[Footnote 250: Ibid: 88.]
+
+Galileo's defense sixteen years later[251] was that he had obeyed the
+order as given him by the Cardinal and that he had not "defended nor
+held" the doctrine in his _Dialoghi_ but had refuted it. The
+Congregation answered that he had been ordered not only not to hold
+nor defend, but also not to treat in any way (quovis modo) this
+condemned subject. When Galileo disclaimed all recollection of that
+phrase and produced the Cardinal's statement in support of his
+position, he was told that this document, far from lightening his
+guilt, greatly aggravated it since he had dared to deal with a subject
+that he had been informed was contrary to the Holy Scriptures.[252]
+
+[Footnote 251: Ibid: 80-86.]
+
+[Footnote 252: Ibid: 145.]
+
+To return to 1616. On the third of March the Cardinal reported to the
+Congregation in the presence of the Pope that he had warned Galileo
+and that Galileo had acquiesced.[253] The Congregation then reported
+its decree suspending "until corrected" "Nicolai Copernici De
+Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, et Didaci Astunica in Job," and
+prohibiting "Epistola Fratris Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitæ,"
+together with all other books dealing with this condemned and
+prohibited doctrine. The Pope ordered this decree to be published by
+the Master of the Sacred Palace, which was done two days later.[254]
+But this prohibition could not have been widely known for two or three
+years; the next year Mulier published his edition of the _De
+Revolutionibus_ at Amsterdam without a word of reference to it; in
+1618 Thomas Feyens, professor at Louvain, heard vague rumors of the
+condemnation and wondered if it could be true;[255] and the following
+spring Fromundus, also at Louvain and later a noted antagonist of the
+new doctrine, wrote to Feyens asking:
+
+     "What did I hear lately from you about the Copernicans? That
+     they have been condemned a year or two ago by our Holy
+     Father, Pope Paul V? Until now I have known nothing about
+     it; no more have this crowd of German and Italian scholars,
+     very learned and, as I think, very Catholic, who admit with
+     Copernicus that the earth is turned. Is it possible that
+     after a lapse of time as considerable as this, we have
+     nothing more than a rumor of such an event? I find it hard
+     to believe, since nothing more definite has come from Italy.
+     Definitions of this sort ought above all to be published in
+     the universities where the learned men are to whom the
+     danger of such an opinion is very great."[256]
+
+[Footnote 253: Ibid: 16.]
+
+[Footnote 254: Doc. in Favaro: 16.]
+
+[Footnote 255: Monchamp: 46.]
+
+[Footnote 256: Fromundus: _De Cometa Anni_ 1618: chap. VII, p. 68.
+(From the private library of Dr. E.E. Slosson. A rare book which Lecky
+could not find. _History of Rationalism in Europe_, I, 280, note.)]
+
+Galileo meanwhile had retired to Florence and devoted himself to
+mechanical science, (of which his work is the foundation) though
+constantly harassed by much ill health and many family perplexities.
+At the advice of his friends, he allowed the attacks on the Copernican
+doctrine to go unanswered,[257] till with the accession to the
+papacy in 1623 of Cardinal Barberini, as Urban VIII, a warm admirer
+and supporter of his, he thought relief was in sight. He was further
+cheered by a conversation Cardinal di Zollern reported having had with
+Pope Urban, in which his Holiness had reminded the Cardinal how he
+(the Pope) had defended Copernicus in the time of Paul V, and asserted
+that out of just respect owed to the memory of Copernicus, if he had
+been pope then, he would not have permitted his opinion to be declared
+heretical.[258] Feeling that he now had friends in power, Galileo
+began his great work, _Dialogo sopra i Due Sistemi Massimi del Mondo_,
+a dialogue in four "days" in which three interlocutors discuss the
+arguments for and against the Copernican theory, though coming to no
+definite conclusion. Sagredo was an avowed Copernican and Galileo's
+spokesman, Salviati was openminded, and the peripatetic was Simplicio,
+appropriately named for the famous Sicilian sixth century commentator
+on Aristotle.[259]
+
+[Footnote 257: In 1620 the Congregation issued the changes it required
+to have made in the _De Revolutionibus_. They are nine in all, and
+consist mainly in changing assertion of the earth's movement to
+hypothetical statement and in striking out a reference to the earth as
+a planet. Doc. in Favaro: 140-141. See illustration, p. 61.]
+
+[Footnote 258: Doc. in Favaro: 149.]
+
+[Footnote 259: Galileo: _Dialogo_: To the Reader.]
+
+[Illustration: A "CORRECTED" PAGE FROM THE _De Revolutionibus_.
+
+A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from Mulier's edition
+(1617) of the _De Revolutionibus_ as "corrected" according to the
+_Monitum_ of the Congregations in 1620. The first writer underlined
+the passages to be deleted or altered with marginal notes indicating
+the changes ordered; the second writer scratched out these passages,
+and wrote out in full the changes the other had given in abbreviated
+form. The _Notæ_ are Mulier's own, and so were not affected by the
+order. The effect of the page is therefore somewhat contradictory!]
+
+In 1630 he brought the completed manuscript to Riccardi, Master of the
+Sacred Palace, for permission to print it in Rome. After much reading
+and re-reading of it both by Riccardi and his associate, Father
+Visconti, permission was at length granted on condition that he insert
+a preface and a conclusion practically dictated by Riccardi,
+emphasizing its hypothetical character.[260] The Pope's own argument
+was to be used: "God is all-powerful; all things are therefore
+possible to Him; ergo, the tides cannot be adduced as a necessary
+proof of the double motion of the earth without limiting God's
+omnipotence--which is absurd."[261] Galileo returned to Florence in
+June with the permission to print his book in Rome. Meanwhile the
+plague broke out. He decided to print it in Florence instead, and on
+writing to Riccardi for that permission, the latter asked for the book
+to review it again. The times were too troublesome to risk sending it,
+so a compromise was finally effected: Galileo was to send the preface
+and conclusion to Rome and Riccardi agreed to instruct the Inquisitor
+at Florence as to his requirements and to authorize him to license the
+book.[262] The parts were not returned from Rome till July, 1631, and
+the book did not appear till February of the following year, when it
+was published at Florence with all these licenses, both the Roman and
+the Florentine ones.
+
+[Footnote 260: Doc. in Favaro: 70.]
+
+[Footnote 261: Fahie: 230.]
+
+[Footnote 262: Ibid: 240.]
+
+The _Dialogo_ was in Italian so that all could read it. It begins with
+an outline of the Aristotelian system, then points out the
+resemblances between the earth and the planets. The second "day"
+demonstrates the daily rotation of the earth on its axis. The next
+claims that the necessary stellar parallax is too minute to be
+observed and discusses the earth's annual rotation. The last seeks to
+prove this rotation by the ebb and flow of the tides. It is a
+brilliant book and received a great reception.
+
+The authorities of the Inquisition at once examined it and denounced
+Galileo (April 17, 1633) because in it he not merely taught and
+defended the "condemned doctrine but was gravely suspected of firm
+adherence to this opinion."[263] Other charges made against him were
+that he had printed the Roman licenses without the permission of the
+Congregation, that he had printed the preface in different type so
+alienating it from the body of the book, and had put the required
+conclusion into the mouth of a fool (Simplicio), that in many places
+he had abandoned the hypothetical treatment and asserted the forbidden
+doctrine, and that he had dealt indecisively with the matter though
+the Congregation had specifically condemned the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the express words of the Scripture.[264]
+
+[Footnote 263: Doc. in Favaro: 88-89. [Transcriber's Note: Missing
+footnote reference in original text has been added above in a logical
+place.]]
+
+[Footnote 264: Ibid: 66.]
+
+The Pope became convinced that Galileo had ridiculed him in the
+character of Simplicio to whom Galileo had naturally enough assigned
+the Pope's syllogistic argument. On the 23rd of September, he ordered
+the Inquisitor of Florence to notify Galileo (in the presence of
+concealed notary and witnesses in case he were "recusant") to come to
+Rome and appear before the Sacred Congregation before the end of the
+next month;[265] the publication and sale of the _Dialogo_ meanwhile
+being stopped at great financial loss to the printer.[266] Galileo
+promised to obey; but he was nearly seventy years old and so much
+broken in health that a long difficult journey in the approaching
+winter seemed a great and unnecessary hardship, especially as he was
+loath to believe that the Church authorities were really hostile to
+him. Delays were granted him till the Pope in December finally ordered
+him to be in Rome within a month.[267] The Florentine Inquisitor
+replied that Galileo was in bed so sick that three doctors had
+certified that he could not travel except at serious risk to his life.
+This certificate declared that he suffered from an intermittent pulse,
+from enfeebled vital faculties, from frequent dizziness, from
+melancholia, weakness of the stomach, insomnia, shooting pains and
+serious hernia.[268] The answer the Pope made to this was to order the
+Inquisitor to send at Galileo's expense a commissary and a doctor out
+to his villa to see if he were feigning illness; if he were, he was to
+be sent bound and in chains to Rome at once; if [Transcriber's Note:
+'he' missing] were really too ill to travel, then he was to be sent in
+chains as soon as he was convalescent and could travel safely.[269]
+Galileo did not delay after that any longer than he could help, and
+set out for Rome in January in a litter supplied by the Tuscan Grand
+Duke.[270] The journey was prolonged by quarantine, but upon his
+arrival (February 13, 1633), he was welcomed into the palace of
+Niccolini, the warm-hearted ambassador of the Grand Duke.
+
+[Footnote 265: Ibid: 17-18.]
+
+[Footnote 266: Galileo: _Opere_, XV, 26.]
+
+[Footnote 267: Doc. in Favaro: 74.]
+
+[Footnote 268: Ibid: 75.]
+
+[Footnote 269: Ibid: 76.]
+
+[Footnote 270: Ibid: 80-81.]
+
+Four times was the old man summoned into the presence of the Holy
+Office, though never when the Pope was presiding. In his first
+examination held on the 12th of April, he told how he thought he had
+obeyed the decree of 1616 as his _Dialogo_ did not defend the
+Copernican doctrine but rather confuted it, and that in his desire to
+do the right, he had personally submitted the book while in manuscript
+to the censorship of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and had accepted
+all the changes he and the Florentine Inquisitor had required. He had
+not mentioned the affair of 1616 because he thought that order did not
+apply to this book in which he proved the lack of validity and of
+conclusiveness of the Copernican arguments.[271] With remarkable, in
+fact unique, consideration, the Holy Office then assigned Galileo to a
+suite of rooms within the prisons of the Holy Office, allowed him to
+have his servant with him and to have his meals sent in by the
+ambassador. On the 30th after his examination, they even assigned as
+his prison, the Ambassador's palace, out of consideration for his age
+and ill-health.
+
+[Footnote 271: Ibid: 80-81.]
+
+In his second appearance (April 30), Galileo declared he had been
+thinking matters over after re-reading his book (which he had not read
+for three years), and freely confessed that there were several
+passages which would mislead a reader unaware of his real intentions,
+into believing the worse arguments were the better, and he blamed
+these slips upon his vain ambition and delight in his own skill in
+debate.[272] He thereupon offered to write another "day" or two more
+for the _Dialogo_ in which he would completely refute the two "strong"
+Copernican arguments based on the sun's spots and on the tides.[273]
+Ten days later, at his third appearance, he presented a written
+statement of his defence in which he claimed that the phrase _vel
+quovis modo docere_ was wholly new to him, and that he had obeyed the
+order given him by Cardinal Bellarmin over the latter's own signature.
+However he would make what amends he could and begged the Cardinals to
+"consider his miserable bodily health and his incessant mental trouble
+for the past ten months, the discomforts of a long hard journey at the
+worst season, when 70 years old, together with the loss of the greater
+part of the year, and that therefore such suffering might be adequate
+punishment for his faults which they might condone to failing old age.
+Also he commended to them his honor and reputation against the
+calumnies of his ill-wishers who seek to detract from his good
+name."[274] To such a plight was the great man brought! But the end
+was not yet.
+
+[Footnote 272: Doc. in Favaro: 83.]
+
+[Footnote 273: Ibid: 84.]
+
+[Footnote 274: Ibid: 85-87.]
+
+Nearly a month later (June 16), by order of the Pope, Galileo was once
+again interrogated, this time under threat of torture.[275] Once again
+he declared the opinion of Ptolemy true and indubitable and said he
+did not hold and had not held this doctrine of Copernicus after he had
+been informed of the order to abandon it. "As for the rest," he added,
+"I am in your hands, do with me as you please." "I am here to
+obey."[276] Then by the order of the Pope, ensued Galileo's complete
+abjuration on his knees in the presence of the full Congregation,
+coupled with his promise to denounce other heretics (i.e.,
+Copernicans).[277] In addition, because he was guilty of the heresy of
+having held and believed a doctrine declared and defined as contrary
+to the Scriptures, he was sentenced to "formal imprisonment" at the
+will of the Congregation, and to repeat the seven penitential Psalms
+every week for three years.[278]
+
+[Footnote 275: Ibid: 101.]
+
+[Footnote 276: Doc. in Favaro: 101.]
+
+[Footnote 277: Doc. in Favaro: 146.]
+
+[Footnote 278: Ibid: 145.]
+
+At Galileo's earnest request, his sentence was commuted almost at
+once, to imprisonment first in the archiepiscopal palace in Siena
+(from June 30-December 1), then in his own villa at Arcetri, outside
+Florence, though under strict orders not to receive visitors but to
+live in solitude.[279] In the spring his increasing illness occasioned
+another request for greater liberty in order to have the necessary
+visits from the doctor; but on March 23, 1634, this was denied him
+with a stern command from the Pope to refrain from further petitions
+lest the Sacred Congregation be compelled to recall him to their
+prisons in Rome.[280]
+
+[Footnote 279: Ibid: 103, 129.]
+
+[Footnote 280: Ibid: 134.]
+
+The rule forbidding visitors seems not to have been rigidly enforced
+all the time, for Milton visited him, "a prisoner of the Inquisition"
+in 1638;[281] yet Father Castelli had to write to Rome for permission
+to visit him to learn his newly invented method of finding longitude
+at sea.[282] When in Florence on a very brief stay to see his doctor,
+Galileo had to have the especial consent of the Inquisitor in order to
+attend mass at Easter. He won approval from the Holy Congregation,
+however, by refusing to receive some gifts and letters brought him by
+some German merchants from the Low Countries.[283] He was then totally
+blind, but he dragged out his existence until January 8, 1642 (the
+year of Newton's birth), when he died. As the Pope objected to a
+public funeral for a man sentenced by the Holy Office, he was buried
+without even an epitaph.[284] The first inscription was made 31 years
+later, and in 1737, his remains were removed to Santa Croce after the
+Congregation had first been asked if such action would be
+unobjectionable.[285]
+
+[Footnote 281: Milton: _Areopagitica_: 35.]
+
+[Footnote 282: Doc. in Favaro: 135.]
+
+[Footnote 283: Ibid: 137.]
+
+[Footnote 284: Fahie: 402.]
+
+[Footnote 285: Doc. in Favaro: 138; and Fahie: 402.]
+
+Pope Urban had no intention of concealing Galileo's abjuration and
+sentence. Instead, he ordered copies of both to be sent to all
+inquisitors and papal nuncios that they might notify all their clergy
+and especially all the professors of mathematics and philosophy within
+their districts, particularly those at Florence, Padua and Pisa.[286]
+This was done during the summer and fall of 1633. From Wilna in
+Poland, Cologne, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, as well as from all
+Italy, came the replies of the papal officials stating that the order
+had been obeyed.[287] He evidently intended to leave no ground for a
+remark like that of Fromundus about the earlier condemnation.
+
+[Footnote 286: Doc. in Favaro: 101, 103.]
+
+[Footnote 287: Ibid: 104-132.]
+
+Galileo was thus brought so low that the famous remark, "Eppur si
+muove," legend reports him to have made as he rose to his feet after
+his abjuration, is incredible in itself, even if it had appeared in
+history earlier than its first publication in 1761.[288] But his
+discoveries and his fight in defence of the system did much both to
+strengthen the doctrine itself and to win adherents to it. The
+appearance of the moon as seen through a telescope destroyed the
+Aristotelian notion of the perfection of heavenly bodies. Jupiter's
+satellites gave proof by analogy of the solar system, though on a
+smaller scale. The discovery of the phases of Venus refuted a hitherto
+strong objection to the Copernican system; and the discovery of the
+spots on the sun led to his later discovery of the sun's axial
+rotation, another proof by analogy of the axial rotation of the earth.
+Yet he swore the Ptolemaic conception was the true one.
+
+[Footnote 288: Fahie: 325, note.]
+
+The abjuration of Galileo makes a pitiful page in the history of
+thought and has been a fruitful source of controversy[289] for nearly
+three centuries. He was unquestionably a sincere and loyal Catholic,
+and accordingly submitted to the punishment decreed by the
+authorities. But in his abjuration he plainly perjured himself,
+however fully he may be pardoned for it because of the extenuating
+circumstances. Had he not submitted and been straitly imprisoned, if
+not burned, the world would indeed have been the poorer by the loss
+of his greatest work, the _Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze_, which he did
+not publish until 1636.[290]
+
+[Footnote 289: For full statement, see Martin: 133-207.]
+
+[Footnote 290: Gebler: 263.]
+
+Even more hotly debated has been the action of the Congregations in
+condemning the Copernican doctrine, and sentencing Galileo as a
+heretic for upholding it.[291] Though both Paul V and Urban VIII
+spurred on these actions, neither signed either the decree or the
+sentence, nor was the latter present at Galileo's examinations. Pope
+Urban would prefer not so openly to have changed his position from
+that of tolerance to his present one of active opposition caused
+partly by his piqued self-respect[292] and partly by his belief that
+this heresy was more dangerous even than that of Luther and
+Calvin.[293] It is a much mooted question whether the infallibility of
+the Church was involved or not. Though the issue at stake was not one
+of faith, nor were the decrees issued by the Pope _ex cathedra_, but
+by a group of Cardinals, a fallible body, yet they had the full
+approbation of the Popes, and later were published in the Index
+preceded by a papal bull excommunicating those who did not obey the
+decrees contained therein.[294] It seems to be a matter of the letter
+as opposed to the spirit of the law. De Morgan points out that
+contemporary opinion as represented by Fromundus, an ardent opponent
+of Galileo, did not consider the Decree of the Index or of the
+Inquisition as a declaration of the Church,[295]--a position which
+Galileo himself may have held, thus explaining his practical disregard
+of the decree of 1616 after he was persuaded the authorities were more
+favorably disposed to him. But M. Martin, himself a Catholic,
+thinks[296] that theoretically the Congregations could punish Galileo
+only for disobedience of the secret order,--but even so his book had
+been examined and passed by the official censors.
+
+[Footnote 291: See Gebler: 244-247; White: I, 159-167; also Martin.]
+
+[Footnote 292: Martin: 136; and Salusbury: _Math. Coll._ "To the
+reader."]
+
+[Footnote 293: Galileo: _Opere_, XV, 25.]
+
+[Footnote 294: Putnam: I, 310.]
+
+[Footnote 295: De Morgan: I, 98.]
+
+[Footnote 296: Martin: 140.]
+
+When the Index was revised under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757, largely
+through the influence of the Jesuit astronomer Boscovich, so it is
+said,[297] the phrase prohibiting all books teaching the immobility
+of the sun, and the mobility of the earth was omitted from the
+decrees.[298] But in 1820, the Master of the Sacred Palace refused to
+permit the publication in Rome of a textbook on astronomy by Canon
+Settele, who thereupon appealed to the Congregations. They granted his
+request in August, and two years later, issued a decree approved by
+Pope Pius VII ordering the Master of the Sacred Palace in future "not
+to refuse license for publication of books dealing with the mobility
+of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to the common
+opinion of modern astronomers" on that ground alone.[299] The next
+edition of the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_ (1835) did not contain
+the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, à Stunica and Kepler
+which had appeared in every edition up to that time since their
+condemnation in 1616, (Kepler's in 1619).
+
+[Footnote 297: _Cath. Ency._: "Boscovich."]
+
+[Footnote 298: Doc. in Favaro: 159.]
+
+[Footnote 299: Ibid: 30, 31.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+THE OPPOSITION AND THEIR ARGUMENTS.
+
+
+The Protestant leaders had rejected the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the Scriptures. The Roman Congregations had now condemned
+Galileo for upholding this doctrine after they had prohibited it for
+the same reasons. These objections are perhaps best summarized in that
+open letter Foscarini wrote to the general of his order, the
+Carmelites, at Naples in January, 1615,[300]--the letter that was
+absolutely prohibited by the Index in March, 1616. He gave these
+arguments and answered them lest, as he said, "whilst otherwise the
+opinion is favored with much probability, it be found in reality to be
+extremely repugnant (as at first sight it seems) not only to physical
+reasons and common principles received on all hands (which cannot do
+so much harm), but also (which would be of far worse consequence) to
+many authorities of Sacred Scripture. Upon which account many at first
+looking into it explode it as the most fond paradox and monstrous
+_capriccio_ that ever was heard of." "Yet many modern authors," he
+says further on, "are induced to follow it, but with much hesitancy
+and fear, in regard that it seemeth in their opinion so to contradict
+the Holy Scriptures that it cannot possibly be reconciled to them."
+Consequently Foscarini argued that the theory is either true or false;
+if false, it ought not to be divulged; if true, the authority of the
+Sacred Scriptures will not oppose it; neither does one truth
+contradict another. So he turned to the Bible.
+
+[Footnote 300: In Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: I, 471-503.]
+
+He found that six groups of authorities seemed to oppose this
+doctrine. (1) Those stating that the earth stands fast, as Eccles.
+1:4. (2) Those stating that the sun moves and revolves; as Psalm XIX,
+Isaiah XXXVIII, and the miracle in Josh. X:12-14. (3) Those speaking
+of the heaven above and the earth beneath, as in Joel II. Also Christ
+came _down_ from Heaven. (4) Those authorities who place Hell at the
+center of the world, a "common opinion of divines," because it ought
+to be in the lowest part of the world, that is, at the center of the
+sphere. Then by the Copernican hypothesis, Hell must either be in the
+sun; or, if in the earth, if the earth should move about the sun, then
+Hell within the earth would be in Heaven, and nothing could be more
+absurd. (5) Those authorities opposing Heaven to earth and earth to
+Heaven, as in Gen. I, Mat. VI, etc. Since the two are always mutually
+opposed to each other, and Heaven undoubtedly refers to the
+circumference, earth must necessarily be at the center. (6) Those
+authorities ("rather of fathers and divines than of the Sacred
+Scriptures") who declare that after the Day of Judgment, the sun shall
+stand immovable in the east and the moon in west.
+
+Foscarini then lays down in answer six maxims, the first of which is
+that things attributed to God must be expounded metaphorically
+according to our manner of understanding and of common speech. The
+other maxims are more metaphysical, as that everything in the
+universe, whether corruptible or incorruptible, obeys a fixed law of
+its nature; so, for example, Fortune is _always_ fickle. In concluding
+his defense, he claims among other things, that the Copernician is a
+more admirable hypothesis than the Ptolemaic, and that it is an easy
+way into astronomy and philosophy. Then he adds that there may be an
+analogy between the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Testament
+and the seven planets around the sun, and possibly the arrangement of
+the seeds in the "Indian Figg," in the pomegranate and in grapes is
+all divine evidence of the solar system. With such an amusing
+reversion to mediæval analogy his spirited letter ends.
+
+Some or all of these scriptural arguments appear in most of the
+attacks on the doctrine even before its condemnation by the Index in
+1616 was widely known. Besides these objections, Aristotle's and
+Ptolemy's statements were endlessly repeated with implicit faith in
+their accuracy. Even Sir Francis Bacon (1567-1631) with all his
+modernity of thought, failed in this instance to recognize the value
+of the new idea and, despite his interest in Galileo's discoveries,
+harked back to the time-honored objections. At first mild in his
+opposition, he later became emphatically opposed to it. In the
+_Advancement of Learning_[301] (1604), he speaks of it as a possible
+explanation of the celestial phenomena according to astronomy but as
+contrary to natural philosophy. Some fifteen years later in the _Novum
+Organon_,[302] he asserts that the assumption of the earth's movement
+cannot be allowed; for, as he says in his _Thema Coeli_,[303] at
+that time he considered the opinion that the earth is stationary the
+truer one. Finally, in his _De Augmentis Scientiarum_[304] (1622-1623)
+he speaks of the old notions of the solidity of the heavens, etc., and
+adds, "It is the absurdity of these opinions that has driven men to
+the diurnal motion; which I am convinced is most false." He gives his
+reasons in the _Descriptio Globi Intellectualis_[305] (ch. 5-6): "In
+favor of the earth [as the center of the world] we have the evidence
+of our sight, and an inveterate opinion; and most of all this, that as
+dense bodies are contracted into a narrow compass, and rare bodies are
+widely diffused (and the area of every circle is contracted to the
+center) it seems to follow almost of necessity that the narrow space
+about the middle of the world be set down as the proper and peculiar
+place for dense bodies." The sun's claims to such a situation are
+satisfied through having two satellites of its own, Venus and Mercury.
+Copernicus's scheme is inconvenient; it overloads the earth with a
+triple motion; it creates a difficulty by separating the sun from the
+number of the planets with which it has much in common; and the
+"introduction of so much immobility into nature ... and making the
+moon revolve around the earth in an epicycle, and some other
+assumptions of his are the speculations of one who cares not what
+fictions he introduces into nature, provided his calculations answer."
+The total absence of all reference to the Scriptures is the unique and
+refreshing part of Bacon's thought.
+
+[Footnote 301: Bk. II: sec. 8, §1.]
+
+[Footnote 302: Bk. II, ch. 46.]
+
+[Footnote 303: _Phil. Works_: 705.]
+
+[Footnote 304: Bk. III.]
+
+[Footnote 305: _Phil. Works_: 684-685.]
+
+All the more common arguments against the diurnal rotation of the
+earth are well stated in an interesting little letter (1619) by
+Thomas Feyens, or Fienus, a professor at the school of medicine in the
+University of Louvain.[306] Thus Catholic, Protestant, and unbeliever,
+Feyens, Melancthon, Bacon and Bodin, all had recourse to the same
+arguments to oppose this seemingly absurd doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 306: Translated in Appendix C. For criticism, see Monchamp:
+58-64.]
+
+Froidmont, or Fromundus, the good friend and colleague of Feyens at
+Louvain, was also much interested in these matters, so much so that
+some thought he had formerly accepted the Copernican doctrine and
+"only fled back into the camp of Aristotle and Ptolemy through terror
+at the decree of the S. Congregation of Cardinals."[307] His indignant
+denial of this imputation of turn-coat in 1634 is somewhat weakened by
+reference to his _Saturnalitæ Coenæ_[308] (1615) in which he suggests
+that, if the Copernican doctrine is admitted, then Hell may be in the
+sun at the center of the universe rather than in the earth, in order
+to be as far as possible from Paradise. He also refers in his _De
+Cometa_ (1618) to the remark of Justus-Lipsius[309] that this paradox
+was buried with Copernicus, saying "You are mistaken, O noble scholar:
+it lives, and it is full of vigor even now among many,"[310] thus
+apparently not seeing serious objection to it. M. Monchamp summarizes
+Froidmont's point of view as against Aristotle and Ptolemy, half for
+Copernicus and wholly for Tycho Brahe.
+
+[Footnote 307: Fromundus: _Vesta_: Ad Lectorem.]
+
+[Footnote 308: Monchamp: 41.]
+
+[Footnote 309: Justus-Lipsius: IV, 947.]
+
+[Footnote 310: Monchamp: 48.]
+
+Froidmont's best known books are the two he wrote in answer to a
+defense of the Copernican position first by Philip Lansberg, then by
+his son. The _Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis Terræ Immobilis, Liber unicus
+in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal. an. 1616, adversus
+Pythagorico-Copernicanus editum, defenditur_, appeared in 1631 before
+Galileo's condemnation. The Jesuit Cavalieri wrote to Galileo in May
+about it thus:[311] "I have run it through, and verily it states the
+Copernican theory and the arguments in its favor with so much skill
+and efficacy that he seems to have understood it very well indeed. But
+he refutes them with so little force that he seems rather to be of an
+opinion contrary to that expressed in the title of his book. I have
+given it to M. César. If you wish it, I will have it sent to you. The
+arguments he brings against Copernicus are those you have so
+masterfully stated and answered in your _Dialogo_." Nearly a year
+later, Galileo wrote to Gassendi and Diodati that he had received this
+book a month before and, although he had been unable to read much of
+it on account of his eye trouble, it seemed to him that of all the
+opponents of Copernicus whom he had seen, Fromundus was the most
+sensible and efficient.[312] Again he wrote in January, 1633,
+regretting that he had not seen it till six months after he had
+published his dialogues, for he would have both praised it and
+commented upon certain points. "As for Fromundus (who however shows
+himself to be a man of great talent) I wish he had not fallen into
+what seems to me a truly serious error, although a rather common one,
+in order to refute the Copernican opinion, of beginning by poking
+scorn and ridicule at those who consider it true, and then (what seems
+to me still less becoming) of basing his attack chiefly on the
+authority of the Scriptures, and finally of deducing from this that in
+this respect it is an opinion little short of heretical. To argue in
+this way is clearly not praiseworthy;" for as Galileo goes on to show,
+if the Scriptures are the word of God, the heavens themselves are his
+handiwork. Why is the one less noble than the other?[313]
+
+[Footnote 311: Ibid: 94.]
+
+[Footnote 312: Galileo: _Opere_: XV, 25.]
+
+[Footnote 313: Ibid: XIV, 340-341.]
+
+Froidmont replied in 1633 to Lansberg's reply with his second attack,
+_Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi Vindex_, in which he laid even more
+emphasis upon the theological and scriptural objections. Yet, in
+ignorance of Galileo's condemnation, he considers the charge of heresy
+too strong. "The partisans of this system do not after all disdain the
+authority of the Scriptures, although they appear to interpret it in a
+way rather in their favor." He also, and rightly, denies the existence
+at that time of any conclusive proof.[314]
+
+[Footnote 314: Monchamp: 107-108.]
+
+In spite of Froidmont's position, the University of Louvain was not
+cordial in its response to the papal nuncio's announcement in
+September, 1633, of Galileo's abjuration and sentence, in marked
+contrast to the reply sent by the neighboring university of Douay. The
+latter body, in a letter signed by Matthæus Kellison (Sept. 7, 1633),
+declared the condemned theory "should be discarded and hissed from the
+schools; and that in the English College there in Douay, this paradox
+never had been approved and never would be, but had always been
+opposed and always would be."[315]
+
+[Footnote 315: Doc. in Favaro: 120-121, 132, 133.]
+
+This opposition in the universities in Belgium continued throughout
+the century to be based not so much on scientific grounds as upon the
+Bible. This may be seen in the manuscript reports of lectures in
+physics and astronomy given at Liège in 1662, and at Louvain between
+1650-1660, though one of these does not mention the decree of
+1616.[316] The general congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1650
+drew up a list of the propositions proscribed in their teaching,
+though, according to M. Monchamp (himself a Catholic) not thereby
+implying a denial of any probability they might have. The 35th
+proposition ran: "Terra movetur motu diurno; planetæ, tanquam
+viventia, moventur ab intrinseco. Firmamentum stat."[317] The Jesuit
+astronomer Tacquet in his textbook (Antwerp, 1669) respected this
+decision, acknowledging that no scientific reason kept him from
+defending the theory, but solely his respect for the Christian
+faith.[318]
+
+[Footnote 316: Monchamp: 125, 143.]
+
+[Footnote 317: Ibid: 148-149.]
+
+[Footnote 318: Ibid: 152-153.]
+
+One of the pupils of the Jesuits revolted however. Martin van Welden,
+appointed professor of mathematics at Louvain in 1683, debated a
+series of theses in January, 1691. The second read: "Indubitum est
+systhema Copernici de planetarum motu circa sole; inter quos merito
+terra censetur." His refusal to alter the wording except to change
+_indubitum_ to _certum_ brought on a stormy controversy within the
+faculty which eventually reached the Council of Brabant and the papal
+nuncio at Brussels.[319] The professor finally submitted, though he
+was not forbidden to teach the Copernician system, nor did the faculty
+affirm its falsity, merely that it was contrary to the Roman decree.
+The professor re-opened the matter with a similar thesis in July,
+thereby arousing a second controversy that this time reached even the
+Privy Council. Once more he submitted, but solely with an apology for
+having caused a disagreement. His new theses in 1695 contained no
+explicit mention of the Copernician system; at least he had learned
+tact.[320]
+
+[Footnote 319: Ibid: 182-234.]
+
+[Footnote 320: Monchamp: 321.]
+
+The absorption of the German states in the Thirty Years War may
+account for the apparent absence there of Copernican discussion until
+after the Peace of Westphalia. A certain Georgius Ludovicus Agricola
+gave a syllogistic refutation of the doctrine as his disputation at
+the university of Wittenberg in 1665. While he acknowledged its
+ingenuity, he preferred to it "the noblest, truest, and divinely
+inspired system" of Tycho Brahe. The four requirements of an
+acceptable astronomical hypothesis according to this student are: (1)
+That it suit all the observations of all the ages; (2) That as far as
+possible, it be simple and clear; (3) That it be not contrary to the
+principles of physics and optics; (4) That it be not contrary to the
+Holy Scriptures. As the Copernican theory does not meet all these
+tests, it is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he considers it "ridiculous
+to include the earth among the planets, because then we would be
+living in Heaven, forsooth, since we would be in a star." He decides
+finally "that the decree of March, 1616, condemning the Copernican
+opinion was not unjust, nor was Galileo unfairly treated."[321]
+
+[Footnote 321: Agricola: _Disputatio_.]
+
+Two years later appeared a textbook at Nürnberg, by a Jesuit father,
+based on the twelfth century Sacrobosco treatise and without a single
+reference so far as I could find, to Copernicus![322] Another
+publication of the same year was a good deal more up to date. This was
+a kind of catechism in German by Johann-Henrich Voight[323] explaining
+for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in
+a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish
+astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his
+reader free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of
+which he carefully explained.[324] He made an interesting summary in
+parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion
+which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common
+people were taught:
+
+
+Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless:
+
+1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be
+moved.
+
+2. Joshua bade the sun stand still--which would not be notable were it
+not already at rest.
+
+3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at
+rest.
+
+4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why
+should not the whole earth itself be at rest?
+
+5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a
+great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and
+especially if it declined to the north and south....
+
+6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if
+the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its
+starting point.
+
+7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps.
+
+8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the
+swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of
+dizziness.
+
+
+Reasons for the belief that the earth is moved:
+
+1. The sun, the most excellent, the greatest and the midmost star,
+rightly stands still like a king while all the other stars with the
+earth swing round it.
+
+2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular
+deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving shore.
+
+3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in
+accordance with the popular misconception.
+
+4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so
+the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.
+
+5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle
+of the human body.
+
+6. Since the earth has in itself its especial _centrum_, a stone or an
+arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own _centrum_ as do all
+earthly things.
+
+7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun
+can go forty miles in the same time.
+
+And similarly on both sides.[325]
+
+[Footnote 322: Schotto: _Organum Mathematicum_ (1667).]
+
+[Footnote 323: Voight: _Der Kunstgünstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
+Raritäten Erstes Hundert_. (Hamburg, 1667).]
+
+[Footnote 324: Voight: _op. cit._: 28.]
+
+[Footnote 325: Ibid: 30-31.]
+
+Another writer preferring the Tychonic scheme was Longomontanus, whose
+_Astronomica Danica_ (Amsterdam, 1640) upheld this theory because it
+"obviates the absurdities of the Copernican hypothesis and most aptly
+corresponds to celestial appearances," and also because it is "midway
+between that and the Ptolemaic one."[326] Even though he speaks of the
+"apparent motion of the sun," he attributed diurnal motion to the
+heavens, and believed the earth was at the center of the universe
+because (1), from the account of the Creation, the heaven and the
+earth were first created, and what could be more likely than that the
+heavens should fill the space between the center (the earth) and the
+circumference? (2) and because of the incredibly enormous interval
+between the sphere of the fixed stars and the earth necessitated by
+Copernican doctrine.[327]
+
+[Footnote 326: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 162.]
+
+[Footnote 327: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 158.]
+
+The high-water mark of opposition after Galileo's condemnation was
+reached in the _Almagestum Novum_ (Bologna, 1651) by Father Riccioli
+of the Society of Jesus. It was the authoritative answer of that
+order, the leaders of the Church in matters of education, to the
+challenges of the literary world for a justification of the
+condemnation of the Copernican doctrine and of Galileo for upholding
+it. Father Riccioli had been professor of philosophy and of
+mathematics for six years and of theology for ten when by order of his
+superiors, he was released from his lectureship to prepare a book
+containing all the material he could gather together on this great
+controversy of the age.[328] He wrote it as he himself said, as "an
+_apologia_ for the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals who officially
+pronounced these condemnations, not so much because I thought such
+great height and eminence needed this at my hands but especially in
+behalf of Catholics; also out of the love of truth to which every
+non-Catholic, even, should be persuaded and from a certain notable
+zeal and eagerness for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures
+intact and unimpaired; and lastly because of that reverence and
+devotion which I owe from my particular position toward the Holy,
+Catholic and Apostolic Church."[329]
+
+[Footnote 328: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: Præfatio, I, xviii.]
+
+[Footnote 329: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 496.]
+
+This monumental work, the most important literary production of the
+Society in the 17th century,[330] is abundant witness to Riccioli's
+remarkable erudition and industry. Nearly one-fifth of the total bulk
+of the two huge volumes is devoted to a statement of the Copernican
+controversy. This is prefaced by a brief account of his own theory of
+the universe--the invention of which is another proof of the ability
+of the man--for his scientific training prevented his acceptance of
+the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory in the light of Galileo's
+discoveries; his position as a Jesuit and a faithful son of the Church
+precluded him from adopting the system condemned by its
+representatives; and Tycho Brahe's scheme was not wholly to his
+liking. Therefor he proposed an adaptation of the last-named, more in
+accordance, as he thought, with the facts.[331] Where Tycho had all
+the planets except the earth and the moon encircle the sun, and that
+in turn, together with the moon and the sphere of the fixed stars,
+sweep around the earth as the center of the universe, Riccioli made
+only Mars, Mercury and Venus encircle the sun,--Mars with an orbit the
+radius of which included the earth within its sweep, the other two
+planets with orbital radii shorter than that of the sun, and so
+excluding the earth. This he did, (1) because both Jupiter and Saturn
+have their own kingdoms in the heavens, and Mars, Mercury and Venus
+are but satellites of the sun; (2) because there are greater varieties
+of eccentricity among these three than the other two; (3) because
+Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the
+fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of
+their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the
+planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and
+with Mercury and Venus also.[332]
+
+[Footnote 330: _Cath. Ency._: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic
+Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)]
+
+[Footnote 331: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
+
+[Footnote 332: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
+
+Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre
+summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments against it,[333] and
+Riccioli himself claims[334] to have stated "40 new arguments in
+behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat
+familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for
+instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or,
+the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is
+smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of
+God's power; for to God all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.[335]
+Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so,
+according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it,
+Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars
+revolve around him. The sun may be nobler than the earth, but man is
+nobler than the sun.[336] If the earth's movement were admitted,
+Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the
+epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans
+appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,[337] but he calls to his
+aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his
+defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.[338] There are many
+more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more
+or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or
+novelty.
+
+[Footnote 333: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 674-680.]
+
+[Footnote 334: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 2.]
+
+[Footnote 335: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 313, 315.]
+
+[Footnote 336: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 330-351.]
+
+[Footnote 337: Ibid: II, 339-340.]
+
+[Footnote 338: Delambre: _Op. cit._: I, 677.]
+
+To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the
+heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite
+view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern
+reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it,
+for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure
+men.[339]
+
+[Footnote 339: Ibid: I, 673.]
+
+
+In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].[340]
+
+  Copernicus
+  Rheticus
+  Mæstlin
+  Kepler
+  Rothman
+  Galileo
+  Gilbert (diurnal motion)
+  Foscarini
+  Didacus Stunica (_sic_)
+  Ismael Bullialdus
+  Jacob Lansberg
+  Peter Herigonus
+  Gassendi,--"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees."
+  Descartes "inclines to this belief."
+  A.L. Politianus
+  Bruno
+
+
+Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement.
+
+  Aristotle
+  Ptolemy
+  Theon the Alexandrine
+  Regiomontanus
+  Alfraganus
+  Macrobius
+  Cleomedes
+  Petrus Aliacensis
+  George Buchanan
+  Maurolycus
+  Clavius
+  Barocius
+  Michael Neander
+  Telesius
+  Martinengus
+  Justus-Lipsius
+  Scheiner
+  Tycho
+  Tasso
+  Scipio Claramontius
+  Michael Incofer
+  Fromundus
+  Jacob Ascarisius
+  Julius Cæsar La Galla
+  Tanner
+  Bartholomæus Amicus
+  Antonio Rocce
+  Marinus Mersennius
+  Polacco
+  Kircher
+  Spinella
+  Pineda
+  Lorinis
+  Mastrius
+  Bellutris
+  Poncius
+  Delphinus
+  Elephantutius
+
+[Footnote 340: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 290.]
+
+Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy.
+After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted
+the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one
+digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one
+unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never
+been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,--that man who
+accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even
+to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a triple
+motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before
+so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to
+carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his
+hypothesis!"[341]
+
+[Footnote 341: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 304, 309.]
+
+His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit
+restrained him from being a Copernican himself.[342] "I. If the
+celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well
+explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The
+physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of
+percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or
+west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently
+between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures,
+which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other
+motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But
+with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under
+Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the
+sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile
+in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a
+diurnal and an annual motion."[343]
+
+[Footnote 342: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 680.]
+
+[Footnote 343: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 478 (condensed), 500.]
+
+Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the
+action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the
+doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of
+the Church. The full title of his _Apologia_ runs: "An Apologia in
+behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican
+system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex
+motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his
+_Almagestum Novum_ had received the approbation of professors of
+mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and
+he quotes the conclusion from _Nicetas Orthodoxus_ ("a diatribe by
+Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and
+Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual
+motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly
+believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons, but
+solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures,
+and the nod of approval (_nutu_) of the Roman See, whose rules laid
+down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits
+everyone, uphold as law."[344]
+
+[Footnote 344: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 4.]
+
+Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that
+"the Church did not decide _ex cathedra_ that the Scripture concerning
+movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by
+qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not
+merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the
+contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the
+primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical
+and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was
+absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any
+objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but
+only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to
+philosophy."[345] These answers are indicative of the type of
+criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.[346]
+
+[Footnote 345: Ibid: 103.]
+
+[Footnote 346: One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his
+work has come down to us. A canon at Liège, Réné-François Sluse, wrote
+asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English
+mathematician, as to his opinion of the _Almagestum Novum_, and of
+this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies.
+Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all
+value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as
+intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a
+matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this."
+Monchamp: 165-166.
+
+For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican
+system between 1631-1688, see Martin: _Galilée_: 386-388.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.
+
+
+Just as Tycho Brahe's system proved to be for some a good half-way
+station between the improbable Ptolemaic and the heretical Copernican
+system;[347] so the Cartesian philosophy helped others to reconcile
+their scientific knowledge with their reverence for the Scriptures,
+until Newton's work had more fully demonstrated the scientific truth.
+
+[Footnote 347: See Moxon: _Advice, A Tutor to Astronomy and Geography_
+(1670): 269.]
+
+Its originator, Réné Descartes[348] (1596-1650) was in Holland when
+word of Galileo's condemnation reached him in 1633, as he was seeking
+in the bookshops of Amsterdam and Leyden for a copy of the
+_Dialogo_.[349] He at once became alarmed lest he too be accused of
+trying to establish the movement of the earth, a doctrine which he had
+understood was then publicly taught even in Rome, and which he had
+made the basis of his own philosophy. If this doctrine were condemned
+as false, then his philosophy must be also; and, true to his training
+by the Jesuits, rather than go against the Church he would not publish
+his books. He set aside his _Cosmos_, and delayed the publication of
+the _Méthode_ for some years in consequence, even starting to
+translate it into Latin as a safeguard.[350] His conception of the
+universe, the Copernican one modified to meet the requirements of a
+literally interpreted Bible, was not printed until 1644, when it
+appeared in his _Principes_.[351]
+
+[Footnote 348: Haldane's _Descartes_ (1905) is the most recent and
+authoritative account based upon Descartes's works as published in the
+Adams-Tannery edition (Paris, 1896. foll.). This edition supersedes
+that of Cousin. [Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote reference in
+original text has been added above in a logical place.]]
+
+[Footnote 349: Haldane: 153.]
+
+[Footnote 350: Ibid: 158.]
+
+[Footnote 351: Descartes: _Principes_, Pt. III, chap. 13.]
+
+According to this statement which he made only as a possible
+explanation of the phenomena and not as an absolute truth, while there
+was little to choose between the Tychonic and the Copernican
+conceptions, he inclined slightly toward the former. He conceived of
+the earth and the other planets as each borne along in its enveloping
+heaven like a ship by the tide, or like a man asleep on a ship that
+was sailing from Calais to Dover. The earth itself does not move, but
+it is transported so that its position is changed in relation to the
+other planets but not visibly so in relation to the fixed stars
+because of the vast intervening spaces. The laws of the universe
+affect even the most minute particle, and all alike are swept along in
+a series of vortices, or whirlpools, of greater or less size. Thus the
+whole planetary system sweeps around the sun in one great vortex, as
+the satellites sweep around their respective planets in lesser ones.
+In this way Descartes worked out a mechanical explanation of the
+universe of considerable importance because it was a rational one
+which anyone could understand. Its defects were many, to be sure, as
+for example, that it did not allow for the elliptical orbits of the
+planets;[352] and one critic has claimed that this theory of a
+motionless earth borne along by an enveloping heaven was comparable to
+a worm in a Dutch cheese sent from Amsterdam to Batavia,--the worm has
+travelled about 6000 leagues but without changing its place![353] But
+this theory fulfilled Descartes's aim: to show that the universe was
+governed by mechanical laws of which we can be absolutely certain and
+that Galileo's discoveries simply indicated this.[354]
+
+[Footnote 352: Haldane: 291.]
+
+[Footnote 353: Monchamp: 185, note.]
+
+[Footnote 354: Haldane: 292.]
+
+This exposition of the Copernican doctrine strongly appealed to the
+literary world of the 17th and 18th centuries in western Europe,
+especially in the Netherlands, in the Paris salons and in the
+universities.[355] M. Monchamp cites a number of contemporary comments
+upon its spread, in one of which it is claimed that in 1691, the
+university of Louvain had for the preceding forty years been
+practically composed of Cartesians.[356] For the time being, this
+theory was a more or less satisfactory explanation of the universe
+according to known laws; it answered to Galileo's observations; it was
+in harmony with the Scriptures, and its vortices paved the way for the
+popular acceptance of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
+
+[Footnote 355: Ibid: 193, 279.]
+
+[Footnote 356: Monchamp: 177-181.]
+
+Protestant England was of course little disturbed by the decree
+against the Copernican doctrine, a fact that makes it possible,
+perhaps, to see there more clearly the change in people's attitude
+from antagonism to acceptance, than in Catholic Europe where fear of
+the Church's power, and respect for its decisions inhibited honest
+public expression of thought and conviction. While in England also the
+literal interpretation of the Scriptures continued to be with the
+common people a strong objection against the doctrine, the rationalist
+movement of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries along with
+Newton's great work, helped win acceptance for it among the better
+educated classes.
+
+Bruno had failed to win over his English hearers, and in 1600 when the
+_De Magnete_ was published, William Gilbert, (1540-1603) was
+apparently the only supporter of the earth's movement then in
+England,[357] and he advocated the diurnal motion only.[358] Not many,
+however, were as outspoken as Bacon in denunciation of the system;
+they were simply somewhat ironically indifferent. An exception to this
+was Dean Wren of Windsor (father of the famous architect). He could
+not speak strongly enough against it in his marginal notes on Browne's
+_Pseudodoxia Epidemica_. As Dr. Johnson wrote,[359] Sir Thomas Browne
+(1605-1682) himself in his zeal for the old errors, did not easily
+admit new positions, for he never mentioned the motion of the earth
+but with contempt and ridicule. This was not enough for the Dean, who
+wrote in the margin of Browne's book, at such a passage,[360] that
+there were "eighty-odd expresse places in the Bible affirming in
+plaine and overt terms the naturall and perpetuall motion of sun and
+moon" and that "a man should be affrighted to follow that audacious
+and pernicious suggestion which Satan used, and thereby undid us all
+in our first parents, that God hath a double meaning in his commands,
+in effect condemning God of amphibologye. And all this boldness and
+overweaning having no other ground but a seeming argument of some
+phenomena forsooth, which notwithstanding we know the learned Tycho,
+prince of astronomers, who lived fifty-two years since Copernicus,
+hath by admirable and matchlesse instruments and many yeares exact
+observations proved to bee noe better than a dreame."
+
+[Footnote 357: Berry quotes (p. 92) a passage from Thomas Digges (d.
+1595) with the date 1590: "But in this our age, one rare witte (seeing
+the continuall errors that from time to time more and more continually
+have been discovered, besides the infinite absurdities in their
+Theoricks, which they have been forced to admit that would not confess
+any mobility in the ball of the Earth) hath by long studye, paynfull
+practise, and rare invention delivered a new Theorick or Model of the
+World, shewing that the Earth resteth not in the Center of the whole
+world or globe of elements, which encircled or enclosed in the Moone's
+orbit, and together with the whole globe of mortality is carried round
+about the Sunne, which like a king in the middst of all, rayneth and
+giveth laws of motion to all the rest, sphærically dispersing his
+glorious beames of light through all this sacred celestiall Temple."
+Browne also refers to Digges (I, 383).]
+
+[Footnote 358: Gilbert: _De Magnete_, Bk. VI, c. 3-5 (214-228).]
+
+[Footnote 359: Johnson: _Life_, in Browne: I, xvii.]
+
+[Footnote 360: Browne: I, 35.]
+
+Richard [Transcriber's Note: Robert] Burton (1576-1639) in
+_The Anatomy of Melancholy_ speaks of the doctrine as a "prodigious
+tenent, or paradox," lately revived by "Copernicus, Brunus and some
+others," and calls Copernicus in consequence the successor of
+Atlas.[361] The vast extent of the heavens that this supposition
+requires, he considers "quite opposite to reason, to natural
+philosophy, and all out as absurd as disproportional, (so some will)
+as prodigious, as that of the sun's swift motion of the heavens." If
+the earth is a planet, then other planets may be inhabited (as
+Christian Huygens argued later on); and this involves a possible
+plurality of worlds. Burton laughs at those who, to avoid the Church
+attitude and yet explain the celestial phenomena, invent new
+hypotheses and new systems of the world, "correcting others, doing
+worse themselves, reforming some and marring all," as he says of
+Roeslin's endeavors. "In the meantime the world is tossed in a blanket
+amongst them; they hoyse the earth up and down like a ball, make it
+stand and goe at their pleasure."[362] He himself was indifferent.
+
+[Footnote 361: Burton: _Anatomy of Melancholy_, I, 1; I, 66. First
+edition, 1621; reprinted 1624, 1628, 1632, 1638, 1651-2, 1660, 1676.]
+
+[Footnote 362: Ibid: I, 385, 389.]
+
+Others more sensitive to the implications of this system, might
+exclaim with George Herbert (1593-1633):[363]
+
+    "Although there were some fourtie heav'ns, or more,
+      Sometimes I peere above them all;
+    Sometimes I hardly reach a score,
+      Sometimes to hell I fall.
+
+    "O rack me not to such a vast extent,
+      Those distances belong to thee.
+    The world's too little for thy tent,
+      A grave too big for me."
+
+[Footnote 363: Herbert: II, 315.]
+
+Or they might waver, undecided, like Milton who had the archangel
+answer Adam's questions thus:[364]
+
+    "But whether thus these things, or whether not,
+    Whether the Sun predominant in Heaven
+    Rise on the Earth, or Earth rise on the Sun,
+    Hee from the East his flaming robe begin,
+    Or Shee from West her silent course advance
+    With inoffensive pace that spinning sleeps
+    On her soft axle, while she paces ev'n
+    And bears thee soft with the smooth Air along,
+    Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid,
+    Leave them to God above, him serve and feare;
+    Of other Creatures, as him pleases best,
+    Wherever plac't, let him dispose; joy thou
+    In what he gives to thee, this Paradise
+    And the fair Eve: Heaven is for thee too high
+    To know what passes there: be lowlie wise." (1667)
+
+[Footnote 364: Milton: _Paradise Lost_, Bk. VIII, lines 159 _et seq._
+
+The great Puritan divine, John Owen (1616-1683), accepts the miracle
+of the sun's standing still without a word of reference to the new
+astronomy. (_Works_: II, 160.) Farrar states that Owen declared
+Newton's discoveries were against the evident testimonies of Scripture
+(Farrar: _History of Interpretation_: xviii.), but I have been unable
+to verify this statement. Owen died before the _Principia_ was
+published in 1687.]
+
+Whewell thinks[365] that at this time the diffusion of the Copernican
+system was due more to the writings of Bishop Wilkins than to those of
+any one else, for their very extravagances drew stronger attention to
+it. The first, "The Discovery of a New World: or a Discourse tending
+to prove that there may be another habitable world in the moon,"
+appeared in 1638; and a third edition was issued only two years later
+together with the second book; "Discourse concerning a New
+Planet--that 'tis probable our Earth is one of the planets." In this
+latter, the Bishop stated certain propositions as indubitable; among
+these were, that the scriptural passages intimating diurnal motion of
+the sun or of the heavens are fairly capable of another
+interpretation; that there is no sufficient reason to prove the earth
+incapable of those motions which Copernicus ascribes to it; that it is
+more probable the earth does move than the heavens, and that this
+hypothesis is exactly agreeable to common appearances.[366] And these
+books appeared when political and constitutional matters, and not
+astronomical ones, were the burning questions of the day in England.
+
+[Footnote 365: Whewell: I, 410.]
+
+[Footnote 366: Wilkins: _Discourse Concerning a New Planet_.]
+
+The spread of the doctrine was also helped by Thomas Salusbury's
+translations of the books and passages condemned by the Index in 1616
+and 1619. This collection, "intended for gentlemen," he published by
+popular subscription immediately after the Restoration,[367] a fact
+that indicates that not merely mathematicians (whom Whewell
+claims[368] were by that time all decided Copernicans) but the general
+public were interested and awake.[369]
+
+[Footnote 367: Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: To the Reader.]
+
+[Footnote 368: Whewell: I, 411.]
+
+[Footnote 369: One London bookseller in 1670 advertised for sale
+"spheres according to the Ptolmean, Tychonean and Copernican systems
+with books for their use." (Moxon: 272.) In 1683 in London appeared
+the third edition of Gassendi's _Institutio_, the textbook of
+astronomy in the universities during this period of uncertainty. It
+too wavers between the Tychonic and the Copernican systems.]
+
+The appearance of Newton's _Principia_ in 1687 with his statement of
+the universal application of the law of gravitation, soon ended
+hesitancy for most people. Twelve years later, John Keill,
+(1671-1721), the Scotch mathematician and astronomer at Oxford,
+refuted Descartes's theory of vortices and opened the first course of
+lectures delivered at Oxford on the new Newtonian philosophy.[370] Not
+only were his lectures thronged, but his books advocating the
+Copernican system in full[371] went through several editions in
+relatively few years.
+
+[Footnote 370: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Keill."]
+
+[Footnote 371: Keill: _Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam_.]
+
+In the Colonies, Yale University which had hitherto been using
+Gassendi's textbook, adopted the Newtonian ideas a few years later,
+partly through the gift to the university of some books by Sir Isaac
+himself, and partly through the enthusiasm of two young instructors
+there, Johnson and Brown, who in 1714-1722 widened the mathematical
+course by including the new theories.[372] The text they used was by
+Rohault, a Cartesian, edited by Samuel Clarke with critical notes
+exposing the fallacies of Cartesianism. This "disguised Newtonian
+treatise" was used at Yale till 1744. The University of Pennsylvania
+used this same text book even later.[373]
+
+[Footnote 372: Cajori: 29-30.]
+
+[Footnote 373: Cajori: 37.]
+
+In 1710 Pope (1688-1744) refers to "our Copernican system,"[374] and
+Addison (1671-1719) in the _Spectator_ (July 2, 1711) writes this very
+modern passage:
+
+     "But among this set of writers, there are none who more
+     gratify and enlarge the imagination, than the authors of the
+     new philosophy, whether we consider their theories of the
+     earth or heavens, the discoveries they have made by glasses,
+     or any other of their contemplations on nature.... But when
+     we survey the whole earth at once, and the several planets
+     that lie within its neighborhood, we are filled with a
+     pleasing astonishment, to see so many worlds hanging one
+     above another, and sliding around their axles in such an
+     amazing pomp and solemnity. If, after this, we contemplate
+     those wide fields of æther, that reach in height as far as
+     from Saturn to the fixed stars, and run abroad almost to an
+     infinitude, our imagination finds its capacity filled with
+     so immense a prospect, as puts it upon the stretch to
+     comprehend it. But if we yet rise higher, and consider the
+     fixed stars as so many vast oceans of flame, that are each
+     of them attended with a different set of planets, and still
+     discover new firmaments and new lights, that are sunk
+     farther in those unfathomable depths of æther, so as not to
+     be seen by the strongest of our telescopes, we are lost in
+     such a labyrinth of suns and worlds, and confounded with the
+     immensity and magnificence of nature.
+
+     "Nothing is more pleasant to the fancy, than to enlarge
+     itself by degrees, in its contemplation of the various
+     proportions which its several objects bear to each other,
+     when it compares the body of man to the bulk of the whole
+     earth, the earth to the circle it describes round the sun,
+     that circle to the sphere of the fixed stars, the sphere of
+     the fixed stars to the circuit of the whole creation, the
+     whole creation itself to the infinite space that is
+     everywhere diffused around it; ... But if, after all this,
+     we take the least particle of these animal spirits, and
+     consider its capacity wrought into a world, that shall
+     contain within those narrow dimensions a heaven and earth,
+     stars and planets, and every different species of living
+     creatures, in the same analogy and proportion they bear to
+     each other in our own universe; such a speculation, by
+     reason of its nicety, appears ridiculous to those who have
+     not turned their thoughts that way, though, at the same
+     time, it is founded on no less than the evidence of a
+     demonstration."[375]
+
+[Footnote 374: Pope: _Works_, VI, 110.]
+
+[Footnote 375: Addison: _Spectator_, No. 420, (IV, 372-373). An
+interesting contrast to this passage and a good illustration of how
+the traditional phraseology continued in poetry is found in Addison's
+famous hymn, written a year later:
+
+    "Whilst all the stars that round her [earth] burn
+    And all the planets in their turn,
+    Confirm the tidings as they roll,
+    And spread the truth from pole to pole.
+
+    "What though in solemn silence all
+    Move round this dark terrestrial ball;
+    What though no real voice nor sound
+    Amidst their radiant orbs be found;
+
+    "In reason's ear they all rejoice,
+    And utter forth a glorious voice;
+    Forever singing, as they shine,
+    'The hand that made us is divine'."]
+
+A little later, Cotton Mather declared (1721) that the "Copernican
+hypothesis is now generally preferred," and "that there is no
+objection against the motion of the earth but what has had a full
+solution."[376] Soon the semi-popular scientific books took up the
+Newtonian astronomy. One such was described as "useful for all
+sea-faring Men, as well as Gentlemen, and Others."[377]
+"Newtonianisme pour les Dames" was advertised in France in the
+forties.[378] By 1738 when Pope wrote the _Universal Prayer_:
+
+    "Yet not to earth's contracted span
+      Thy goodness let me bound
+    Or think thee Lord alone of man,
+      When thousand worlds are round,"
+
+the Copernican-Newtonian astronomy had become a commonplace to most
+well-educated people in England. To be sure, the great John Wesley
+(1770) considered the systems of the universe merely "ingenious
+conjectures," but then, he doubted whether "more than Probabilities we
+shall ever attain in regard to things at so great a distance from
+us."[379]
+
+[Footnote 376: Mather: _Christian Philosopher_, 75, 76.]
+
+[Footnote 377: Leadbetter: _Astronomy_ (1729).]
+
+[Footnote 378: In de Maupertius: _Ouvrages Divers_, (at the back).]
+
+[Footnote 379: Wesley: _Compendium of Natural Philosophy_, I, 14,
+139.]
+
+The old phraseology, however, did recur occasionally, especially in
+poetry and in hymns. For instance, a hymnal (preface dated 1806)
+contains such choice selections as:
+
+    "Before the pondr'ous earthly globe
+      In fluid air was stay'd,
+    Before the ocean's mighty springs
+      Their liquid stores display'd"--
+
+and:
+
+    "Who led his blest unerring hand
+      Or lent his needful aid
+    When on its strong unshaken base
+      The pondr'ous earth was laid?"[380]
+
+[Footnote 380: Dobell: _Hymns_, No. 5, No. 10.]
+
+But too much importance should not be attributed to such passages;
+though poetry and astronomy need not conflict, as Keble
+illustrated:[381]
+
+    "Ye Stars that round the Sun of Righteousness
+      In glorious order roll...."
+
+[Footnote 381: Keble: _Christian Year_, 279.]
+
+By the middle of the 18th century in England, one could say with Horne
+"that the Newtonian System had been in possession of the chair for
+some years;"[382] but it had not yet convinced the common people, for
+as Pike wrote in 1753, "Many Common Christians to this day firmly
+believe that the earth really stands still and that the sun moves all
+round the earth once a day: neither can they be easily persuaded out
+of this opinion, because they look upon themselves bound to believe
+what the Scripture asserts."[383]
+
+[Footnote 382: Horne: _Fair, Candid, Impartial Statement ..._, 4.]
+
+[Footnote 383: Pike: _Philosophia Sacra_, 43.]
+
+There was, however, just at this time a little group of thinkers who
+objected to Newton's scheme, "because of the endless uninterrupted
+flux of matter from the sun in light, an expense which should destroy
+that orb."[384] These Hutchinsonians conceived of light as pure ether
+in motion springing forth from the sun, growing more dense the further
+it goes till it becomes air, and, striking the circumference of the
+universe (which is perhaps an immovable solid), is thrown back toward
+the sun and melted into light again. Its force as its tides of motion
+strike the earth and the other planets produces their constant
+gyrations.[385] Men like Duncan Forbes, Lord President of the Court of
+Sessions, and George Horne, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, as
+a weapon against rationalism, favored this notion that had been
+expounded by John Hutchinson (1674-1737) in his _Moses's Principia_
+(1724).[386] They were also strongly attracted by the scriptural
+symbolism with which the book abounds. Leslie Stephen summarizes their
+doctrines as (1) extreme dislike for rationalism, (2) a fanatical
+respect for the letter of the Bible, and (3) an attempt to enlist the
+rising powers of scientific enquiry upon the side of orthodoxy.[387]
+This "little eddy of thought"[388] was not of much influence even at
+that time, but it has a certain interest as indicating the positions
+men have taken when on the defensive against new ideas.
+
+[Footnote 384: Forbes: _Letter_, (1755).]
+
+[Footnote 385: See Wesley: I, 136-7.]
+
+[Footnote 386: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Hutchinson."]
+
+[Footnote 387: Stephen: _Hist. of Eng. Thought_: I, 390.]
+
+[Footnote 388: Ibid: 391.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+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 Méchaniste 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: _Système Abregé de Philosophie_ (The Hague,
+1731), IV, 394-412.]
+
+[Footnote 392: de Maupertius: _Eléments de Géographie_, xv, 9-14.]
+
+Even in 1750, Mme. de Premontval thought it wiser to publish in
+Holland her little life of her father, _Le Méchaniste 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 Académie 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 Académie 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] Abbé Fénelon
+(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 Progrès ..._, 35.]
+
+[Footnote 397: Shields: 59. I have failed to find this reference in
+Bossuet's works.]
+
+[Footnote 398: Fénelon: _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
+Liège 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 Liège,
+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 Liège 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 Liège 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, à 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
+curiæ_, 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 Système 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 Système 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 _Universæ Naturæ 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 Quæ
+     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 _Præfatio_ 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 Schönberg, 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: _Universæ Naturæ Theatrum in quo rerum omnium
+     effectrices causa et fines contemplantur, et continuæ series
+     quinque libris discutiuntur_. Frankfort, 1597. Book V
+     translated into English by the writer and compared with the
+     French translation by François 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
+coëssential 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 Judæus 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)
+
+     (_Thomæ Fieni Epistolica Quæstio_: 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 præterit, 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 Faà: _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 Mathématiques en Italie depuis la
+Renaissance des Lettres_. 2me édit. 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 Littéraire et Bibliographique des
+Principaux Livres Condamnés au Feu, Supprimés on Censurés_. 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 Mediæval 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 Théories
+Politiques et des Idées Economiques au 16me siècle_. Paris, 1853.
+
+Bartholmèss, Christian: _Jordano Bruno_. 2 vol. Paris, 1846.
+
+Berti, Domenico: _Vita di Giordano Bruno da Nola_. Turin, 1868.
+
+Bertrand, M.J.: _Copernic et ses Travaux_ (Fév. 1864) in _Mémoires sur
+les Mathématiques_.
+
+----: _Le Procès de Galilée_ (Oct. 1877), in _Eloges Académiques,
+nouvelle série_. Paris, 1902.
+
+----: _Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de Kepler_. (Dec. 1863) in
+_Mémoires de l'Académie 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, Philarète: _Galilei, sa vie, son procès 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: _Galilée, son procès, sa condemnation, d'après
+des documents inédits_, in _Revue des Quest. Hist._, III, 68-145.
+Paris, 1867.
+
+Desdouits, Théophile: _La Légende 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 Découverte du
+Système 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'Université 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
+España_. 2 vol. 1884.
+
+Martin, Henri T.: _Galilée, les Droits de la Science et la Méthode des
+Sciences Physiques_. Paris, 1868.
+
+McIntyre, J. Lewis: _Giordano Bruno_. London, 1903.
+
+Monchamp, Georges: _Galilée et la Belgique, Essai Historique sur les
+Vicissitudes du Système du Copernic en Belgique_. Saint-Trond, 1892.
+
+Parchappe, Max: _Galilée, sa Vie, ses Découvertes 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 Nationalität 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.
+
+Schwilgué, Charles: _Description Abregée de l'Horloge Astronomique de
+la Cathédrale de Strasbourg_, 6me édit. 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 Quædam Hactenus
+Inedita_, ed. by Brewer. London, 1859.
+
+Capella, Martianus: _De Nuptiis Philologiæ 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 Laërtius: _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: _Sententiæ_, vol. CXCII in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
+
+Origen: _De Principiis_, vol. XI in Migne: _Patr. Græc._ (Cf. trans.
+vol. X in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh, 1869.)
+
+St. Philastrius: _De Hæeresibus_, vol. XII in Migne: _Patr. Lat._
+
+Philo Judæus: _De Mundi Creatione_ (vol. I), and _Quis Rerum Divinarum
+Hæres_ (vol. IV) in _Opera Omnia_, Erlangæ, 1820. (Cf. trans. by
+Yonge, London, 1854.)
+
+Plato: _Timæus_, 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 Quæ
+Supersunt Omnia_, 3 vol., Teubner, Leipsic, 1898. (Cf. trans. into
+French by Halma, 2 vol., Paris, 1813.)
+
+Sacro Bosco: _Libellus de Sphæra_, 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 Quæstionum Libros VIII_, ed. Gercke, vol. II in
+_Opera quæ 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: _Système Abregé de Philosophie_, vol. III in _Oeuvres
+Diverses_. 4 vol. The Hague, 1731.
+
+Bodin, Jean: _Universæ Naturæ Theatrum in quo rerum omnium effectrices
+causa et fines contemplantur et continuæ series quinque libris
+discutiuntur_. Frankfort, 1597.
+
+----: _Universæ Naturæ Theatrum_, trans. into French by François de
+Fougerolles. Lyons, 1597.
+
+Boscovich, Rogerio Josepho (S.J.): _De Determinanda Orbita Planetæ ope
+catoptricæ_. 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 Astronomiæ Instauratæ
+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.
+
+----: _Traité ou Avertissement contre l'Astrologie qu'on appelle
+Judiciaire et autre curiosités qui regnent aujourd'hui au monde_, in
+_Oeuvres François_, 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 Progrès de l'Astronomie et de son
+usage dans la Géographie et dans la Navigation_, in _Recueil
+d'Observations faites en plusieurs voyages par ordre de sa majesté
+pour perfectionner l'Astronomie et la Géographie, par MM. de
+l'Académie 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_. Nürnberg, 1543.
+
+----: _Astronomia Instaurata, Libris sex comprehensa, qui De
+Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, inscribuntur. Nunc demum post 75
+ab obitu authoris annum integritati suæ 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.
+
+----: _Poloniæ_, in _Res Publicæ sive Status Regni Poloniæ, Lituanæ,
+Prussiæ, Livoniæ, 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 Traité Historique
+de la Sphère_. 2me édit. Leyden, 1697.
+
+De Maupertius: _Eléments de Géographie_, in _Ouvrages Divers_.
+Amsterdam, 1744.
+
+De Premontval, Mme.: _Le Méchaniste Philosophe, Mémoir ... de la Vie
+et des Ouvrages du Sr. Jean Piegeon, mathématicien, Membre de la
+Société des arts, Auteur des premières Sphères mouvantes qui ayent été
+faites en France, selon l'hypothèse 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, Réné: _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.
+
+Fénelon, F. de S. de la Mothe: _Traité de l'existence et des attributs
+de Dieu_, in vol. I, _Oeuvres_. 3 vol. Paris, 1835.
+
+Ferramosca, Aegidius Leognanus: _Positiones suas Physioastronomicas De
+Sphæra Coelesti publice Demonstrandas et Propugnandis in Collegio
+Neapolitano Soc. Jesu_. Naples, 1682.
+
+Fienus, Thomas, Fromundus, Liberti: _De Cometa Anni 1618,
+Dissertationes. Ejusdem Thomæ Fieni Epistolica quæstio, An Verum sit
+Coelum moveri, et Terram quiescere?_ London, 1655. Bound with
+Fromundus: _Meteorologicorum_.
+
+Fienus, Thomas: _Epistolica quæstio_. See above.
+
+Fontana, Cajetano: _Institutio Physico-Astronomica_. Mutinæ, 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-Terræ 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
+Thomæ 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 terræ
+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. Hagæ-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 Coryphæi._, 2nd
+edit. corrected. Hagæ-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 Traité de la Pluralité des Mondes ... traduit du Latin
+en François 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: _Physiologiæ Stoicorum_, vol. IV, in _Opera Omnia_, 4
+vols. Vesaliæ, 1674.
+
+Keble, John: _Christian Year_. Ed. by Lock. London, 1895.
+
+Keill, John: _Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam, seu Lectiones
+Astronomicæ habitæ in Schola Astronomica Academiæ 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.
+
+----: _Tabulæ Rudolphinæ ... a Phoenice illo Astronomorum Tychone
+... primum concepta ... 1564 ... observatioribus siderum ... post
+annum præcipue 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 Cæsar: _De Phoenomenis in Orbe Lunæ Novi Telescopii
+usu a Gallileo Gallileo. Physica Disputatio_. Venice, 1612.
+
+Lambert: _Système du Monde_. 2me édit. 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 Doctrinæ Physicæ_, 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: _Tabulæ Friscæ Lunæ-Solares quadruplices è
+fontibus Cl. Ptolemæi, 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 più famosi Sistemi dell'Universo Tolemaico, Copernicano,
+Ticonico, e Novissimo. Colla patente Dimostrazione della quieta di
+nostra Terra, e che poco più, 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 considéré selon les idées des Poêtes, des
+Philosophes et de Moïse_. 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
+Schönerum 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 Système de Copernic exposé en dix-sept
+lettres qui été adressées à feu M. Le Verrier_. Paris, 1878.
+
+Spagnio, Andrea: _De Motu_. Rome, 1774.
+
+Tischner, August: _Le Système Solaire se Mouvant_. Pamphlet. Leipsic,
+1894.
+
+Toland, John: _Miscellaneous Works_. 2 vol. London, 1747.
+
+Vitali, Hieronymo: _Lexicon Mathematicum_. Rome, 1690.
+
+Voight, Johann-Henrich: _Der Kunstgünstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
+Raritäten Erstes Hundert: Allen Kunstgünstigen zum lustigen und
+nutzbaren Gebrauch mit Fleiss und Mühe 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 à Stunica, 44, 60, 70, 82, 100.
+
+  Digges, Thomas, 87n.
+
+  Diogenes Laërtius, 10.
+
+  Dominicus Maria di Novara, 24, 25.
+
+  DuBartas, 43.
+
+
+  Fénelon, 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.
+
+  Liège, 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.
+
+
+  Mæstlin, 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 Judæus, 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.
+
+  Pürbach, 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.
+
+  Schwilgué, 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 Schönberg, 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the
+Copernican theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 35744-8.txt or 35744-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/7/4/35744/
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/35744-8.zip b/35744-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f48a569
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-8.zip
diff --git a/35744-h.zip b/35744-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eb6065d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h.zip
diff --git a/35744-h/35744-h.htm b/35744-h/35744-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..90cc5b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/35744-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,7203 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe, by Dorothy Stimson.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 15%;
+    margin-right: 15%;
+}
+
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+p {
+    margin-top: .75em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    margin-bottom: .75em;
+}
+
+hr {
+    width: 65%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.med {
+    width: 33%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.short {
+    width: 15%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.shortp {
+    width: 15%;
+    margin-top: 4em;
+    margin-bottom: 4em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+table {
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+}
+
+.pagenum  {position: absolute; left: 92%;
+           font-size: 75%; text-indent: 0em;
+           border-top: solid gray 1px; border-bottom: solid gray 1px;
+           background-color: inherit; font-weight: normal;
+           font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
+           text-decoration: none;}
+
+
+/* Formatting */
+.blockquot {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+.bbox     {border: solid black 1px; margin-left: 10%;
+           margin-right: 10%;}
+
+.center    {text-align: center;}
+.centertp  {text-align: center; padding-top: 1em;}
+.centerbp  {text-align: center; padding-bottom: 1em;}
+.centertbp {text-align: center; padding-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 1em;}
+
+.right    {text-align: right;}
+
+.tp       {padding-top: 1em;}
+.bp       {padding-bottom: 1em;}
+
+
+.vabr {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right;} /* for table cells */
+.vat  {vertical-align: top;}
+
+
+/* Fonts */
+.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+.xsm {font-size: 60%;}
+.sm  {font-size: 75%;}
+.lg  {font-size: 125%;}
+
+.dropcap  {float: left; padding-right: 3px;
+           font-size: 250%; line-height: 83%;
+           width: auto;}
+
+.gesperrt {letter-spacing: .2em;}
+
+
+/* Images */
+.border img {border: 2px solid black;}
+
+
+/* Footnotes */
+.footnote         {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; padding-top: .2em;}
+
+.footnote .label  {vertical-align: baseline;
+                   position: relative; bottom: 0.4em;
+                   font-size: 80%; text-decoration: none;}
+
+.fnanchor         {vertical-align: baseline;
+                   position: relative; bottom: 0.4em;
+                   font-size: 80%; text-decoration: none;}
+
+
+/* Transcriber Notes */
+.notes    {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #000;
+           padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;
+           padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;
+           margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;}
+
+.err {border-bottom: thin dotted red;}
+
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the Copernican
+theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The gradual acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe
+
+Author: Dorothy Stimson
+
+Release Date: April 1, 2011 [EBook #35744]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+
+
+<div class="notes">
+<p><i>Transcriber's Note:</i> Obvious printer errors have been corrected
+without note. Other questionable items are indicated with red dotted underlining; hover the
+mouse over the underlined text to see a <span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note">Transcriber's Note</span>.
+A <a href="#ERRATA">list</a> of these notes also appears at the end of this e-book.</p>
+
+<p>Full-page illustrations have been moved to the nearest paragraph break
+so as not to interrupt the flow of the text, and blank pages have been
+omitted. Some page numbers have been skipped as a result.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="centertbp"><a href="#CONTENTS"><b>CONTENTS</b></a></p>
+
+
+<div class="bbox">
+<h1>The Gradual Acceptance<br />
+<br />
+<span class="xsm">OF THE</span><br />
+<br />
+Copernican Theory of the Universe<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<span class="sm">DOROTHY STIMSON, Ph.D.</span></h1>
+
+<hr class="shortp" />
+
+<p class="center">
+NEW YORK<br />
+1917
+</p>
+
+<hr class="short" />
+
+<p class="center sm smcap">Copyright 1917 by Dorothy Stimson</p>
+
+<hr class="short" />
+
+<p class="center sm">
+Trade Selling Agents<br />
+The Baker &amp; Taylor Co.,<br />
+354 Fourth Ave.,<br />
+New York
+</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2>TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER</h2>
+
+
+<hr />
+<p class="center border"><a name="FRONT" id="FRONT"></a>
+<img src="images/front_sm.jpg" width="318" height="500" alt="frontispiece" title="frontispiece" />
+</p>
+
+<p class="center"><b><span class="smcap">The Systems of the World in 1651 According to Father
+Riccioli</span></b></p>
+
+<p class="center"><b>(Reduced facsimile of the frontispiece in Riccioli: <i>Almagestum
+Novum</i>. Bologna, 1651.)</b></p>
+
+<p class="centerbp">[<a href="images/front_lg.jpg">Enlarge</a>]</p>
+
+
+<h3><span class="smcap">Explanation</span></h3>
+
+<p>"Astrea, goddess of the heaven, wearing angel's wings and gleaming
+everywhere with stars, stands at the right; on the left is Argus of
+the hundred eyes, not tense, but indicating by the position of the
+telescope at his knee rather than at the eyes in his head, that while
+observing the work of God's hand, he appears at the same time to be
+worshipping as in genuflexion." (Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>, <i>Præfatio</i>,
+xvii). He points to the cherubs in the heavens who hold the planets,
+each with its zodiacal sign: above him at the top is Mars, then
+Mercury in its crescent form, the Sun, and Venus also in the crescent
+phase; on the opposite side are Saturn in its "tripartite" form (the
+ring explanation was yet to be given), the sphere of Jupiter encircled
+by its four satellites, the crescent Moon, its imperfections clearly
+shown, and a comet. Thus Father Riccioli summarized the astronomical
+knowledge of his day. The scrolls quote Psalms 19:2, "Day unto day
+uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge."</p>
+
+<p>Astrea holds in her right hand a balance in which Riccioli's theory of
+the universe (an adaptation of the Tychonic, see <span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Original incorrectly cited p. 68"><a href="#Page_80">p. 80</a></span>) far outweighs
+the Copernican or heliocentric one. At her feet is the Ptolemaic
+sphere, while Ptolemy himself half lies, half sits, between her and
+Argus, with the comment issuing from his mouth: "I will arise if only
+I am corrected." His left hand rests upon the coat of arms of the
+Prince of Monaco to whom the <i>Almagestum Novum</i> is dedicated.</p>
+
+<p>At the top is the Hebrew <i>Yah-Veh</i>, and the hand of God is stretched
+forth in reference to the verse in the Book of Wisdom (10:20): "But
+thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number and weight."</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2>
+
+
+<table style="width: 90%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" summary="contents">
+<tr><td><a href="#ILLUSTRATIONS"><span class="smcap">Illustrations</span></a></td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#PREFACE"><span class="smcap">Preface</span></a></td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_8">8</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="centertp" colspan="2"><b><span class="smcap"><a href="#PART_ONE">Part I.</a> An Historical Sketch of the Heliocentric Theory of the Universe</span>.</b></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_I">Chapter I.</a> The Development of Astronomical Thought to 1400: Preliminary Review</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_II">Chapter II.</a> Copernicus and his Times</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_20">20</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_III">Chapter III.</a> Later Development and Scientific Defense of the Copernican Theory</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="centertp" colspan="2"><b><span class="smcap"><a href="#PART_TWO">Part II.</a> The Reception of the Copernican Theory.</span></b></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_I_2">Chapter I.</a> Opinions and Arguments in the Sixteenth Century</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_39">39</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_II_2">Chapter II.</a> Bruno and Galileo</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_49">49</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_III_2">Chapter III.</a> The Opposition and their Arguments</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_71">71</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">Chapter IV.</a> The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CHAPTER_V">Chapter V.</a> The Church and the New Astronomy: Conclusion</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_95">95</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="centertp" colspan="2"><b><span class="smcap"><a href="#APPENDIX_A">Appendices</a>: Translations by the writer.</span></b></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#APPENDIX_A">A.</a> Ptolemy: <i>Almagest</i>. Bk. I, chap. 7: That the earth has no movement of rotation</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#APPENDIX_B">B.</a> Copernicus: <i>De Revolutionibus</i>, Dedication to the Pope</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_109">109</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#APPENDIX_C">C.</a> Bodin: <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum</i>, Bk. V, sections 1 and 2 in part, and section 10 entire</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#APPENDIX_D">D.</a> Fienus: <i>Epistolica Quæstio</i>: Is it true that the heavens are moved and the earth is at rest?</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class="tp"><a href="#BIBLIOGRAPHY"><span class="smcap">Bibliography</span></a></td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#INDEX"><span class="smcap">Index</span></a></td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_145">145</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">-7-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="ILLUSTRATIONS" id="ILLUSTRATIONS"></a>ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>
+
+
+<table style="width: 90%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" summary="illustrations">
+<tr><td>Facsimile of the frontispiece "The Systems of the World" in Riccioli: <i>Almagestum Novum</i>, 1651</td><td class="vabr"><a href="#FRONT"><i>Frontispiece</i></a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>Photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from a copy of Copernicus: <i>De Revolutionibus</i>, as "corrected" in the 17th century according to the directions of the Congregations of the Index in 1620</td><td class="vabr"><a href="#REV_1">p. 61</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>Photographic facsimile (reduced) of another "corrected" page from the same copy</td><td class="vabr"><a href="#REV_2">p. 113</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">-8-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE</h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>HIS study does not belong in the field of astronomy, but in that of
+the history of thought; for it is an endeavor to trace the changes in
+people's beliefs and conceptions in regard to the universe as these
+were wrought by the dissolution of superstition resulting from the
+scientific and rationalist movements. The opening chapter is intended
+to do no more than to review briefly the astronomical theories up to
+the age of Copernicus, in order to provide a background for the better
+comprehension of the work of Copernicus and its effects.</p>
+
+<p>Such a study has been rendered possible only by the generous loan of
+rare books by Professor Herbert D. Foster of Dartmouth College,
+Professor Edwin E. Slosson of Columbia University, Doctor George A.
+Plimpton and Major George Haven Putnam, both of New York, and
+especially by the kindly generosity of Professor David Eugene Smith of
+Teachers College who placed his unique collection of rare mathematical
+books at the writer's disposal and gave her many valuable suggestions
+as to available material. Professors James T. Shotwell and Harold
+Jacoby of Columbia University have read parts of this study in
+manuscript. The writer gratefully acknowledges her indebtedness not
+only to these gentlemen, but to the many others, librarians and their
+assistants, fellow-students and friends, too numerous to mention
+individually, whose ready interest and whose suggestions have been of
+real service, and above all to Professor James Harvey Robinson at
+whose suggestion and under whose guidance the work was undertaken, and
+to the Reverend Doctor Henry A. Stimson whose advice and criticism
+have been an unfailing source of help and encouragement.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">-9-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="PART_ONE" id="PART_ONE"></a><span class="lg">PART ONE</span><br/>
+<br/>
+AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE HELIOCENTRIC<br />
+THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.</h2>
+
+
+
+<hr class="med" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER I.</span><br />
+<br/>
+<span class="smcap">The Development of Astronomical Thought to 1400 A.D.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="sm"><i>A Preliminary Sketch of Early Theories as a Background.</i></span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>HE appearances in the heavens have from earliest historic ages filled
+men with wonder and awe; then they gradually became a source of
+questioning, and thinkers sought for explanations of the daily and
+nightly phenomena of sun, moon and stars. Scientific astronomy,
+however, was an impossibility until an exact system of chronology was
+devised.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Meanwhile men puzzled over the shape of the earth, its
+position in the universe, what the stars were and why the positions of
+some shifted, and what those fiery comets were that now and again
+appeared and struck terror to their hearts.</p>
+
+<p>In answer to such questions, the Chaldean thinkers, slightly before
+the rise of the Greek schools of philosophy, developed the idea of the
+seven heavens in their crystalline spheres encircling the earth as
+their center.[2] This conception seems to lie back of both the later
+Egyptian and Hebraic cosmologies, as well as of the Ptolemaic. Through
+the visits of Greek philosophers to Egyptian shores this conception
+helped to shape Greek thought and so indirectly affected western
+civilization.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">-10-</a></span> Thus our heritage in astronomical thought, as in many
+other lines, comes from the Greeks and the Romans reaching Europe (in
+part through Arabia and Spain), where it was shaped by the influence
+of the schools down to the close of the Middle Ages when men began
+anew to withstand authority in behalf of observation and were not
+afraid to follow whither their reason led them.</p>
+
+<p>But not all Greek philosophers, it seems,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> either knew or accepted
+the Babylonian cosmology.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> According to Plutarch, though Thales
+(640?-546? B.C.) and later the Stoics believed the earth to be
+spherical in form, Anaximander (610-546? B.C.) thought it to be like a
+"smooth stony pillar," Anaximenes (6th cent.) like a "table."
+Beginning with the followers of Thales or perhaps Parmenides (?-500
+B.C.), as Diogenes Laërtius claims,<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> a long line of Greek thinkers
+including Plato (428?-347? B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) placed
+the earth in the center of the universe. Whether Plato held that the
+earth "encircled" or "clung" around the axis is a disputed point;<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
+but Aristotle claimed it was the fixed and immovable center around
+which swung the spherical universe with its heaven of fixed stars and
+its seven concentric circles of the planets kept in their places by
+their transparent crystalline spheres.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p>
+
+<p>The stars were an even greater problem. Anaximenes thought they were
+"fastened like nails" in a crystalline firmament, and others thought
+them to be "fiery plates of gold resembling pictures."<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> But if the
+heavens were solid, how could the brief presence of a comet be
+explained?</p>
+
+<p>Among the philosophers were some noted as mathematicians whose leader
+was Pythagoras (c. 550 B.C.). He and at least one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">-11-</a></span> of the members of
+his school, Eudoxus (409?-356? B.C.), had visited Egypt, according to
+Diogenes Laërtius,<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> and had in all probability been much interested
+in and influenced by the astronomical observations made by the
+Egyptian priests. On the same authority, Pythagoras was the first to
+declare the earth was round and to discuss the antipodes. He too
+emphasized the beauty and perfection of the circle and of the sphere
+in geometry, forms which became fixed for 2000 years as the fittest
+representations of the perfection of the heavenly bodies.</p>
+
+<p>There was some discussion in Diogenes' time as to the author of the
+theory of the earth's motion of axial rotation. Diogenes<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> gives the
+honor to Philolaus (5th cent. B.C.) one of the Pythagoreans, though he
+adds that others attribute it to Icetas of Syracuse (6th or 5th cent.
+B.C.). Cicero, however, states<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> the position of Hicetas of Syracuse
+as a belief in the absolute fixedness of all the heavenly bodies
+except the earth, which alone moves in the whole universe, and that
+its rapid revolutions upon its own axis cause the heavens apparently
+to move and the earth to stand still.</p>
+
+<p>Other thinkers of Syracuse may also have felt the Egyptian influence;
+for one of the greatest of them, Archimedes (c. 287-212 B.C.), stated
+the theory of the earth's revolution around the sun as enunciated by
+Aristarchus of Samos. (Perhaps this is the "hearth-fire of the
+universe" around which Philolaus imagined the earth to whirl.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>) In
+<i>Arenarius</i>, a curious study on the possibility of expressing infinite
+sums by numerical denominations as in counting the sands of the
+universe, Archimedes writes:<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> "For you have known that the universe
+is called a sphere by several astrologers, its center the center of
+the earth, and its radius equal to a line drawn from the center of the
+sun to the center of the earth. This was written for the unlearned, as
+you have known from the astrologers.... [Aristarchus of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">-12-</a></span> Samos]<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>
+concludes that the world is many times greater than the estimate we
+have just given. He supposes that the fixed stars and the sun remain
+motionless, but that the earth following a circular course, revolves
+around the sun as a center, and that the sphere of the fixed stars
+having the same sun as a center, is so vast that the circle which he
+supposes the earth to follow in revolving holds the same ratio to the
+distance of the fixed stars as the center of a sphere holds to its
+circumference."</p>
+
+<p>These ancient philosophers realized in some degree the immensity of
+the universe in which the earth was but a point. They held that the
+earth was an unsupported sphere the size of which Eratosthenes (c.
+276-194 B.C.) had calculated approximately. They knew the sun was far
+larger than the earth, and Cicero with other thinkers recognized the
+insignificance of earthly affairs in the face of such cosmic
+immensity. They knew too about the seven planets, had studied their
+orbits, and worked out astronomical ways of measuring the passage of
+time with a fair amount of accuracy. Hipparchus and other thinkers had
+discovered the fact of the precession of the equinoxes, though there
+was no adequate theory to account for it until Copernicus formulated
+his "motion of declination." The Pythagoreans accepted the idea of the
+earth's turning upon its axis, and some even held the idea of its
+revolution around the motionless sun. Others suggested that comets had
+orbits which they uniformly followed and therefore their reappearance
+could be anticipated.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>
+
+<p>Why then was the heliocentric theory not definitely accepted?</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, such a theory was contrary to the supposed facts
+of daily existence. A man did not have to be trained in the schools to
+observe that the earth seemed stable under his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">-13-</a></span> feet and that each
+morning the sun swept from the east to set at night in the west.
+Sometimes it rose more to the north or to the south than at other
+times. How could that be explained if the sun were stationary?</p>
+
+<p>Study of the stars was valuable for navigators and for surveyors,
+perhaps, but such disturbing theories should not be propounded by
+philosophers. Cleanthes,<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> according to Plutarch,<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> "advised that
+the Greeks ought to have prosecuted Aristarchus the Samian for
+blasphemy against religion, as shaking the very foundations of the
+world, because this man endeavoring to save appearances, supposed that
+the heavens remained immovable and that the earth moved through an
+oblique circle, at the same time turning about its own axis." Few
+would care to face their fellows as blasphemers and impious thinkers
+on behalf of an unsupported theory. Eighteen hundred years later
+Galileo would not do so, even though in his day the theory was by no
+means unsupported by observation.</p>
+
+<p>Furthermore, one of the weaknesses of the Greek civilization militated
+strongly against the acceptance of this hypothesis so contrary to the
+evidence of the senses. Experimentation and the development of applied
+science was practically an impossibility where the existence of slaves
+made manual labor degrading and shameful. Men might reason
+indefinitely; but few, if any, were willing to try to improve the
+instruments of observation or to test their observations by
+experiments.</p>
+
+<p>At the same time another astronomical theory was developing which was
+an adequate explanation for the phenomena observed up to that
+time.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> This theory of epicycles and eccentrics worked out by
+Apollonius of Perga (c. 225 B.C.) and by Hipparchus (c. 160 B.C.) and
+crystallized for posterity in Ptolemy's great treatise on astronomy,
+the <i>Almagest</i>, (c. 140 A.D.) became the fundamental principle of the
+science until within the last three hundred years. The theory of the
+eccentric was based on the idea that heavenly bodies Following
+circular orbits revolved<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">-14-</a></span> around a center that did not coincide with
+that of the observer on the earth. That would explain why the sun
+appeared sometimes nearer the earth and sometimes farther away. The
+epicycle represented the heavenly body as moving along the
+circumference of one circle (called the epicycle) the center of which
+moves on another circle (the deferent). With better observations
+additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly
+observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+<span style="margin-left: 10em;">"&mdash;&mdash;Sphere</span><br />
+With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,<br />
+Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb"&mdash;<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a><br />
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Yet the heliocentric theory was not forgotten. Vitruvius, a famous
+Roman architect of the Augustan Age, discussing the system of the
+universe, declared that Mercury and Venus, the planets nearest the
+sun, moved around it as their center, though the earth was the center
+of the universe.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> This same notion recurs in Martianus Capella's
+book<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> in the fifth century A.D. and again, somewhat modified, in
+the 16th century in Tycho Brahe's conception of the universe.</p>
+
+<p>Ptolemy devotes a column or two of his <i>Almagest</i><a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> (to use the
+familiar Arabic name for his <i>Syntaxis Mathematica</i>) to the refutation
+of the heliocentric theory, thereby preserving it for later ages to
+ponder on and for a Copernicus to develop. He admits at the outset
+that such a theory is only tenable for the stars and their phenomena,
+and he gives at least three reasons why it is ridiculous. If the earth
+were not at the center, the observed facts of the seasons and of day
+and night would be disturbed and even upset. If the earth moves, its
+vastly greater mass would gain in speed upon other bodies, and soon
+animals and other lighter bodies would be left behind unsupported in
+the air&mdash;a notion "ridiculous to the last degree," as he comments,
+"even to imagine it." Lastly, if it moves, it would have such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">-15-</a></span>
+tremendous velocity that stones or arrows shot straight up in the air
+must fall to the ground east of their starting point,&mdash;a "laughable
+supposition" indeed to Ptolemy.</p>
+
+<p>This book became the great text of the Middle Ages; its author's name
+was given to the geocentric theory it maintained. Astronomy for a
+thousand years was valuable only to determine the time of Easter and
+other festivals of the Church, and to serve as a basis for astrology
+for the mystery-loving people of Europe.</p>
+
+<p>To the Arabians in Syria and in Spain belongs the credit of preserving
+for Europe during this long period the astronomical works of the
+Greeks, to which they added their own valuable observations of the
+heavens&mdash;valuable because made with greater skill and better
+instruments,<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> and because with these observations later scientists
+could illustrate the permanence or the variability of important
+elements. They also discovered the so-called "trepidation" or apparent
+shifting of the fixed stars to explain which they added another sphere
+to Ptolemy's eight. Early in the sixth century Uranus translated
+Aristotle's works into Syrian, and this later was translated into
+Arabic.<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> Albategnius<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> (c. 850-<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: 929">829</span>
+A.D.), the Arabian prince who was the greatest of all their
+astronomers, made his observations from Aracte and Damascus, checking
+up and in some cases amending Ptolemy's results.<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>
+
+<p>Then the center of astronomical development shifted from Syria to
+Spain and mainly through this channel passed on into Western Europe.
+The scientific fame of Alphonse X of Castile (1252-1284 A.D.) called
+the Wise, rests chiefly upon his encouragement of astronomy. With his
+support the Alfonsine Tables were calculated. He is said<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> to have
+summoned fifty learned men from Toledo, Cordova and Paris to translate
+into<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">-16-</a></span> Spanish the works of Ptolemy and other philosophers. Under his
+patronage the University of Salamanca developed rapidly to become
+within two hundred years one of the four great universities of
+Europe<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>&mdash;a center for students from all over Europe and the
+headquarters for new thought, where Columbus was sheltered,<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> and
+later the Copernican system was accepted and publicly taught at a time
+when Galileo's views were suppressed.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p>
+
+<p>Popular interest in astronomy was evidently aroused, for Sacrobosco
+(to give John Holywood<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> his better known Latin name) a Scotch
+professor at the Sorbonne in Paris in the 13th century, published a
+small treatise <i>De Sphæri Mundo</i> that was immensely popular for
+centuries,<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> though it was practically only an abstract of the
+<i>Almagest</i>. Whewell<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> tells of a French poem of the time of Edward I
+entitled <i>Ymage du Monde</i>, which gave the Ptolemaic view and was
+illustrated in the manuscript in the University of Cambridge with a
+picture of the spherical earth with men upright on it at every point,
+dropping balls down perforations in the earth to illustrate the
+tendency of all things toward the center. Of the same period (13th
+century) is an Arabian compilation in which there is a reference to
+another work, the book of Hammarmunah the Old, stating that "the earth
+turns upon itself in the form of a circle, and that some are on top,
+the others below ... and there are countries in which it is constantly
+day or in which at least the night continues only some instants."<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
+Apparently, however, such advanced views were of no influence, and the
+Ptolemaic theory remained unshaken down to the close of the 15th
+century.</p>
+
+<p>Aside from the adequacy of this explanation of the universe for the
+times, the attitude of the Church Fathers on the matter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">-17-</a></span> was to a
+large degree responsible for this acquiescence. Early in the first
+century A.D., Philo Judæus<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> emphasized the minor importance of
+visible objects compared with intellectual matters,&mdash;a foundation
+stone in the Church's theory of an homocentric universe. Clement of
+Alexandria (c. 150 A.D.) calls the heavens solid since what is solid
+is capable of being perceived by the senses.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> Origen (c. 185-c.
+254.) has recourse to the Holy Scriptures to support his notion that
+the sun, moon, and stars are living beings obeying God's commands.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>
+Then Lactantius thunders against those who discuss the universe as
+comparable to people discussing "the character of a city they have
+never seen, and whose name only they know." "Such matters cannot be
+found out by inquiry."<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> The existence of the antipodes and the
+rotundity of the earth are "marvelous fictions," and philosophers are
+"defending one absurd opinion by another"<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> when in explanation why
+bodies would not fall off a spherical earth, they claim these are
+borne to the center.</p>
+
+<p>How clearly even this brief review illustrates what Henry Osborn
+Taylor calls<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> the fundamental principles of patristic faith: that
+the will of God is the one cause of all things (voluntate Dei
+immobilis manet et stat in sæculum terra.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> Ambrose: <i>Hexæmeron</i>.)
+and that this will is unsearchable. He further points out that
+Augustine's and Ambrose's sole interest in natural fact is as
+"confirmatory evidence of Scriptural truth." The great Augustine
+therefore denies the existence of antipodes since they could not be
+peopled by Adam's children.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> He indifferently remarks
+elsewhere:<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a
+sphere enclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on
+either side?" Augustine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">-18-</a></span> does, however, dispute the claims of
+astrologers accurately to foretell the future by the stars, since the
+fates of twins or those born at the same moment are so diverse.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p>
+
+<p>Philastrius (d. before 397 A.D.) dealing with various heresies,
+denounces those who do not believe the stars are fixed in the heavens
+as "participants in the vanity of pagans and the foolish opinions of
+philosophers," and refers to the widespread idea of the part the
+angels play in guiding and impelling the heavenly bodies in their
+courses.<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>
+
+<p>It would take a brave man to face such attitudes of scornful
+indifference on the one hand and denunciation on the other, in support
+of a theory the Church considered heretical.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile the Church was developing the homocentric notion which
+would, of course, presuppose the central position in the universe for
+man's abiding place. In the pseudo-Dionysius<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> is an elaborately
+worked out hierarchy of the beings in the universe that became the
+accepted plan of later centuries, best known to modern times through
+Dante's blending of it with the Ptolemaic theory in the <i>Divine
+Comedy</i>.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> Isidore of Seville taught that the universe was created
+to serve man's purposes,<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> and Peter Lombard (12th cent.) sums up
+the situation in the definite statement that man was placed at the
+center of the universe to be served by that universe and in turn
+himself to serve God.<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> Supported by the mighty Thomas Aquinas<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>
+this became a fundamental Church doctrine.</p>
+
+<p>An adequate explanation of the universe existed. Aristotle, Augustine,
+and the other great authorities of the Middle Ages, all upheld the
+conception of a central earth encircled by the seven planetary spheres
+and by the all embracing starry firmament. In view of the phrases used
+in the Bible about the heav<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">-19-</a></span>ens, and in view of the formation of
+fundamental theological doctrines based on this supposition by the
+Church Fathers, is it surprising that any other than a geocentric
+theory seemed untenable, to be dismissed with a smile when not
+denounced as heretical? Small wonder is it, in the absence of the
+present day mechanical devices for the exact measurement of time and
+space as aids to observation, that the Ptolemaic, or geocentric,
+theory of the universe endured through centuries as it did, upheld by
+the authority both of the Church and, in essence at least, by the
+great philosophers whose works constituted the teachings of the
+schools.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">-20-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER II.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">Copernicus and His Times.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">D</span>URING these centuries, one notable scholar at least stood forth in
+open hostility to the slavish devotion to Aristotle's writings and
+with hearty appreciation for the greater scientific accuracy of
+"infidel philosophers among the Arabians, Hebrews and Greeks."<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> In
+his <i>Opus Tertium</i> (1267), Roger Bacon also pointed out how inaccurate
+were the astronomical tables used by the Church, for in 1267,
+according to these tables "Christians will fast the whole week
+following the true Easter, and will eat flesh instead of fasting at
+Quadragesima for a week&mdash;which is absurd," and thus Christians are
+made foolish in the eyes of the heathen.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> Even the rustic, he
+added, can observe the phases of the moon occurring a week ahead of
+the date set by the calendar.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> Bacon's protests were unheeded,
+however, and the Church continued using the old tables which grew
+increasingly inaccurate with each year. Pope Sixtus IV sought to
+reform the calendar two centuries later with the aid of Regiomontanus,
+then the greatest astronomer in Europe (1475);<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> the Lateran Council
+appealed to Copernicus for help (1514), but little could be done, as
+Copernicus replied, till the sun's and the moon's positions had been
+observed far more precisely;<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> and the modern scientific calendar
+was not adopted until 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.</p>
+
+<p>What was the state of astronomy in the century of Copernicus's birth?
+Regiomontanus&mdash;to use Johann Müller's Latin name&mdash;his teacher Pürbach,
+and the great cardinal Nicolas of Cues were the leading astronomers of
+this fifteenth century.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">-21-</a></span> Pürbach<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> (1432-1462) died before he had
+fulfilled the promise of his youth, leaving his <i>Epitome of Ptolemy's
+Almagest</i> to be completed by his greater pupil. In his <i>Theorica
+Planetarum</i> (1460) Pürbach sought to explain the motions of the
+planets by placing each planet between the walls of two curved
+surfaces with just sufficient space in which the planet could move. As
+M. Delambre remarked:<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> "These walls might aid the understanding,
+but one must suppose them transparent; and even if they guided the
+planet as was their purpose, they hindered the movement of the comets.
+Therefore they had to be abandoned, and in our own modern physics they
+are absolutely superfluous; they have even been rather harmful, since
+they interfered with the slight irregularities caused by the force of
+attraction in planetary movements which observations have disclosed."
+This scheme gives some indication of the elaborate devices scholars
+evolved in order to cope with the increasing number of seeming
+irregularities observed in "the heavens," and perhaps it makes clearer
+why Copernicus was so dissatisfied with the astronomical hypothesis of
+his day, and longed for some simpler, more harmonious explanation.</p>
+
+<p>Regiomontanus<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> (1436-1476) after Pürbach's death, continued his
+work, and his astronomical tables (pub. 1475) were in general use
+throughout Europe till superseded by the vastly more accurate
+Copernican Tables a century later. It has been said<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> that his fame
+inspired Copernicus (born three years before the other's death in
+1476) to become as great an astronomer. M. Delambre hails him as the
+wisest astronomer Europe had yet produced<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> and certainly his renown
+was approached only by that of the great Cardinal.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">-22-</a></span></p><p>Both Janssen,<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> the Catholic historian, and Father Hagen<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> of the
+Vatican Observatory, together with many other Catholic writers, claim
+that a hundred years before Copernicus, Cardinal Nicolas Cusanus<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a>
+(c. 1400-1464) had the courage and independence to uphold the theory
+of the earth's motion and its rotation on its axis. As Father Hagen
+remarked: "Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would
+probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental
+work." But the Cardinal stated these views of the earth's motions in a
+mystical, hypothetical way which seems to justify the marginal heading
+"Paradox" (in the edition of 1565).<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> And unfortunately for these
+writers, the Jesuit father, Riccioli, the official spokesman of that
+order in the 17th century after Galileo's condemnation, speaking of
+this paradox, called attention, also, to a passage in one of the
+Cardinal's sermons as indicating that the latter had perhaps
+"forgotten himself" in the <i>De Docta Ignorantia</i>, or that this paradox
+"was repugnant to him, or that he had thought better of it."<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> The
+passage he referred to is as follows: "Prayer is more powerful than
+all created things.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">-23-</a></span> Although angels, or some kind of beings, move the
+spheres, the Sun and the stars; prayer is more powerful than they are,
+since it impedes motion, as when the prayer of Joshua made the Sun
+stand still."<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> This may explain why Copernicus apparently
+disregarded the Cardinal's paradox, for he made no reference to it in
+his book; and the statement itself, to judge by the absence of
+contemporary comment, aroused no interest at the time. But of late
+years, the Cardinal's position as stated in the <i>De Docta Ignorantia</i>
+has been repeatedly cited as an instance of the Church's friendly
+attitude toward scientific thought,<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> to show that Galileo's
+condemnation was due chiefly to his "contumacy and disobedience."</p>
+
+<p>Copernicus<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> himself was born in Thorn on February 19, 1473,<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a>
+seven years after that Hansa town founded by the Teutonic Order in
+1231 had come under the sway of the king of Poland by the Second Peace
+of Thorn.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> His father,<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> Niklas Koppernigk, was a wholesale
+merchant of Cracow who had removed to Thorn before 1458, married
+Barbara Watzelrode of an old patrician Thorn family, and there had
+served as town councillor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">-24-</a></span> for nineteen years until his death in
+1483.<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> Thereupon his mother's brother, Lucas Watzelrode, later
+bishop of Ermeland, became his guardian, benefactor and close
+friend.<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p>
+
+<p>After the elementary training in the Thorn school,<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> the lad entered
+the university at Cracow, his father's former home, where he studied
+under the faculty of arts from 1491-1494.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> Nowhere else north of
+the Alps at this time were mathematics and astronomy in better
+standing than at this university.<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> Sixteen teachers taught these
+subjects there during the years of Copernicus's stay, but no record
+exists of his work under any of them.<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> That he must have studied
+these two sciences there, however, is proved by Rheticus's remark in
+the <i>Narratio Prima</i><a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> that Copernicus, after leaving Cracow, went
+to Bologna to work with Dominicus Maria di Novara "non tarn discipulus
+quam adjutor." He left Cracow without receiving a degree,<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> returned
+to Thorn in 1494 when he and his family decided he should enter the
+Church after first studying in Italy.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> Consequently he crossed the
+Alps in 1496 and was that winter matriculated at Bologna in the
+"German nation."<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> The following summer he received word of his
+appointment to fill a vacancy among the canons of the cathedral
+chapter at Ermeland where his uncle had been bishop since 1489.<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> He
+remained in Italy, however, about ten years altogether, studying civil
+law at Bologna, and canon law and medicine at Padua,<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> yet receiving
+his degree as doctor of canon law from the university of Ferrara in
+1503.<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> He was also in Rome for several months during the Jubilee
+year, 1500.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">-25-</a></span></p><p>At this period the professor of astronomy at Bologna was the famous
+teacher Dominicus Maria di Novara (1454-1504), a man "ingenio et animo
+liber" who dared to attack the immutability of the Ptolemaic system,
+since his own observations, especially of the Pole Star, differed by a
+degree and more from the traditional ones.<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> He dared to criticise
+the long accepted system and to emphasize the Pythagorean notion of
+the underlying harmony and simplicity in nature<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a>; and from him
+Copernicus may have acquired these ideas, for whether they lived
+together or not in Bologna, they were closely associated. It was here,
+too, that Copernicus began his study of Greek which later was to be
+the means<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> of encouraging him in his own theorizing by acquainting
+him with the ancients who had thought along similar lines.</p>
+
+<p>In the spring of the year (1501) following his visit to Rome,<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a>
+Copernicus returned to the Chapter at Frauenburg to get further leave
+of absence to study medicine at the University of Padua.<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> Whether
+he received a degree at Padua or not and how long he stayed there are
+uncertain points.<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> He was back in Ermeland early in 1506.</p>
+
+<p>His student days were ended. And now for many years he led a very
+active life, first as companion and assistant to his uncle the Bishop,
+with whom he stayed at Schloss Heilsberg till after the Bishop's death
+in 1512; then as one of the leading canons of the chapter at
+Frauenburg, where he lived most of the rest of his life.<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> As the
+chapter representative for five years (at intervals) he had oversight
+of the spiritual and temporal affairs of two large districts in the
+care of the chapter.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> He went on various diplomatic and other
+missions to the King of Poland,<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> to Duke Albrecht of the Teutonic
+Order,<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> and to the councils of the German states.<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> He wrote a
+paper of considera<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">-26-</a></span>ble weight upon the much needed reform of the
+Prussian currency.<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> His skill as a physician was in demand not only
+in his immediate circle<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> but in adjoining countries, Duke Albrecht
+once summoning him to Königsberg to attend one of his courtiers.<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a>
+He was a humanist as well as a Catholic Churchman, and though he did
+not approve of the Protestant Revolt, he favored reform and
+toleration.<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> Gassendi claims that he was also a painter, at least
+in his student days, and that he painted portraits well received by
+his contemporaries.<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> But his interest and skill in astronomy must
+have been recognized early in his life for in 1514 the committee of
+the Lateran Council in charge of the reform of the calendar summoned
+him to their aid.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a></p>
+
+<p>He was no cloistered monk devoting all his time to the study of the
+heavens, but a cultivated man of affairs, of recognized ability in
+business and statesmanship, and a leader among his fellow canons. His
+mathematical and astronomical pursuits were the occupations of his
+somewhat rare leisure moments, except perhaps during the six years
+with his uncle in the comparative freedom of the bishop's castle, and
+during the last ten or twelve years of his life, after his request for
+a coadjutor had resulted in lightening his duties. In his masterwork
+<i>De Revolutionibus</i><a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> there are recorded only 27 of his own
+astronomical observations, and these extend over the years from 1497
+to 1529. The first was made at Bologna, the second at Rome in 1500,
+and seven of the others at Frauenburg, where the rest were also
+probably made. It is believed the greater part of the <i>De
+Revolutionibus</i> was written at Heilsburg<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> where Copernicus was
+free from his chapter duties, for as he himself says<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> in the
+Dedication to the Pope (dated 1543) his work had been formulated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">-27-</a></span> not
+merely nine years but for "more than three nines of years." It had not
+been neglected all this time, however, as the original MS. (now in the
+Prague Library) with its innumerable changes and corrections shows how
+continually he worked over it, altering and correcting the tables and
+verifying his statements.<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p>
+
+<p>Copernicus was a philosopher.<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> He thought out a new explanation of
+the world machine with relatively little practical work of his
+own,<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> though we know he controlled his results by the accumulated
+observations of the ages.<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> His instruments were inadequate,
+inaccurate and out of date even in his time, for much better ones were
+then being made at Nürnberg<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a>; and the cloudy climate of Ermeland
+as well as his own active career prevented him from the
+long-continued, painstaking observing, which men like Tycho Brahe were
+to carry on later. Despite such handicaps, because of his
+dissatisfaction with the complexities and intricacies of the Ptolemaic
+system and because of his conviction that the laws of nature were
+simple and harmonious, Copernicus searched the writings of the classic
+philosophers, as he himself tells us,<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> to see what other
+explanation of the universe had been suggested. "And I found first in
+Cicero that a certain Nicetas had thought the earth moved. Later in
+Plutarch I found certain others had been of the same opinion." He
+quoted the Greek referring to Philolaus the Pythagorean, Heraclides of
+Pontus, and Ecphantes the Pythagorean.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> As a result he began to
+consider the mobility of the earth and found that such an explanation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">-28-</a></span>
+seemingly solved many astronomical problems with a simplicity and a
+harmony utterly lacking in the old traditional scheme. Unaided by a
+telescope, he worked out in part the right theory of the universe and
+for the first time in history placed all the then known planets in
+their true positions with the sun at the center. He claimed that the
+earth turns on its axis as it travels around the sun, and careens
+slowly as it goes, thus by these three motions explaining many of the
+apparent movements of the sun and the planets. He retained,<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a>
+however, the immobile heaven of the fixed stars (though vastly farther
+off in order to account for the non-observance of any stellar
+parallax<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a>), the "perfect" and therefore circular orbits of the
+planets, certain of the old eccentrics, and 34 new epicycles in place
+of all the old ones which he had cast aside.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> He accepted the
+false notion of trepidation enunciated by the Arabs in the 9th century
+and later overthrown by Tycho Brahe.<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> His calculations were
+weak.<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> But his great book is a sane and modern work in an age of
+astrology and superstition.<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> His theory is a triumph of reason and
+imagination and with its almost complete independence of authority is
+perhaps as original a work as an human being may be expected to
+produce.</p>
+
+<p>Copernicus was extremely reluctant to publish his book because of the
+misunderstandings and malicious attacks it would unquestionably
+arouse.<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> Possibly, too, he was thinking of the hostility already
+existing between himself and his Bishop, Dantiscus,<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> whom he did
+not wish to antagonize further. But his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">-29-</a></span> devoted pupil and friend,
+Rheticus, aided by Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm and a lifelong
+friend, at length (1542) persuaded him.<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> So he entrusted the
+matter to Giese who passed it on to Rheticus, then connected with the
+University at Wittenberg as professor of mathematics.<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> Rheticus,
+securing leave of absence from Melancthon his superior, went to
+Nürnberg to supervise the printing.<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> This was done by Petrejus.
+Upon his return to Wittenberg, Rheticus left in charge Johann Schöner,
+a famous mathematician and astronomer, and Andreas Osiander, a
+Lutheran preacher interested in astronomy. The printed book<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> was
+placed in Copernicus's hands at Frauenburg on May 24th, 1543, as he
+lay dying of paralysis.<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a></p>
+
+<p>Copernicus passed away that day in ignorance that his life's work
+appeared before the world not as a truth but as an hypothesis; for
+there had been inserted an anonymous preface "ad lectorem de
+hypothesibus huius opera" stating this was but another hypothesis for
+the greater convenience of astronomers.<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> "Neque enim necesse est
+eas hypotheses esse veras, imo ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufficit hoc
+unum, si calculum observationibus congruentem exhibeant."<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> For
+years Copernicus was thought to have written this preface to disarm
+criticism. Kepler sixty years later (1601) called attention to this
+error,<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> and quoted Osiander's letters to Copernicus and to
+Rheticus of May, 1541, suggesting that the system be called an
+hypothesis to avert attacks by theologians and Aristotelians. He
+claimed that Osiander had written the preface; but Kepler's article
+never was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">-30-</a></span> finished and remained unpublished till 1858.<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> Giese and
+Rheticus of course knew that the preface falsified Copernicus's work,
+and Giese, highly indignant at the "impiety" of the printer (who he
+thought had written it to save himself from blame) wrote Rheticus
+urging him to write another "præfatiunculus" purging the book of this
+falsehood.<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> This letter is dated July 26, 1543, and the book had
+appeared in April. Apparently nothing was done and the preface was
+accepted without further challenge.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to ask whether people other than Copernicus's intimates had
+known of his theory before 1543. Peucer, Melancthon's nephew, declared
+Copernicus was famous by 1525,<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> and the invitation from the
+Lateran Council committee indicates his renown as early as 1514. In
+Vienna in 1873<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> there was found a <i>Commentariolus</i>, or summary of
+his great work,<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> written by Copernicus for the scholars friendly
+to him. It was probably written soon after 1530, and gives a full
+statement of his views following a series of seven axioms or theses
+summing up the new theory. This little book probably occasioned the
+order from Pope Clement VII in 1533 to Widmanstadt to report to him on
+the new scheme.<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> This Widmanstadt did in the papal gardens before
+the Pope with several of the cardinals and bishops, and was presented
+with a book as his reward.</p>
+
+<p>In 1536, the Cardinal Bishop of Capua, Nicolas von Schönberg,
+apparently with the intent to pave the way for the theory at Rome,
+wrote for a report of it.<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> It is not known whether the report was
+sent, and the cardinal died the following year. But that Copernicus
+was pleased by this recognition is evident from the prominence he gave
+to the cardinal's letter, as he printed it in his book at the
+beginning, even before the dedication to the Pope.</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">-31-</a></span></p>
+<p>The most widely circulated account at this time, however, was the
+<i>Narratio Prima</i>, a letter from Georg Joachim of Rhaetia (better known
+as Rheticus), written in October, 1539, from Frauenburg to Johann
+Schöner at Nürnberg.<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> Rheticus,<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> at twenty-five years of age
+professor of mathematics at Wittenberg, had gone uninvited to
+Frauenburg early that summer to visit Copernicus and learn for himself
+more in detail about this new system. This was rather a daring
+undertaking, for not only were Luther and Melancthon outspoken in
+their condemnation of Copernicus, but Rheticus was going from
+Wittenberg, the headquarters of the Lutheran heresy, into the
+bishopric of Ermeland where to the Bishop and the King his overlord,
+the very name of Luther was anathema. Nothing daunted, Rheticus
+departed for Frauenberg and could not speak too highly of the cordial
+welcome he received from the old astronomer. He came for a few weeks,
+and remained two years to return to Wittenberg as an avowed believer
+in the system and its first teacher and promulgator. Not only did he
+write the <i>Narratio Prima</i> and an <i>Encomium Borussæ</i>, both extolling
+Copernicus, but what is more important, he succeeded in persuading him
+to allow the publication of the <i>De Revolutionibus</i>. Rheticus returned
+to his post in 1541, to resign it the next year and become Dean of the
+Faculty of Arts. In all probability the conflict was too intense
+between his new scientific beliefs and the statements required of him
+as professor of the old mathematics and astronomy.</p>
+
+<p>His colleague, Erasmus Reinhold, continued to teach astronomy there,
+though he, too, accepted the Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> He published a
+series of tables (<i>Tabulæ Prutenicæ</i>, 1551) based on the Copernican
+calculations to supersede the inaccurate ones by Regiomontanus; and
+these were in general use throughout Europe for the next seventy-odd
+years. As he himself declared, the series was based in its principles
+and fundamentals upon the observations of the famous Nicolaus
+Copernicus. The almanacs deduced from these calculations probably did
+more to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">-32-</a></span> bring the new system into general recognition and gradual
+acceptance than did the theoretical works.<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p>
+
+<p>Opposition to the theory had not yet gathered serious headway. There
+is record<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> of a play poking fun at the system and its originator,
+written by the Elbing schoolmaster (a Dutch refugee from the
+Inquisition) and given in 1531 by the villagers at Elbing (3 miles
+from Frauenburg). Elbing and Ermeland were hostile to each other,
+Copernicus was well known in Elbing though probably from afar, for
+there seems to have been almost no personal intercourse between canons
+and people, and the spread of Luther's teachings had intensified the
+hostility of the villagers towards the Church and its representatives.
+But not until Giordano Bruno made the Copernican system the
+starting-point of his philosophy was the Roman Catholic Church
+seriously aroused to combat it. Possibly Osiander's preface turned
+opposition aside, and certainly the non-acceptance of the system as a
+whole by Tycho Brahe, the leading astronomer of Europe at that time,
+made people slow to consider it.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">-33-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER III.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">The Later Development and Scientific Defense<br />of the Copernican System.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">C</span>OPERNICUS accomplished much, but even his genius could not far outrun
+the times in which he lived. When one realizes that not only all the
+astronomers before him, but he and his immediate successor, Tycho
+Brahe, made all their observations and calculations unaided by even
+the simplest telescope, by logarithms or by pendulum clocks for
+accurate measurement of time,<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> one marvels not at their errors,
+but at the greatness of their genius in rising above such
+difficulties. This lack of material aids makes the work of Tycho
+Brahe,<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> accounted one of the greatest observers that has ever
+lived,<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> as notable in its way perhaps as that of Copernicus.</p>
+
+<p>His life<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> was a somewhat romantic one. Born of noble family on
+December 14th, 1546, at Knudstrup in Denmark, Tyge Brahe, the second
+of ten children,<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> was early practically adopted by his father's
+brother. His family wished him to become a statesman and sent him in
+1559 to the university at Copenhagen to prepare for that career. A
+partial eclipse of the sun on August 21st, 1560 as foretold by the
+astronomers thrilled the lad and determined him to study a science
+that could foretell the future and so affect men's lives.<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> When he
+was sent to Leipsic with a tutor in 1562 to study law, he devoted his
+time<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">-34-</a></span> and money to the study of mathematics and astronomy. Two years
+later when eighteen years of age, he resolved to perform anew the task
+of Hipparchos and Ptolemy and make a catalogue of the stars more
+accurate than theirs. His family hotly opposed these plans; and for
+six years he wandered through the German states, now at Wittenberg,
+now at Rostock (where he fought the duel in which he lost part of his
+nose and had to have it replaced by one of gold and silver)<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> or at
+Augsburg&mdash;everywhere working on his chosen subjects. But upon his
+return to Denmark (1570) he spent two years on chemistry and medicine,
+till the startling appearance of the New Star in the constellation of
+Cassiopæa (November, 1572) recalled him to what became his life
+work.<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p>
+
+<p>Through the interest and favor of King Frederick II, he was given the
+island of Hveen near Elsinore, with money to build an observatory and
+the pledge of an annual income from the state treasury for his
+support.<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> There at Uraniborg from 1576 to 1597 he and his pupils
+made the great catalogue of the stars, and studied comets and the
+moon. When he was forced to leave Hveen by the hostility and the
+economical tendencies of the young king,<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> after two years of
+wandering he accepted the invitation of the Emperor Rudolphus and
+established himself at Prague in Bohemia. Among his assistants at
+Prague was young Johann Kepler who till Tycho's death (on October 24,
+1601) was his chief helper for twenty months, and who afterwards
+completed his observations, publishing the results in the Rudolphine
+Tables of 1627.</p>
+
+<p>This "Phoenix among Astronomers"&mdash;as Kepler calls him,<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a>&mdash;was the
+father of modern practical astronomy.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> He also propounded a third
+system of the universe, a compromise between the Ptolemaic and the
+Copernican. In this the Tychonic system,<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> the earth is motionless
+and is the center of the orbits of the sun, the moon, and the sphere
+of the fixed stars, while the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">-35-</a></span> sun is the center of the orbits of the
+five planets.<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Mercury and Venus move in orbits with radii shorter
+than the sun's radius, and the other three planets include the earth
+within their circuits. This system was in harmony with the Bible and
+accounted as satisfactorily by geometry as either of the other two
+systems for the observed phenomena.<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> To Tycho Brahe, the Ptolemaic
+system was too complex,<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> and the Copernican absurd, the latter
+because to account for the absence of stellar parallax it left vacant
+and purposeless a vast space between Saturn and the sphere of the
+fixed stars,<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> and because Tycho's observations did not show any
+trace of the stellar parallax that must exist if the earth moves.<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p>
+
+<p>Though Tycho thus rejected the Copernican theory, his own proved to be
+the stepping stone toward the one he rejected,<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> for by it and by
+his study of comets he completely destroyed the ideas of solid
+crystalline spheres to the discredit of the scholastics; and his
+promulgation of a third theory of the universe helped to diminish
+men's confidence in authority and to stimulate independent thinking.</p>
+
+<p>Copernicus worked out his system by mathematics with but slight aid
+from his own observations. It was a theory not yet proven true. Tycho
+Brahe, though denying its validity, contributed in his mass of
+painstaking, accurate observations the raw material of facts to be
+worked up by Kepler into the great laws of the planets attesting the
+fundamental truth of the Copernican hypothesis.</p>
+
+<p>Johann Kepler<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> earned for himself the proud title of "lawmaker for
+the universe" in defiance of his handicaps of ill-health, family
+troubles, and straitened finances.<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote reference in original text has been added in a logical place">160</span>]</a> Born in Weil, Wurtemberg,
+(December 27, 1571) of noble but indigent par<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">-36-</a></span>ents, he was a sickly
+child unable for years to attend school regularly. He finally left the
+monastery school in Mulifontane in 1586 and entered the university at
+Tübingen to stay for four and a half years. There he studied
+philosophy, mathematics, and theology (he was a Lutheran) receiving
+the degree of Master of Arts in 1591. While at the university he
+studied under Mæstlin, professor of mathematics and astronomy, and a
+believer in the Copernican theory. Because of Mæstlin's teaching
+Kepler developed into a confirmed and enthusiastic adherent to the new
+doctrine.</p>
+
+<p>In 1594 he reluctantly abandoned his favorite study, philosophy, and
+accepted a professorship in mathematics at Grætz in Styria. Two years
+later he published his first work: <i>Prodromus Dissertationum continens
+mysterium cosmographicum</i> etc. (1596) in which he sought to prove that
+the Creator in arranging the universe had thought of the five regular
+bodies which can be inscribed in a sphere according to which He had
+regulated the order, the number and the proportions of the heavens and
+their movements.<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> The book is important not only because of its
+novelty, but because it gave the Copernican doctrine public
+explanation and defense.<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> Kepler himself valued it enough to
+reprint it with his <i>Harmonia Mundi</i> twenty-five years later. And it
+won for him appreciative letters from various scientists, notably from
+Tycho Brahe and Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p>
+
+<p>As Kepler, a Lutheran, was having difficulties in Grætz, a Catholic
+city, he finally accepted Tycho's urgent invitation to come to
+Prague.<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> He came early in 1600, and after some adjustments had
+been made between the two,<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> he and his family settled with Tycho
+that autumn to remain till the latter's death the following November.
+Kepler himself then held the office of imperial mathematician by
+appointment for many years thereafter.<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p>
+
+<p>With the researches of Tycho's lifetime placed at his disposal, Kepler
+worked out two of his three great planetary laws from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">-37-</a></span> Tycho's
+observations of the planet Mars. Yet, as M. Bertrand remarks,<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> it
+was well for Kepler that his material was not too accurate or its
+variations (due to the then unmeasured force of attraction) might have
+hindered him from proving his laws; and luckily for him the earth's
+orbit is so nearly circular that in calculating the orbit of Mars to
+prove its elliptical form, he could base his work on the earth's orbit
+as a circle without vitiating his results for Mars.<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> That a
+planet's orbit is an ellipse and not the perfect circle was of course
+a triumph for the new science over the scholastics and Aristotelians.
+But they had yet to learn what held the planets in their courses.</p>
+
+<p>From Kepler's student days under Mæstlin when as the subject of his
+disputation he upheld the Copernican theory, to his death in 1630, he
+was a staunch supporter of the new teaching.<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> In his <i>Epitome
+Astronomiæ Copernicanæ</i> (1616) he answered objections to it at
+length.<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> He took infinite pains to convert his friends to the new
+system. It was in vain that Tycho on his deathbed had urged Kepler to
+carry on their work not on the Copernican but on the Tychonic
+scheme.<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a></p>
+
+<p>Kepler had reasoned out according to physics the laws by which the
+planets moved.<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> In Italy at this same time Galileo with his optic
+tube (invented 1609) was demonstrating that Venus had phases even as
+Copernicus had declared, that Jupiter had satellites, and that the
+moon was scarred and roughened&mdash;ocular proof that the old system with
+its heavenly perfection in number (7 planets) and in appearance must
+be cast aside. Within a year after Galileo's death Newton was
+born<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> (January 4, 1643). His demonstration of the universal
+application of the law of gravitation (1687) was perhaps the climax in
+the devel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">-38-</a></span>opment of the Copernican system. Complete and final proof
+was adding in the succeeding years by Roemer's (1644-1710) discovery
+of the velocity of light, by Bradley's (1693-1762) study of its
+aberration,<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> by Bessel's discovery of stellar parallax in
+1838,<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> and by Foucault's experimental demonstration of the earth's
+axial motion with a pendulum in 1851.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a></p>
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">-39-</a></span></p>
+
+<h2><a name="PART_TWO" id="PART_TWO"></a><span class="lg">PART TWO</span><br />
+<br />
+THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.</h2>
+
+
+
+<hr class="med" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I_2" id="CHAPTER_I_2"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER I.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">Opinions and Arguments in the Sixteenth Century.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">D</span>URING the lifetime of Copernicus, Roman Catholic churchmen had been
+interested in his work: Cardinal Schönberg wrote for full information,
+Widmanstadt reported on it to Pope Clement VII and Copernicus had
+dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> But after his death, the
+Church authorities apparently paid little heed to his theory until
+some fifty years later when Giordano Bruno forced it upon their
+attention in his philosophical teachings. Osiander's preface had
+probably blinded their eyes to its implications.</p>
+
+<p>The Protestant leaders were not quite so urbane in their attitude.
+While Copernicus was still alive, Luther is reported<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> to have
+referred to this "new astrologer" who sought to prove that the earth
+and not the firmament swung around, saying: "The fool will overturn
+the whole science of astronomy. But as the Holy Scriptures state,
+Joshua bade the sun stand still and not the earth." Melancthon was
+more interested in this new idea, perhaps because of the influence of
+Rheticus, his colleague in the University of Wittenberg and
+Copernicus's great friend and supporter; but he too preferred not to
+dissent from the accepted opinion of the ages.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> Informally in a
+letter to a friend he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">-40-</a></span> implies the absurdity of the new teaching,<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a>
+and in his <i>Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ</i> he goes to some pains to disprove
+the new assumption not merely by mathematics but by the Bible, though
+with a kind of apology to other physicists for quoting the Divine
+Witness.<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> He refers to the phrase in Psalm XIX likening the sun in
+its course "to a strong man about to run a race," proving that the sun
+moves. Another Psalm states that the earth was founded not to be moved
+for eternity, and a similar phrase occurs in the first chapter of
+Ecclesiastes. Then there was the miracle when Joshua bade the sun
+stand still. While this is a sufficient witness to the truths there
+are other proofs: First, in the turning of a circumference, the center
+remains motionless. Next, changes in the length of the day and of the
+seasons would ensue, were the position of the earth in the universe
+not central, and it would not be equidistant from the two poles. (He
+has previously disposed of infinity by stating that the heavens
+revolve around the pole, which could not happen if a line drawn from
+the center of the universe were infinitely projected).<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a>
+Furthermore, the earth must be at the center for its shadow to fall
+upon the moon in an eclipse. He refers next to the Aristotelian
+statement that to a simple body belongs one motion: the earth is a
+simple body; therefore it can have but one motion. What is true of the
+parts applies to the whole; all the parts of the earth are borne
+toward the earth and there rest; therefore the whole earth is at rest.
+Quiet is essential to growth. Lastly, if the earth moved as fast as it
+must if it moves at all, everything would fly to pieces.<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">-41-</a></span></p><p>Melancthon thus sums up the usual arguments from the Scriptures, from
+Aristotle, Ptolemy and the then current physics, in opposition to this
+theory. Not only did he publish his own textbook on physics, but he
+republished Sacrobosco's famous introduction to astronomy, writing for
+it a preface urging diligent study of this little text endorsed by so
+many generations of scholars.</p>
+
+<p>Calvin, the great teacher of the Protestant Revolt, apparently was
+little touched by this new intellectual current.<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> He did write a
+semi-popular tract<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> against the so called "judicial" astrology,
+then widely accepted, which he, like Luther, condemns as a foolish
+superstition, though he values "la vraie science d'astrologie" from
+which men understand not merely the order and place of the stars and
+planets, but the causes of things. In his <i>Commentaries</i>, he accepts
+the miracle of the sun's standing still at Joshua's command as proof
+of the faith Christ commended, so strong that it will remove
+mountains; and he makes reference only to the time-honored Ptolemaic
+theory in his discussion of Psalm XIX.<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p>
+
+<p>For the absolute authority of the Pope the Protestant leaders
+substituted the absolute authority of the Bible. It is not strange,
+then, that they ignored or derided a theory as yet unsupported by
+proof and so difficult to harmonize with a literally accepted Bible.</p>
+
+<p>How widespread among the people generally did this theory become in
+the years immediately following the publication of the <i>De
+Revolutionibus</i>? M. Flammarion, in his <i>Vie de Copernic</i> (1872),
+refers<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> to the famous clock in the Strasburg Cathedral as having
+been constructed by the University of Strasburg in protest against the
+action taken by the Holy Office against<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">-42-</a></span> Galileo, (though the clock
+was constructed in 1571 and Galileo was not condemned until 1633).
+This astronomical clock constructed only thirty years after the death
+of Copernicus, he claims represented the Copernican system of the
+universe with the planets revolving around the sun, and explained
+clearly in the sight of the people what was the thought of the makers.
+Lest no one should miscomprehend, he adds, the portrait of Copernicus
+was placed there with this inscription: Nicolai Copernici vera
+effigies, ex ipsius autographo depicta.</p>
+
+<p>This would be important evidence of the spread of the theory were it
+true. But M. Flammarion must have failed to see a brief description of
+the Strasburg Clock written in 1856 by Charles Schwilgué, son of the
+man who renovated its mechanism in 1838-1842. He describes the clock
+as it was before his father made it over and as it is today.
+Originally constructed in 1352, it was replaced in 1571 by an
+astrolabe based on the Ptolemaic system; six hands with the zodiacal
+signs of the planets gave their daily movements and, together with a
+seventh representing the sun, revolved around a map of the world.<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a>
+When M. Schwilgué repaired the clock in 1838, he changed it to
+harmonize with the Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p>
+
+<p>But within eighteen years after the publication of the <i>De
+Revolutionibus</i>, proof of its influence is to be found in such widely
+separated places as London and the great Spanish University of
+Salamanca. In 1551, Robert Recorde, court physician to Edward and to
+Mary and teacher of mathematics, published in London his <i>Castle of
+Knowledge</i>, an introduction to astronomy and the first book printed in
+England describing the Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> He evidently did not
+consider the times quite ripe for a full avowal of his own allegiance
+to the new doctrine, but the remarks of the <i>Maister</i> and the
+<i>Scholler</i> are worth repeating:<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">-43-</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"<span class="smcap">Maister</span>: ... howbeit Copernicus a man of great learning, of
+much experience, and of wonderfull diligence in observation,
+hath renewed the opinion of Aristarchus Samius, affirming
+that the earth, not onely moveth circularly about his owne
+centre, but also may be, yea and is, continually out of the
+precise centre of the world eight and thirty hundred
+thousand miles: but because the understanding of that
+controversie depends of profounder knowledge than in this
+Introduction may be uttered conveniently, I wil let it passe
+til some other time.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Scholler</span>: Nay sit, in good faith, I desire not to heare
+such vaine fantasies, so farre against the common reason,
+and repugnant to the content of all the learned multitude of
+Writers, and therefore let it passe for ever and a day
+longer.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Maister</span>: You are too yong to be a good judge in so great a
+matter: it passeth farre your learning, and their's also,
+that are much better learned than you, to improuve his
+supposition by good arguments, and therefore you were best
+condemne nothing that you do not well understand: but an
+other time, as I saide, I will so declare his supposition,
+that you shall not onely wonder to heare it, but also
+peradventure be as earnest then to credite it, as you are
+now to condemne it: in the meane season let us proceed
+forward in our former order...."</p></div>
+
+<p>This little book, reprinted in 1556 and in 1596, and one of the most
+popular of the mathematical writings in England during that century,
+must have interested the English in the new doctrine even before
+Bruno's emphatic presentation of it to them in the eighties.</p>
+
+<p>Yet the English did not welcome it cordially. One of the most popular
+books of this period was Sylvester's translation (1591) of DuBartas's
+<i>The Divine Weeks</i> which appeared in France in 1578, a book loved
+especially by Milton.<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> DuBartas writes:<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Those clerks that think&mdash;think how absurd a jest!<br />
+That neither heavens nor stars do turn at all,<br />
+Nor dance around this great, round earthly ball,<br />
+But the earth itself, this massy globe of our's,<br />
+Turns round about once every twice twelve hours!<br />
+And we resemble land-bred novices<br />
+New brought aboard to venture on the seas;<br />
+Who at first launching from the shore suppose<br />
+The ship stands still and that the firm earth goes."
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">-44-</a></span></p><p>Quite otherwise was the situation in the sixteenth century at the
+University of Salamanca. A new set of regulations for the University,
+drawn up at the King's order by Bishop Covarrubias, was published in
+1561. It contained the provision in the curriculum that "Mathematics
+and Astrology are to be given in three years, the first, Astrology,
+the second, Euclid, Ptolemy or Copernicus <i>ad vota audientium</i>," which
+also indicates, as Vicente de la Fuente points out, that at this
+University "the choice of the subject-matter to be taught lay not with
+the teachers but with the students, a rare situation."<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> One
+wonders what happened there when the professors and students received
+word<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> from the Cardinal Nuncio at Madrid in 1633 that the
+Congregations of the Index had decreed the Copernican doctrine was
+thereafter in no way to be held, taught or defended.</p>
+
+<p>One of the graduates of this University, Father Zuñiga,<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> (better
+known as Didacus à Stunica), wrote a commentary on Job that was
+licensed to be printed in 1579, but was not published until 1584 at
+Toledo. Another edition appeared at Rome seven years later. It
+evidently was widely read for it was condemned <i>donec corrigatur</i> by
+the Index in 1616 and the mathematical literature of the next half
+century contains many allusions to his remarks on Job: IX: 6; "Who
+shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."
+After commenting here upon the greater clarity and simplicity of the
+Copernican theory, Didacus à Stunica then states that the theory is
+not contradicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, as that "text signifieth
+no more but this, that although the succession of ages, and
+generations of men on earth be various, yet the earth itself is still
+one and the same, and continueth without any sensible variation" ...
+and "it hath no coherence with its context (as Philosophers show) if
+it be expounded to speak of the earth's immobility. The motion that
+belongs to the earth by way of speech is assigned to the sun even by
+Copernicus himself, and those who are his followers.... To conclude,
+no place can be produced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">-45-</a></span> out of Holy Scriptures which so clearly
+speaks the earth's immobility as this doth its mobility. Therefore
+this text of which we have spoken is easily reconciled to this
+opinion. And to set forth the wonderful power and wisdom of God who
+can indue the frame of the whole earth (it being of monstrous weight
+by nature) with motion, this our Divine pen-man added; 'And the
+pillars thereof tremble:' As if he would teach us, from the doctrine
+laid down, that it is moved from its foundations."<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></p>
+
+<p>French thinkers, like the English, did not encourage the new doctrine
+at this time. Montaigne<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> was characteristically indifferent: "What
+shall we reape by it, but only that we neede not care which of the two
+it be? And who knoweth whether a hundred yeares hence a third opinion
+will arise which happily shall overthrow these two præcedent?" The
+famous political theorist, Jean Bodin, (1530-1596), was as thoroughly
+opposed to it as DuBartas had been. In the last year of his life,
+Bodin wrote his <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum</i><a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> in which he discussed
+the origin and composition of the universe and of the animal,
+vegetable, mineral and spiritual kingdoms. These five books (or
+divisions) reveal his amazing ideas of geology, physics and astronomy
+while at the same time they show a mind thoroughly at home in Hebrew
+and Arabian literature as well as in the classics. His answer to the
+Copernican doctrine is worth quoting to illustrate the attitude of one
+of the keenest thinkers in a brilliant era:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"<span class="smcap">Theorist</span>: Since the sun's heat is so intense that we read
+it has sometimes burned crops, houses and cities in
+Scythia,<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> would it not be more reasonable that the sun
+is still and the earth indeed revolves?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">-46-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Mystic</span>: Such was the old idea of Philolaus, Timæus,
+Ecphantes, Seleucus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes and
+Eudoxus, which Copernicus has renewed in our time. But it
+can easily be refuted by its shallowness although no one has
+done it thoroughly.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">The</span>.: What arguments do they rely on who hold that the
+earth is revolved and that the sun forsooth is still?</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Mys</span>.: Because the comprehension of the human mind cannot
+grasp the incredible speed of the heavenly spheres and
+especially of the tenth sphere which must be ten times
+greater than that of the eighth, for in twenty-four hours it
+must traverse 469,562,845 miles, so that the earth seems
+like a dot in the universe. This is the chief argument.
+Besides this, we get rid entirely of epicycles in
+representing the motions of the planets and what is taught
+concerning the motion of trepidation in the eighth sphere
+vanishes. Also, there is no need for the ninth and tenth
+spheres. There is one argument which they have omitted but
+which seems to me more efficacious than any, viz.: rest is
+nobler than movement, and that celestial and divine things
+have a stable nature while elemental things have motion,
+disturbance and unrest; therefore it seems more probable
+that the latter move rather than the former. But while
+serious absurdities result from the idea of Eudoxus, far
+more serious ones result from that of Copernicus.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">The</span>.: What are these absurdities?</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Mys</span>.: Eudoxus knew nothing of trepidation, so his idea
+seems to be less in error. But Copernicus, in order to
+uphold his own hypothesis, claims the earth has three
+motions, its diurnal and annual ones, and trepidation; if we
+add to these the pull of weight towards the center, we are
+attributing four natural motions to one and the same body.
+If this is granted, then the very foundations of physics
+must fall into ruins; for all are agreed upon this that each
+natural body has but one motion of its own, and that all
+others are said to be either violent or voluntary.
+Therefore, since he claims the earth is agitated by four
+motions, one only can be its own, the others must be
+confessedly violent; yet nothing violent in nature can
+endure continuously. Furthermore the earth is not moved by
+water, much less by the motion of air or fire in the way we
+have stated the heavens are moved by the revolutions of the
+enveloping heavens. Copernicus further does not claim that
+all the heavens are immobile but that some are moved, that
+is, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. But
+why such diversity? No one in his senses, or imbued with the
+slightest knowledge of physics, will ever think that the
+earth, heavy and unwieldy from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">-47-</a></span> its own weight and mass,
+staggers up and down around its own center and that of the
+sun; for at the slightest jar of the earth, we would see
+cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down. A
+certain courtier Aulicus, when some astrologer in court was
+upholding Copernicus's idea before Duke Albert of Prussia,
+turning to the servant who was pouring the Falernian, said:
+"Take care that the flagon is not spilled."<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> For if the
+earth were to be moved, neither an arrow shot straight up,
+nor a stone dropped from the top of a tower would fall
+perpendicularly, but either ahead or behind. With this
+argument Ptolemy refuted Eudoxus. But if we search into the
+secrets of the Hebrews and penetrate their sacred
+sanctuaries, all these arguments can easily be confirmed;
+for when the Lord of Wisdom said the sun swept in its swift
+course from the eastern shore to the west, he added this:
+Terra vero stat æternam. Lastly, all things on finding
+places suitable to their natures, remain there, as Aristotle
+writes. Since therefore the earth has been alloted a place
+fitting its nature, it cannot be whirled around by other
+motion than its own.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">The.</span>: I certainly agree to all the rest with you, but
+Aristotle's law I think involves a paralogism, for by this
+argument the heavens should be immobile since they are in a
+place fitting their nature.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Mys.</span>: You argue subtly indeed, but in truth this argument
+does not seem necessary to me; for what Aristotle admitted,
+that, while forsooth all the parts of the firmament changed
+their places, the firmament as a whole did not, is
+exceedingly absurd. For either the whole heaven is at rest
+or the whole heaven is moved. The senses themselves disprove
+that it is at rest; therefore it is moved. For it does not
+follow that if a body is not moved away from its place, it
+is not moved in that place. Furthermore, since we have the
+most certain proof of the movement of trepidation, not only
+all the parts of the firmament, but also the eight spheres,
+must necessarily leave their places and move up and down,
+forward and back."<a name="FNanchor_202_203" id="FNanchor_202_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_203" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>This was the opinion of a profound thinker and experienced man of
+affairs living when Tycho Brahe and Bruno were still alive and Kepler
+and Galileo were beginning their astronomical investigations. But he
+was not alone in his views, as we shall<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">-48-</a></span> see; for at the close of the
+sixteenth century, the Copernican doctrine had few avowed supporters.
+The Roman Church was still indifferent; the Protestants clinging to
+the literal interpretation of the Bible were openly antagonistic; the
+professors as a whole were too Aristotelian to accept or pay much
+attention to this novelty, except Kepler and his teacher Mæstlin
+(though the latter refused to uphold it in his textbook);<a name="FNanchor_203_204" id="FNanchor_203_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_204" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> while
+astronomers and mathematicians who realized the insuperable objections
+to the Ptolemaic conception, welcomed the Tychonic system as a <i>via
+media</i>; and the common folk, if they heard of it at all, must have
+ridiculed it because it was so plainly opposed to what they saw in the
+heavens every day. In the same way their intellectual superiors
+exclaimed at the "delirium" of those supporting such a notion.<a name="FNanchor_204_205" id="FNanchor_204_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_205" class="fnanchor">[204]</a>
+One thinker, however was to see far more in the doctrine than
+Copernicus himself had conceived, and by Giordano Bruno the Roman
+Church was to be aroused.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">-49-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II_2" id="CHAPTER_II_2"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER II.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">Bruno and Galileo.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">W</span>HEN the Roman Catholic authorities awoke to the dangers of the new
+teaching, they struck with force. The first to suffer was the famous
+monk-philosopher, Giordano Bruno, whose trial by the Holy Office was
+premonitory of trouble to come for Galileo.<a name="FNanchor_205_206" id="FNanchor_205_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_206" class="fnanchor">[205]</a></p>
+
+<p>After an elementary education at Naples near his birth-place,
+Nola,<a name="FNanchor_206_207" id="FNanchor_206_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_207" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> Filippo Bruno<a name="FNanchor_207_208" id="FNanchor_207_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_208" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> entered the Dominican monastery in 1562
+or 1563 when about fourteen years old, assuming the name Giordano at
+that time. Before 1572, when he entered the priesthood, he had fully
+accepted the Copernican theory which later became the basis of all his
+philosophical thought. Bruno soon showed he was not made for the
+monastic life. Various processes were started against him, and fleeing
+to Rome he abandoned his monk's garments and entered upon the sixteen
+years of wandering over Europe, a peripatetic teacher of the
+philosophy of an infinite universe as deduced from the Copernican
+doctrine and thus in a way its herald.<a name="FNanchor_208_209" id="FNanchor_208_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_209" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> He reached Geneva in 1579
+(where he did not accept Calvinism as was formerly thought),<a name="FNanchor_209_210" id="FNanchor_209_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_210" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> but
+decided before many months had passed that it was wise to depart
+elsewhere because of the unpleasant position in which he found himself
+there. He had been brought before the Council for printing invectives
+against one of the professors,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">-50-</a></span> pointing out some twenty of his
+errors. The Council sent him to the Consistory, the governing body of
+the church, where a formal sentence of excommunication was passed
+against him. When he apologized it was withdrawn. Probably a certain
+stigma remained, and he left Geneva soon thereafter with a warm
+dislike for Calvinism. After lecturing at the University of Toulouse
+he appeared in Paris in 1581, where he held an extraordinary
+readership. Two years later he was in England, for he lectured at
+Oxford during the spring months and defended the Copernican theory
+before the Polish prince Alasco during the latter's visit there in
+June.<a name="FNanchor_210_211" id="FNanchor_210_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_211" class="fnanchor">[210]</a></p>
+
+<p>To Bruno belongs the glory of the first public proclamation in England
+of the new doctrine,<a name="FNanchor_211_212" id="FNanchor_211_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_212" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> though only Gilbert<a name="FNanchor_212_213" id="FNanchor_212_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_213" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> and possibly Wright
+seem to have accepted it at the time. Upon Bruno's return to London,
+he entered the home of the French ambassador as a kind of secretary,
+and there spent the happiest years of his life till the ambassador's
+recall in October, 1585. It was during this period that he wrote some
+of his most famous books. In <i>La Cena de la Ceneri</i> he defended the
+Copernican theory, incidentally criticising the Oxford dons most
+severely,<a name="FNanchor_213_214" id="FNanchor_213_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_214" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> for which he apologized in <i>De la Causa, Principio et
+Uno</i>. He developed his philosophy of an infinite universe in <i>De
+l'Infinito e Mondi</i>, and in the <i>Spaccio de la Bestia Trionphante</i>
+"attacked all religions of mere credulity as opposed to religions of
+truth and deeds."<a name="FNanchor_214_215" id="FNanchor_214_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_215" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> This last book was at once thought to be a
+biting attack upon the Roman Church and later became one of the
+grounds of the Inquisition's charges against him. During this time in
+London also, he came to know Sir Philip Sydney intimately, and Fulk
+Greville as well as others of that brilliant period. He may have known
+Bacon;<a name="FNanchor_215_216" id="FNanchor_215_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_216" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> but it is highly improbable that he and Shakespeare
+met,<a name="FNanchor_216_217" id="FNanchor_216_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_217" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> or that Shakespeare ever was influenced by the other's
+philosophy.<a name="FNanchor_217_218" id="FNanchor_217_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_218" class="fnanchor">[217]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">-51-</a></span></p><p>Leaving Paris soon after his return thither, Bruno wandered into
+southern Germany. At Marburg he was not permitted to teach, but at
+Wittenberg the Lutherans cordially welcomed him into the university.
+After a stay of a year and a half, he moved on to Prague for a few
+months, then to Helmstadt, Frankfort and Zurich, and back to Frankfort
+again where, in 1591, he received an invitation from a young Venetian
+patrician, M&#339;cenigo, to come to Venice as his tutor. He re-entered
+Italy, therefore, in August, much to the amazement of his
+contemporaries. It is probable that M&#339;cenigo was acting for the
+Inquisition.<a name="FNanchor_218_219" id="FNanchor_218_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_219" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> At any rate, he soon denounced Bruno to that body
+and in May, 1592, surrendered him to it.<a name="FNanchor_219_220" id="FNanchor_219_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_220" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p>
+
+<p>In his trial before the Venetian Inquisition,<a name="FNanchor_220_221" id="FNanchor_220_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_221" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> Bruno told the
+story of his life and stated his beliefs in answer to the charges
+against him, based mainly on travesties of his opinions. In this
+statement as well as in <i>La Cena de le Ceneri</i>, and in <i>De Immenso et
+Innumerabilis</i>,<a name="FNanchor_221_222" id="FNanchor_221_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_222" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> Bruno shows how completely he had not merely
+accepted the Copernican doctrine, but had expanded it far beyond its
+author's conception. The universe according to Copernicus, though
+vastly greater than that conceived by Aristotle and Ptolemy, was still
+finite because enclosed within the sphere of the fixed stars. Bruno
+declared that not only was the earth only a lesser planet, but "this
+world itself was merely one of an infinite number of particular worlds
+similar to this, and that all the planets and other stars are infinite
+worlds without number composing an infinite universe, so that there is
+a double infinitude, that of the greatness of the universe, and that
+of the multitude of worlds."<a name="FNanchor_222_223" id="FNanchor_222_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_223" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> How important this would be to the
+Church authorities may be realized by recalling the patristic doctrine
+that the universe was created for man and that his home is its center.
+Of course their cherished belief must be defended from such an attack,
+and naturally enough, the Copernican doctrine as the starting point of
+Bruno's theory of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">-52-</a></span> an infinite universe was thus brought into
+question;<a name="FNanchor_223_224" id="FNanchor_223_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_224" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> for, as M. Berti has said,<a name="FNanchor_224_225" id="FNanchor_224_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_225" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> Bruno's doctrine was
+equally an astro-theology or a theological astronomy.</p>
+
+<p>The Roman Inquisition was not content to let the Venetian court deal
+with this arch heretic, but wrote in September, 1592, demanding his
+extradition. The Venetian body referred its consent to the state for
+ratification which the Doge and Council refused to grant. Finally,
+when the Papal Nuncio had represented that Bruno was not a Venetian
+but a Neapolitan, and that cases against him were still outstanding
+both in Naples and in Rome, the state consented, and in February of
+the next year, Bruno entered Rome, a prisoner of the Inquisition.
+Nothing further is known about him until the Congregations took up his
+case on February 4th, 1599. Perhaps Pope Clement had hoped to win back
+to the true faith this prince of heretics.<a name="FNanchor_225_226" id="FNanchor_225_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_226" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> However Bruno stood
+firm, and early in the following year he was degraded, sentenced and
+handed over to the secular authorities, who burned him at the stake in
+the Campo di Fiori, February 17, 1600.<a name="FNanchor_226_227" id="FNanchor_226_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_227" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> All his books were put on
+the Index by decree of February 8, 1600, (where they remain to this
+day), and as a consequence they became extremely rare. It is well to
+remember Bruno's fate, when considering Galileo's case, for
+Galileo<a name="FNanchor_227_228" id="FNanchor_227_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_228" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> was at that time professor of mathematics in the
+university of Padua and fully cognizant of the event.</p>
+
+<p>Galileo's father, though himself a skilled mathematician, had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">-53-</a></span>
+intended that his son (born at Pisa, February 15, 1564), should be a
+cloth-dealer, but at length permitted him to study medicine instead at
+the university of Pisa, after an elementary education at the monastery
+of Vallombrosa near Florence. At the Tuscan Court in Pisa, Galileo
+received his first lesson in mathematics, which thereupon became his
+absorbing interest. After nearly four years he withdrew from the
+university to Florence and devoted himself to that science and to
+physics. His services as a professor at this time were refused by five
+of the Italian universities; finally, in 1589, he obtained the
+appointment to the chair of physics at Pisa. He became so unpopular
+there, however, through his attacks on the Aristotelian physics of the
+day, that after three years he resigned and accepted a similar
+position at Padua.<a name="FNanchor_228_229" id="FNanchor_228_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_229" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> He remained here nearly eighteen years till
+his longing for leisure in which to pursue his researches, and the
+patronage of his good friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, brought him a
+professorship at the university of Pisa again, this time without
+obligation of residence nor of lecturing. He took up his residence in
+Florence in 1610; and later (1626), purchased a villa at Arcetri
+outside the city, in order to be near the convent where his favorite
+daughter "Suor Maria Celeste" was a religious.<a name="FNanchor_229_230" id="FNanchor_229_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_230" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p>
+
+<p>During the greater part of his lectureship at Padua, Galileo taught
+according to the Ptolemaic cosmogony out of compliance with popular
+feeling, though himself a Copernican. In a letter to Kepler (August 4,
+1597)<a name="FNanchor_230_231" id="FNanchor_230_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_231" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> he speaks of his entire acceptance of the new system for
+some years; but not until after the appearance of the New Star in the
+heavens in 1604 and 1605, and the controversy that its appearance
+aroused over the Aristotelian notion of the perfect and unchangeable
+heavens, did he publicly repudiate the old scheme and teach the new.
+The only information we have as to how he came to adopt the Copernican
+scheme for himself is the account given by "<i>Sagredo</i>," Galileo's
+spokesman in the famous <i>Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems</i>
+(1632):<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">-54-</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"Being very young and having scarcely finished my course of
+Philosophy which I left off, as being set upon other
+employments, there chanced to come into these parts a
+certain foreigner of Rostock, whose name as I remember, was
+Christianus Vurstitius, a follower of Copernicus, who in an
+Academy made two or three lectures upon this point, to whom
+many flock't as auditors; but I thinking they went more for
+the novelty of the subject than otherwise, did not go to
+hear him; for I had concluded with myself that that opinion
+could be no other than a solemn madnesse. And questioning
+some of those who had been there, I perceived they all made
+a jest thereof, except one, who told me that the business
+was not altogether to be laugh't at, and because this man
+was reputed by me to be very intelligent and wary, I
+repented that I was not there, and began from that time
+forward as oft as I met with anyone of the Copernican
+persuasion, to demand of them, if they had always been of
+the same judgment; and of as many as I examined, I found not
+so much as one, who told me not that he had been a long time
+of the contrary opinion, but to have changed it for this, as
+convinced by the reasons proving the same: and afterwards
+questioning them, one by one, to see whether they were well
+possest of the reasons of the other side, I found them all
+to be very ready and perfect in them; so that I could not
+truly say that they had took up this opinion out of
+ignorance, vanity, or to show the acuteness of their wits.
+On the contrary, of as many of the Peripateticks and
+Ptolemeans as I have asked (and out of curiosity I have
+talked with many) what pains they had taken in the Book of
+Copernicus, I found very few that had so much as
+superficially perused it: but of those whom, I thought, had
+understood the same, not one; and moreover, I have enquired
+amongst the followers of the Peripatetick Doctrine, if ever
+any of them had held the contrary opinion, and likewise
+found that none had. Whereupon considering that there was no
+man who followed the opinion of Copernicus that had not been
+first on the contrary side, and that was not very well
+acquainted with the reasons of Aristotle and Ptolemy; and on
+the contrary, that there is not one of the followers of
+Ptolemy that had ever been of the judgment of Copernicus,
+and that had left that to embrace this of Aristotle,
+considering, I say, these things, I began to think that one,
+who leaveth an opinion imbued with his milk, and followed by
+very many, to take up another owned by very few, and denied
+by all the Schools, and that really seems a very great
+Parodox, must needs have been moved, not to say forced, by
+more powerful reasons. For this cause I am become very
+curious to dive, as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">-55-</a></span> they say, into the bottom of this
+business ... and bring myself to a certainty in this
+subject."<a name="FNanchor_231_232" id="FNanchor_231_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_232" class="fnanchor">[231]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>Galileo's brilliant work in mechanics and his great popularity&mdash;for
+his lectures were thronged&mdash;combined with his skilled and witty
+attacks upon the accepted scientific ideas of the age, embittered and
+antagonized many who were both conservative and jealous.<a name="FNanchor_232_233" id="FNanchor_232_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_233" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> The
+Jesuits particularly resented his influence and power, for they
+claimed the leadership in the educational world and were jealous of
+intruders. Furthermore, they were bound by the decree of the fiftieth
+General Congregation of their society in 1593 to defend Aristotle, a
+decree strictly enforced.<a name="FNanchor_233_234" id="FNanchor_233_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_234" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> While a few of the Jesuits were
+friendly disposed to Galileo at first, the controversies in which he
+and they became involved and their bitter attacks upon him made him
+feel by 1633 that they were among his chief enemies.<a name="FNanchor_234_235" id="FNanchor_234_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_235" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p>
+
+<p>Early in 1609, Galileo heard a rumor of a spy-glass having been made
+in Flanders, and proceeded to work one out for himself according to
+the laws of perspective. The fifth telescope that he made magnified
+thirty diameters, and it was with such instruments of his own
+manufacture that he made in the next three years his famous
+discoveries: Jupiter's four satellites (which he named the Medicean
+Planets), Saturn's "tripartite" character (the rings were not
+recognized as such for several decades thereafter), the stars of the
+Milky Way, the crescent form of Venus, the mountains of the moon, many
+more fixed stars, and the spots on the sun. Popular interest waxed
+with each new discovery and from all sides came requests for
+telescopes; yet there were those who absolutely refused even to look
+through a telescope lest they be compelled to admit Aristotle was
+mistaken, and others claimed that Jupiter's moons were merely defects
+in the instrument. The formal announcement of the first of these
+discoveries was made in the <i>Sidereus Nuncius</i> (1610), a book that
+aroused no little opposition. Kepler, however, had it reprinted at
+once in Prague with a long appreciative preface of his own.<a name="FNanchor_235_236" id="FNanchor_235_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_236" class="fnanchor">[235]</a></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">-56-</a></span></p>
+<p>The following March Galileo went to Rome to show his discoveries and
+was received with the utmost distinction by princes and church
+dignitaries alike. A commission of four scientific members of the
+Roman College had previously examined his claims at Cardinal
+Bellarmin's suggestion, and had admitted their truth. Now Pope Paul V
+gave him long audiences; the Academia dei Lincei elected him a member,
+and everywhere he was acclaimed. Nevertheless his name appears on the
+secret books of the Holy Office as early as May of that year
+(1611).<a name="FNanchor_236_237" id="FNanchor_236_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_237" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> Already he was a suspect.</p>
+
+<p>His <i>Delle Macchie Solari</i> (1611) brought on a sharp contest over the
+question of priority of discovery between him and the Jesuit father,
+Christopher Scheiner of Ingolstadt, from which Galileo emerged
+victorious and more disliked than before by that order. Opposition was
+becoming active; Father Castelli, for instance, the professor of
+mathematics at Pisa and Galileo's intimate friend, was forbidden to
+discuss in his lectures the double motion of the earth or even to hint
+at its probability. This same father wrote to his friend early in
+December, 1613, to tell him of a dinner-table conversation on this
+matter at the Tuscan Court, then wintering at Pisa. Castelli told how
+the Dowager Grand Duchess Cristina had had her religious scruples
+aroused by a remark that the earth's motion must be wrong because it
+contradicted the Scriptures, a statement that he had tried to
+refute.<a name="FNanchor_237_238" id="FNanchor_237_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_238" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> Galileo wrote in reply (December 21, 1613), the
+letter<a name="FNanchor_238_239" id="FNanchor_238_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_239" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> that was to cause him endless trouble, in which he marked
+out the boundaries between science and religion and declared it a
+mistake to take the literal interpretation of passages in Scripture
+that were obviously written according to the understanding of the
+common people. He pointed out in addition how futile the miracle of
+the sun's standing still was as an argument against the Copernican
+doctrine for, even according to the Ptolemaic system, not the sun but
+the <i>primum mobile</i> must be stayed for the day to be lengthened.</p>
+
+<p>Father Castelli allowed others to read and to copy this supposedly
+private letter; copies went from hand to hand in Flor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">-57-</a></span>ence and
+discussion ran high. On the fourth Sunday in December, 1614, Father
+Caccini of the Dominicans preached a sermon in the church of S.M.
+Novella on Joshua's miracle, in which he sharply denounced the
+Copernican doctrine taught by Galileo as heretical, so he
+believed.<a name="FNanchor_239_240" id="FNanchor_239_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_240" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> The Copernicans found a Neapolitan Jesuit who replied
+to Caccini the following Sunday from the pulpit of the Duomo.<a name="FNanchor_240_241" id="FNanchor_240_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_241" class="fnanchor">[240]</a></p>
+
+<p>In February (1615), came the formal denunciation of Galileo to the
+Holy Office at Rome by Father Lorini, a Dominican associate of
+Caccini's at the Convent San Marco. The father sent with his "friendly
+warning," a copy of the letter to Castelli charging that it contained
+"many propositions which were either suspect or temerarious," and, he
+added, "though the <i>Galileisti</i> were good Christians they were rather
+stubborn and obstinate in their opinions."<a name="FNanchor_241_242" id="FNanchor_241_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_242" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> The machinery of the
+Inquisition began secretly to turn. The authorities failed to get the
+original of the letter, for Castelli had returned that to Galileo at
+the latter's request.<a name="FNanchor_242_243" id="FNanchor_242_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_243" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> Pope Paul sent word to Father Caccini to
+appear before the Holy Office in Rome to depose on this matter of
+Galileo's errors "pro exoneratione suæ conscientiæ."<a name="FNanchor_243_244" id="FNanchor_243_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_244" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> This he did
+"freely" in March and was of course sworn to secrecy. He named a
+certain nobleman, a Copernican, as the source of his information about
+Galileo, for he did not know the latter even by sight. This nobleman
+was by order of the Pope examined in November after some delay by the
+Inquisitor at Florence. His testimony was to the effect that he
+considered Galileo the best of Catholics.<a name="FNanchor_244_245" id="FNanchor_244_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_245" class="fnanchor">[244]</a></p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile the Consultors of the Holy Office had examined Lorini's copy
+of the letter and reported the finding of only three objectionable
+places all of which, they stated, could be amended by changing certain
+doubtful phrases; otherwise it did not deviate from the true faith. It
+is interesting to note that the copy they had differed in many minor
+respects from the original letter, and in one place heightened a
+passage with which the Examiners found fault as imputing falsehood to
+the Scriptures<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">-58-</a></span> although they are infallible.<a name="FNanchor_245_246" id="FNanchor_245_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_246" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> Galileo's own
+statement ran that there were many passages in the Scriptures which
+according to the literal meaning of the words, "hanno aspetto diverso
+dal vero...." The copy read, "molte propositioni falso quanto al nudo
+senso delle parole."</p>
+
+<p>Rumors of trouble reached Galileo and, urged on by his friends, in
+1615 he wrote a long formal elaboration of the earlier letter,
+addressing this one to the Dowager Grand Duchess, but he had only
+added fuel to the fire. At the end of the year he voluntarily went to
+Rome, regardless of any possible danger to himself, to see if he could
+not prevent a condemnation of the doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_246_247" id="FNanchor_246_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_247" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> It came as a decided
+surprise to him to receive an order to appear before Cardinal
+Bellarmin on February 26, 1616,<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> and there to learn that the Holy
+Office had already condemned it two days before. He was told that the
+Holy Office had declared: first, "that the proposition that the sun is
+the center of the universe and is immobile is foolish and absurd in
+philosophy and formally heretical since it contradicts the express
+words of the Scriptures in many places, according to the meaning of
+the words and the common interpretation and sense of the Fathers and
+the doctors of theology; and, secondly, that the proposition that the
+earth is not the center of the universe nor immobile receives the same
+censure in philosophy and in regard to its theological truth, it at
+least is erroneous in Faith."<a name="FNanchor_247_248" id="FNanchor_247_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_248" class="fnanchor">[247]</a></p>
+
+<p>Exactly what was said at that meeting between the two men became the
+crucial point in Galileo's trial sixteen years later, hence a somewhat
+detailed study is important. At the meeting of the Congregation on
+February 25th, the Pope ordered Cardinal Bellarmin to summon Galileo
+and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove
+recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way
+to abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it; if he did not
+acquiesce, he was to be imprisoned.<a name="FNanchor_248_249" id="FNanchor_248_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_249" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> The Secret Archives of the
+Vatican contain a minute reporting this interview (dated February 26,
+1616), in which the Cardinal is said to have ordered Galileo to
+relinquish this condemned proposition, "nec eam de cætero,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">-59-</a></span> quovis
+modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis," and that
+Galileo promised to obey.<a name="FNanchor_249_250" id="FNanchor_249_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_250" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> Rumors evidently were rife in Rome at
+the time as to what had happened at this secret interview, for Galileo
+wrote to the Cardinal in May asking for a statement of what actually
+had occurred so that he might silence his enemies. The Cardinal
+replied:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p>"We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmin, having heard that Signor
+Galileo was calumniated and charged with having abjured in
+our hand, and also of being punished by salutary penance,
+and being requested to give the truth, state that the
+aforesaid Signor Galileo has not abjured in our hand nor in
+the hand of any other person in Rome, still less in any
+other place, so far as we know, any of his opinions and
+teachings, nor has he received salutary penance nor any
+other kind; but only was he informed of the declaration made
+by his Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of
+the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine
+attributed to Copernicus,&mdash;that the earth moves around the
+sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world
+without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the
+Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held
+(non si possa difendere né tenere). And in witness of this
+we have written and signed these presents with our own hand,
+this 26th day of May, 1616.</p>
+
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Robert Cardinal Bellarmin</span>."<a name="FNanchor_250_251" id="FNanchor_250_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_251" class="fnanchor">[250]</a></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Galileo's defense sixteen years later<a name="FNanchor_251_252" id="FNanchor_251_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_252" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> was that he had obeyed the
+order as given him by the Cardinal and that he had not "defended nor
+held" the doctrine in his <i>Dialoghi</i> but had refuted it. The
+Congregation answered that he had been ordered not only not to hold
+nor defend, but also not to treat in any way (quovis modo) this
+condemned subject. When Galileo disclaimed all recollection of that
+phrase and produced the Cardinal's statement in support of his
+position, he was told that this document, far from lightening his
+guilt, greatly aggravated it since he had dared to deal with a subject
+that he had been informed was contrary to the Holy Scriptures.<a name="FNanchor_252_253" id="FNanchor_252_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_253" class="fnanchor">[252]</a></p>
+
+<p>To return to 1616. On the third of March the Cardinal reported to the
+Congregation in the presence of the Pope that he had warned Galileo
+and that Galileo had acquiesced.<a name="FNanchor_253_254" id="FNanchor_253_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_254" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> The Con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">-60-</a></span>gregation then reported
+its decree suspending "until corrected" "Nicolai Copernici De
+Revolutionibus Orbium C&#339;lestium, et Didaci Astunica in Job," and
+prohibiting "Epistola Fratris Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitæ,"
+together with all other books dealing with this condemned and
+prohibited doctrine. The Pope ordered this decree to be published by
+the Master of the Sacred Palace, which was done two days later.<a name="FNanchor_254_255" id="FNanchor_254_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_255" class="fnanchor">[254]</a>
+But this prohibition could not have been widely known for two or three
+years; the next year Mulier published his edition of the <i>De
+Revolutionibus</i> at Amsterdam without a word of reference to it; in
+1618 Thomas Feyens, professor at Louvain, heard vague rumors of the
+condemnation and wondered if it could be true;<a name="FNanchor_255_256" id="FNanchor_255_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_256" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> and the following
+spring Fromundus, also at Louvain and later a noted antagonist of the
+new doctrine, wrote to Feyens asking:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"What did I hear lately from you about the Copernicans? That
+they have been condemned a year or two ago by our Holy
+Father, Pope Paul V? Until now I have known nothing about
+it; no more have this crowd of German and Italian scholars,
+very learned and, as I think, very Catholic, who admit with
+Copernicus that the earth is turned. Is it possible that
+after a lapse of time as considerable as this, we have
+nothing more than a rumor of such an event? I find it hard
+to believe, since nothing more definite has come from Italy.
+Definitions of this sort ought above all to be published in
+the universities where the learned men are to whom the
+danger of such an opinion is very great."<a name="FNanchor_256_257" id="FNanchor_256_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_257" class="fnanchor">[256]</a></p></div>
+
+<p class="bp">Galileo meanwhile had retired to Florence and devoted himself to
+mechanical science, (of which his work is the foundation) though
+constantly harassed by much ill health and many family perplexities.
+At the advice of his friends, he allowed the attacks on the Copernican
+doctrine to go unanswered,<a name="FNanchor_257_258" id="FNanchor_257_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_258" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> till<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">-63-</a></span> with the accession to the
+papacy in 1623 of Cardinal Barberini, as Urban VIII, a warm admirer
+and supporter of his, he thought relief was in sight. He was further
+cheered by a conversation Cardinal di Zollern reported having had with
+Pope Urban, in which his Holiness had reminded the Cardinal how he
+(the Pope) had defended Copernicus in the time of Paul V, and asserted
+that out of just respect owed to the memory of Copernicus, if he had
+been pope then, he would not have permitted his opinion to be declared
+heretical.<a name="FNanchor_258_259" id="FNanchor_258_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_259" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> Feeling that he now had friends in power, Galileo
+began his great work, <i>Dialogo sopra i Due Sistemi Massimi del Mondo</i>,
+a dialogue in four "days" in which three interlocutors discuss the
+arguments for and against the Copernican theory, though coming to no
+definite conclusion. Sagredo was an avowed Copernican and Galileo's
+spokesman, Salviati was openminded, and the peripatetic was Simplicio,
+appropriately named for the famous Sicilian sixth century commentator
+on Aristotle.<a name="FNanchor_259_260" id="FNanchor_259_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_260" class="fnanchor">[259]</a></p>
+
+<div class="bbox"><a name="REV_1" id="REV_1"></a>
+<p class="centertp">
+<img src="images/revolutionibus_sm.jpg" width="440" height="500" alt="De Revolutionibus" title="De Revolutionibus" />
+</p>
+
+<p class="center"><b><span class="smcap">A "Corrected" Page from the</span> <i>De Revolutionibus</i>.</b></p>
+
+<p class="center">[<a href="images/revolutionibus_lg.jpg">Enlarge</a>]</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p class="bp">A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from Mulier's edition
+(1617) of the <i>De Revolutionibus</i> as "corrected" according to the
+<i>Monitum</i> of the Congregations in 1620. The first writer underlined
+the passages to be deleted or altered with marginal notes indicating
+the changes ordered; the second writer scratched out these passages,
+and wrote out in full the changes the other had given in abbreviated
+form. The <i>Notæ</i> are Mulier's own, and so were not affected by the
+order. The effect of the page is therefore somewhat contradictory!</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tp">In 1630 he brought the completed manuscript to Riccardi, Master of the
+Sacred Palace, for permission to print it in Rome. After much reading
+and re-reading of it both by Riccardi and his associate, Father
+Visconti, permission was at length granted on condition that he insert
+a preface and a conclusion practically dictated by Riccardi,
+emphasizing its hypothetical character.<a name="FNanchor_260_261" id="FNanchor_260_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_261" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> The Pope's own argument
+was to be used: "God is all-powerful; all things are therefore
+possible to Him; ergo, the tides cannot be adduced as a necessary
+proof of the double motion of the earth without limiting God's
+omnipotence&mdash;which is absurd."<a name="FNanchor_261_262" id="FNanchor_261_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_262" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> Galileo returned to Florence in
+June with the permission to print his book in Rome. Meanwhile the
+plague broke out. He decided to print it in Florence instead, and on
+writing to Riccardi for that permission, the latter asked for the book
+to review it again. The times were too troublesome to risk sending it,
+so a compromise was finally effected: Galileo was to send the preface
+and conclusion to Rome and Riccardi agreed to instruct the Inquisitor
+at Florence as to his requirements and to authorize him to license the
+book.<a name="FNanchor_262_263" id="FNanchor_262_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_263" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> The parts were not returned from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">-64-</a></span> Rome till July, 1631, and
+the book did not appear till February of the following year, when it
+was published at Florence with all these licenses, both the Roman and
+the Florentine ones.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Dialogo</i> was in Italian so that all could read it. It begins with
+an outline of the Aristotelian system, then points out the
+resemblances between the earth and the planets. The second "day"
+demonstrates the daily rotation of the earth on its axis. The next
+claims that the necessary stellar parallax is too minute to be
+observed and discusses the earth's annual rotation. The last seeks to
+prove this rotation by the ebb and flow of the tides. It is a
+brilliant book and received a great reception.</p>
+
+<p>The authorities of the Inquisition at once examined it and denounced
+Galileo (April 17, 1633) because in it he not merely taught and
+defended the "condemned doctrine but was gravely suspected of firm
+adherence to this opinion."<a name="FNanchor_263_264" id="FNanchor_263_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_264" class="fnanchor">[<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote reference in original text has been added in a logical place">263</span>]</a> Other charges made against him were
+that he had printed the Roman licenses without the permission of the
+Congregation, that he had printed the preface in different type so
+alienating it from the body of the book, and had put the required
+conclusion into the mouth of a fool (Simplicio), that in many places
+he had abandoned the hypothetical treatment and asserted the forbidden
+doctrine, and that he had dealt indecisively with the matter though
+the Congregation had specifically condemned the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the express words of the Scripture.<a name="FNanchor_264_265" id="FNanchor_264_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_265" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p>
+
+<p>The Pope became convinced that Galileo had ridiculed him in the
+character of Simplicio to whom Galileo had naturally enough assigned
+the Pope's syllogistic argument. On the 23rd of September, he ordered
+the Inquisitor of Florence to notify Galileo (in the presence of
+concealed notary and witnesses in case he were "recusant") to come to
+Rome and appear before the Sacred Congregation before the end of the
+next month;<a name="FNanchor_265_266" id="FNanchor_265_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_266" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> the publication and sale of the <i>Dialogo</i> meanwhile
+being stopped at great financial loss to the printer.<a name="FNanchor_266_267" id="FNanchor_266_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_267" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> Galileo
+promised to obey; but he was nearly seventy years old and so much
+broken in health that a long difficult journey in the approaching
+winter seemed a great and unnecessary hardship, especially as he was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">-65-</a></span>
+loath to believe that the Church authorities were really hostile to
+him. Delays were granted him till the Pope in December finally ordered
+him to be in Rome within a month.<a name="FNanchor_267_268" id="FNanchor_267_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_268" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> The Florentine Inquisitor
+replied that Galileo was in bed so sick that three doctors had
+certified that he could not travel except at serious risk to his life.
+This certificate declared that he suffered from an intermittent pulse,
+from enfeebled vital faculties, from frequent dizziness, from
+melancholia, weakness of the stomach, insomnia, shooting pains and
+serious hernia.<a name="FNanchor_268_269" id="FNanchor_268_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_269" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> The answer the Pope made to this was to order the
+Inquisitor to send at Galileo's expense a commissary and a doctor out
+to his villa to see if he were feigning illness; if he were, he was to
+be sent bound and in chains to Rome at once;
+<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: should be 'if he were'">if were</span> really too ill to travel, then he was to be sent in
+chains as soon as he was convalescent and could travel safely.<a name="FNanchor_269_270" id="FNanchor_269_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_270" class="fnanchor">[269]</a>
+Galileo did not delay after that any longer than he could help, and
+set out for Rome in January in a litter supplied by the Tuscan Grand
+Duke.<a name="FNanchor_270_271" id="FNanchor_270_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_271" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> The journey was prolonged by quarantine, but upon his
+arrival (February 13, 1633), he was welcomed into the palace of
+Niccolini, the warm-hearted ambassador of the Grand Duke.</p>
+
+<p>Four times was the old man summoned into the presence of the Holy
+Office, though never when the Pope was presiding. In his first
+examination held on the 12th of April, he told how he thought he had
+obeyed the decree of 1616 as his <i>Dialogo</i> did not defend the
+Copernican doctrine but rather confuted it, and that in his desire to
+do the right, he had personally submitted the book while in manuscript
+to the censorship of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and had accepted
+all the changes he and the Florentine Inquisitor had required. He had
+not mentioned the affair of 1616 because he thought that order did not
+apply to this book in which he proved the lack of validity and of
+conclusiveness of the Copernican arguments.<a name="FNanchor_271_272" id="FNanchor_271_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_272" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> With remarkable, in
+fact unique, consideration, the Holy Office then assigned Galileo to a
+suite of rooms within the prisons of the Holy Office, allowed him to
+have his servant with him and to have his meals sent in by the
+ambassador. On the 30th after his examination, they even assigned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">-66-</a></span> as
+his prison, the Ambassador's palace, out of consideration for his age
+and ill-health.</p>
+
+<p>In his second appearance (April 30), Galileo declared he had been
+thinking matters over after re-reading his book (which he had not read
+for three years), and freely confessed that there were several
+passages which would mislead a reader unaware of his real intentions,
+into believing the worse arguments were the better, and he blamed
+these slips upon his vain ambition and delight in his own skill in
+debate.<a name="FNanchor_272_273" id="FNanchor_272_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_273" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> He thereupon offered to write another "day" or two more
+for the <i>Dialogo</i> in which he would completely refute the two "strong"
+Copernican arguments based on the sun's spots and on the tides.<a name="FNanchor_273_274" id="FNanchor_273_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_274" class="fnanchor">[273]</a>
+Ten days later, at his third appearance, he presented a written
+statement of his defence in which he claimed that the phrase <i>vel
+quovis modo docere</i> was wholly new to him, and that he had obeyed the
+order given him by Cardinal Bellarmin over the latter's own signature.
+However he would make what amends he could and begged the Cardinals to
+"consider his miserable bodily health and his incessant mental trouble
+for the past ten months, the discomforts of a long hard journey at the
+worst season, when 70 years old, together with the loss of the greater
+part of the year, and that therefore such suffering might be adequate
+punishment for his faults which they might condone to failing old age.
+Also he commended to them his honor and reputation against the
+calumnies of his ill-wishers who seek to detract from his good
+name."<a name="FNanchor_274_275" id="FNanchor_274_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_275" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> To such a plight was the great man brought! But the end
+was not yet.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly a month later (June 16), by order of the Pope, Galileo was once
+again interrogated, this time under threat of torture.<a name="FNanchor_275_276" id="FNanchor_275_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_276" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> Once again
+he declared the opinion of Ptolemy true and indubitable and said he
+did not hold and had not held this doctrine of Copernicus after he had
+been informed of the order to abandon it. "As for the rest," he added,
+"I am in your hands, do with me as you please." "I am here to
+obey."<a name="FNanchor_276_277" id="FNanchor_276_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_277" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> Then by the order of the Pope, ensued Galileo's complete
+abjuration on his knees in the presence of the full Congregation,
+coupled with his prom<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">-67-</a></span>ise to denounce other heretics (i.e.,
+Copernicans).<a name="FNanchor_277_278" id="FNanchor_277_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_278" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> In addition, because he was guilty of the heresy of
+having held and believed a doctrine declared and defined as contrary
+to the Scriptures, he was sentenced to "formal imprisonment" at the
+will of the Congregation, and to repeat the seven penitential Psalms
+every week for three years.<a name="FNanchor_278_279" id="FNanchor_278_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_279" class="fnanchor">[278]</a></p>
+
+<p>At Galileo's earnest request, his sentence was commuted almost at
+once, to imprisonment first in the archiepiscopal palace in Siena
+(from June 30-December 1), then in his own villa at Arcetri, outside
+Florence, though under strict orders not to receive visitors but to
+live in solitude.<a name="FNanchor_279_280" id="FNanchor_279_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_280" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> In the spring his increasing illness occasioned
+another request for greater liberty in order to have the necessary
+visits from the doctor; but on March 23, 1634, this was denied him
+with a stern command from the Pope to refrain from further petitions
+lest the Sacred Congregation be compelled to recall him to their
+prisons in Rome.<a name="FNanchor_280_281" id="FNanchor_280_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_281" class="fnanchor">[280]</a></p>
+
+<p>The rule forbidding visitors seems not to have been rigidly enforced
+all the time, for Milton visited him, "a prisoner of the Inquisition"
+in 1638;<a name="FNanchor_281_282" id="FNanchor_281_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_282" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> yet Father Castelli had to write to Rome for permission
+to visit him to learn his newly invented method of finding longitude
+at sea.<a name="FNanchor_282_283" id="FNanchor_282_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_283" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> When in Florence on a very brief stay to see his doctor,
+Galileo had to have the especial consent of the Inquisitor in order to
+attend mass at Easter. He won approval from the Holy Congregation,
+however, by refusing to receive some gifts and letters brought him by
+some German merchants from the Low Countries.<a name="FNanchor_283_284" id="FNanchor_283_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_284" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> He was then totally
+blind, but he dragged out his existence until January 8, 1642 (the
+year of Newton's birth), when he died. As the Pope objected to a
+public funeral for a man sentenced by the Holy Office, he was buried
+without even an epitaph.<a name="FNanchor_284_285" id="FNanchor_284_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_285" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> The first inscription was made 31 years
+later, and in 1737, his remains were removed to Santa Croce after the
+Congregation had first been asked if such action would be
+unobjectionable.<a name="FNanchor_285_286" id="FNanchor_285_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_286" class="fnanchor">[285]</a></p>
+
+<p>Pope Urban had no intention of concealing Galileo's abjura<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">-68-</a></span>tion and
+sentence. Instead, he ordered copies of both to be sent to all
+inquisitors and papal nuncios that they might notify all their clergy
+and especially all the professors of mathematics and philosophy within
+their districts, particularly those at Florence, Padua and Pisa.<a name="FNanchor_286_287" id="FNanchor_286_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_287" class="fnanchor">[286]</a>
+This was done during the summer and fall of 1633. From Wilna in
+Poland, Cologne, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, as well as from all
+Italy, came the replies of the papal officials stating that the order
+had been obeyed.<a name="FNanchor_287_288" id="FNanchor_287_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_288" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> He evidently intended to leave no ground for a
+remark like that of Fromundus about the earlier condemnation.</p>
+
+<p>Galileo was thus brought so low that the famous remark, "Eppur si
+muove," legend reports him to have made as he rose to his feet after
+his abjuration, is incredible in itself, even if it had appeared in
+history earlier than its first publication in 1761.<a name="FNanchor_288_289" id="FNanchor_288_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_289" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> But his
+discoveries and his fight in defence of the system did much both to
+strengthen the doctrine itself and to win adherents to it. The
+appearance of the moon as seen through a telescope destroyed the
+Aristotelian notion of the perfection of heavenly bodies. Jupiter's
+satellites gave proof by analogy of the solar system, though on a
+smaller scale. The discovery of the phases of Venus refuted a hitherto
+strong objection to the Copernican system; and the discovery of the
+spots on the sun led to his later discovery of the sun's axial
+rotation, another proof by analogy of the axial rotation of the earth.
+Yet he swore the Ptolemaic conception was the true one.</p>
+
+<p>The abjuration of Galileo makes a pitiful page in the history of
+thought and has been a fruitful source of controversy<a name="FNanchor_289_290" id="FNanchor_289_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_290" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> for nearly
+three centuries. He was unquestionably a sincere and loyal Catholic,
+and accordingly submitted to the punishment decreed by the
+authorities. But in his abjuration he plainly perjured himself,
+however fully he may be pardoned for it because of the extenuating
+circumstances. Had he not submitted and been straitly imprisoned, if
+not burned, the world would indeed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">-69-</a></span> have been the poorer by the loss
+of his greatest work, the <i>Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze</i>, which he did
+not publish until 1636.<a name="FNanchor_290_291" id="FNanchor_290_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_291" class="fnanchor">[290]</a></p>
+
+<p>Even more hotly debated has been the action of the Congregations in
+condemning the Copernican doctrine, and sentencing Galileo as a
+heretic for upholding it.<a name="FNanchor_291_292" id="FNanchor_291_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_292" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> Though both Paul V and Urban VIII
+spurred on these actions, neither signed either the decree or the
+sentence, nor was the latter present at Galileo's examinations. Pope
+Urban would prefer not so openly to have changed his position from
+that of tolerance to his present one of active opposition caused
+partly by his piqued self-respect<a name="FNanchor_292_293" id="FNanchor_292_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_293" class="fnanchor">[292]</a> and partly by his belief that
+this heresy was more dangerous even than that of Luther and
+Calvin.<a name="FNanchor_293_294" id="FNanchor_293_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_294" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> It is a much mooted question whether the infallibility of
+the Church was involved or not. Though the issue at stake was not one
+of faith, nor were the decrees issued by the Pope <i>ex cathedra</i>, but
+by a group of Cardinals, a fallible body, yet they had the full
+approbation of the Popes, and later were published in the Index
+preceded by a papal bull excommunicating those who did not obey the
+decrees contained therein.<a name="FNanchor_294_295" id="FNanchor_294_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_295" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> It seems to be a matter of the letter
+as opposed to the spirit of the law. De Morgan points out that
+contemporary opinion as represented by Fromundus, an ardent opponent
+of Galileo, did not consider the Decree of the Index or of the
+Inquisition as a declaration of the Church,<a name="FNanchor_295_296" id="FNanchor_295_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_296" class="fnanchor">[295]</a>&mdash;a position which
+Galileo himself may have held, thus explaining his practical disregard
+of the decree of 1616 after he was persuaded the authorities were more
+favorably disposed to him. But M. Martin, himself a Catholic,
+thinks<a name="FNanchor_296_297" id="FNanchor_296_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_297" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> that theoretically the Congregations could punish Galileo
+only for disobedience of the secret order,&mdash;but even so his book had
+been examined and passed by the official censors.</p>
+
+<p>When the Index was revised under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757, largely
+through the influence of the Jesuit astronomer Boscovich, so it is
+said,<a name="FNanchor_297_298" id="FNanchor_297_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_298" class="fnanchor">[297]</a> the phrase prohibiting all books teach<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">-70-</a></span>ing the immobility
+of the sun, and the mobility of the earth was omitted from the
+decrees.<a name="FNanchor_298_299" id="FNanchor_298_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_299" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> But in 1820, the Master of the Sacred Palace refused to
+permit the publication in Rome of a textbook on astronomy by Canon
+Settele, who thereupon appealed to the Congregations. They granted his
+request in August, and two years later, issued a decree approved by
+Pope Pius VII ordering the Master of the Sacred Palace in future "not
+to refuse license for publication of books dealing with the mobility
+of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to the common
+opinion of modern astronomers" on that ground alone.<a name="FNanchor_299_300" id="FNanchor_299_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_300" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> The next
+edition of the <i>Index Librorum Prohibitorum</i> (1835) did not contain
+the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, à Stunica and Kepler
+which had appeared in every edition up to that time since their
+condemnation in 1616, (Kepler's in 1619).</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">-71-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III_2" id="CHAPTER_III_2"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER III.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">The Opposition and Their Arguments.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">T</span>HE Protestant leaders had rejected the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the Scriptures. The Roman Congregations had now condemned
+Galileo for upholding this doctrine after they had prohibited it for
+the same reasons. These objections are perhaps best summarized in that
+open letter Foscarini wrote to the general of his order, the
+Carmelites, at Naples in January, 1615,<a name="FNanchor_300_301" id="FNanchor_300_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_301" class="fnanchor">[300]</a>&mdash;the letter that was
+absolutely prohibited by the Index in March, 1616. He gave these
+arguments and answered them lest, as he said, "whilst otherwise the
+opinion is favored with much probability, it be found in reality to be
+extremely repugnant (as at first sight it seems) not only to physical
+reasons and common principles received on all hands (which cannot do
+so much harm), but also (which would be of far worse consequence) to
+many authorities of Sacred Scripture. Upon which account many at first
+looking into it explode it as the most fond paradox and monstrous
+<i>capriccio</i> that ever was heard of." "Yet many modern authors," he
+says further on, "are induced to follow it, but with much hesitancy
+and fear, in regard that it seemeth in their opinion so to contradict
+the Holy Scriptures that it cannot possibly be reconciled to them."
+Consequently Foscarini argued that the theory is either true or false;
+if false, it ought not to be divulged; if true, the authority of the
+Sacred Scriptures will not oppose it; neither does one truth
+contradict another. So he turned to the Bible.</p>
+
+<p>He found that six groups of authorities seemed to oppose this
+doctrine. (1) Those stating that the earth stands fast, as Eccles.
+1:4. (2) Those stating that the sun moves and revolves; as Psalm XIX,
+Isaiah XXXVIII, and the miracle in Josh. X:12-14. (3) Those speaking
+of the heaven above and the earth beneath, as in Joel II. Also Christ
+came <i>down</i> from Heaven. (4) Those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">-72-</a></span> authorities who place Hell at the
+center of the world, a "common opinion of divines," because it ought
+to be in the lowest part of the world, that is, at the center of the
+sphere. Then by the Copernican hypothesis, Hell must either be in the
+sun; or, if in the earth, if the earth should move about the sun, then
+Hell within the earth would be in Heaven, and nothing could be more
+absurd. (5) Those authorities opposing Heaven to earth and earth to
+Heaven, as in Gen. I, Mat. VI, etc. Since the two are always mutually
+opposed to each other, and Heaven undoubtedly refers to the
+circumference, earth must necessarily be at the center. (6) Those
+authorities ("rather of fathers and divines than of the Sacred
+Scriptures") who declare that after the Day of Judgment, the sun shall
+stand immovable in the east and the moon in west.</p>
+
+<p>Foscarini then lays down in answer six maxims, the first of which is
+that things attributed to God must be expounded metaphorically
+according to our manner of understanding and of common speech. The
+other maxims are more metaphysical, as that everything in the
+universe, whether corruptible or incorruptible, obeys a fixed law of
+its nature; so, for example, Fortune is <i>always</i> fickle. In concluding
+his defense, he claims among other things, that the Copernician is a
+more admirable hypothesis than the Ptolemaic, and that it is an easy
+way into astronomy and philosophy. Then he adds that there may be an
+analogy between the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Testament
+and the seven planets around the sun, and possibly the arrangement of
+the seeds in the "Indian Figg," in the pomegranate and in grapes is
+all divine evidence of the solar system. With such an amusing
+reversion to mediæval analogy his spirited letter ends.</p>
+
+<p>Some or all of these scriptural arguments appear in most of the
+attacks on the doctrine even before its condemnation by the Index in
+1616 was widely known. Besides these objections, Aristotle's and
+Ptolemy's statements were endlessly repeated with implicit faith in
+their accuracy. Even Sir Francis Bacon (1567-1631) with all his
+modernity of thought, failed in this instance to recognize the value
+of the new idea and, despite his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">-73-</a></span> interest in Galileo's discoveries,
+harked back to the time-honored objections. At first mild in his
+opposition, he later became emphatically opposed to it. In the
+<i>Advancement of Learning</i><a name="FNanchor_301_302" id="FNanchor_301_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_302" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> (1604), he speaks of it as a possible
+explanation of the celestial phenomena according to astronomy but as
+contrary to natural philosophy. Some fifteen years later in the <i>Novum
+Organon</i>,<a name="FNanchor_302_303" id="FNanchor_302_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_303" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> he asserts that the assumption of the earth's movement
+cannot be allowed; for, as he says in his <i>Thema C&#339;li</i>,<a name="FNanchor_303_304" id="FNanchor_303_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_304" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> at
+that time he considered the opinion that the earth is stationary the
+truer one. Finally, in his <i>De Augmentis Scientiarum</i><a name="FNanchor_304_305" id="FNanchor_304_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_305" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> (1622-1623)
+he speaks of the old notions of the solidity of the heavens, etc., and
+adds, "It is the absurdity of these opinions that has driven men to
+the diurnal motion; which I am convinced is most false." He gives his
+reasons in the <i>Descriptio Globi Intellectualis</i><a name="FNanchor_305_306" id="FNanchor_305_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_306" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> (ch. 5-6): "In
+favor of the earth [as the center of the world] we have the evidence
+of our sight, and an inveterate opinion; and most of all this, that as
+dense bodies are contracted into a narrow compass, and rare bodies are
+widely diffused (and the area of every circle is contracted to the
+center) it seems to follow almost of necessity that the narrow space
+about the middle of the world be set down as the proper and peculiar
+place for dense bodies." The sun's claims to such a situation are
+satisfied through having two satellites of its own, Venus and Mercury.
+Copernicus's scheme is inconvenient; it overloads the earth with a
+triple motion; it creates a difficulty by separating the sun from the
+number of the planets with which it has much in common; and the
+"introduction of so much immobility into nature ... and making the
+moon revolve around the earth in an epicycle, and some other
+assumptions of his are the speculations of one who cares not what
+fictions he introduces into nature, provided his calculations answer."
+The total absence of all reference to the Scriptures is the unique and
+refreshing part of Bacon's thought.</p>
+
+<p>All the more common arguments against the diurnal rotation of the
+earth are well stated in an interesting little letter (1619)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">-74-</a></span> by
+Thomas Feyens, or Fienus, a professor at the school of medicine in the
+University of Louvain.<a name="FNanchor_306_307" id="FNanchor_306_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_307" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> Thus Catholic, Protestant, and unbeliever,
+Feyens, Melancthon, Bacon and Bodin, all had recourse to the same
+arguments to oppose this seemingly absurd doctrine.</p>
+
+<p>Froidmont, or Fromundus, the good friend and colleague of Feyens at
+Louvain, was also much interested in these matters, so much so that
+some thought he had formerly accepted the Copernican doctrine and
+"only fled back into the camp of Aristotle and Ptolemy through terror
+at the decree of the S. Congregation of Cardinals."<a name="FNanchor_307_308" id="FNanchor_307_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_308" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> His indignant
+denial of this imputation of turn-coat in 1634 is somewhat weakened by
+reference to his <i>Saturnalitæ Coenæ</i><a name="FNanchor_308_309" id="FNanchor_308_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_309" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> (1615) in which he suggests
+that, if the Copernican doctrine is admitted, then Hell may be in the
+sun at the center of the universe rather than in the earth, in order
+to be as far as possible from Paradise. He also refers in his <i>De
+Cometa</i> (1618) to the remark of Justus-Lipsius<a name="FNanchor_309_310" id="FNanchor_309_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_310" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> that this paradox
+was buried with Copernicus, saying "You are mistaken, O noble scholar:
+it lives, and it is full of vigor even now among many,"<a name="FNanchor_310_311" id="FNanchor_310_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_311" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> thus
+apparently not seeing serious objection to it. M. Monchamp summarizes
+Froidmont's point of view as against Aristotle and Ptolemy, half for
+Copernicus and wholly for Tycho Brahe.</p>
+
+<p>Froidmont's best known books are the two he wrote in answer to a
+defense of the Copernican position first by Philip Lansberg, then by
+his son. The <i>Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis Terræ Immobilis, Liber unicus
+in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal. an. 1616, adversus
+Pythagorico-Copernicanus editum, defenditur</i>, appeared in 1631 before
+Galileo's condemnation. The Jesuit Cavalieri wrote to Galileo in May
+about it thus:<a name="FNanchor_311_312" id="FNanchor_311_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_312" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> "I have run it through, and verily it states the
+Copernican theory and the arguments in its favor with so much skill
+and efficacy that he seems to have understood it very well indeed. But
+he refutes them with so little force that he seems<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">-75-</a></span> rather to be of an
+opinion contrary to that expressed in the title of his book. I have
+given it to M. César. If you wish it, I will have it sent to you. The
+arguments he brings against Copernicus are those you have so
+masterfully stated and answered in your <i>Dialogo</i>." Nearly a year
+later, Galileo wrote to Gassendi and Diodati that he had received this
+book a month before and, although he had been unable to read much of
+it on account of his eye trouble, it seemed to him that of all the
+opponents of Copernicus whom he had seen, Fromundus was the most
+sensible and efficient.<a name="FNanchor_312_313" id="FNanchor_312_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_313" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> Again he wrote in January, 1633,
+regretting that he had not seen it till six months after he had
+published his dialogues, for he would have both praised it and
+commented upon certain points. "As for Fromundus (who however shows
+himself to be a man of great talent) I wish he had not fallen into
+what seems to me a truly serious error, although a rather common one,
+in order to refute the Copernican opinion, of beginning by poking
+scorn and ridicule at those who consider it true, and then (what seems
+to me still less becoming) of basing his attack chiefly on the
+authority of the Scriptures, and finally of deducing from this that in
+this respect it is an opinion little short of heretical. To argue in
+this way is clearly not praiseworthy;" for as Galileo goes on to show,
+if the Scriptures are the word of God, the heavens themselves are his
+handiwork. Why is the one less noble than the other?<a name="FNanchor_313_314" id="FNanchor_313_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_314" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p>
+
+<p>Froidmont replied in 1633 to Lansberg's reply with his second attack,
+<i>Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi Vindex</i>, in which he laid even more
+emphasis upon the theological and scriptural objections. Yet, in
+ignorance of Galileo's condemnation, he considers the charge of heresy
+too strong. "The partisans of this system do not after all disdain the
+authority of the Scriptures, although they appear to interpret it in a
+way rather in their favor." He also, and rightly, denies the existence
+at that time of any conclusive proof.<a name="FNanchor_314_315" id="FNanchor_314_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_315" class="fnanchor">[314]</a></p>
+
+<p>In spite of Froidmont's position, the University of Louvain was not
+cordial in its response to the papal nuncio's announce<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">-76-</a></span>ment in
+September, 1633, of Galileo's abjuration and sentence, in marked
+contrast to the reply sent by the neighboring university of Douay. The
+latter body, in a letter signed by Matthæus Kellison (Sept. 7, 1633),
+declared the condemned theory "should be discarded and hissed from the
+schools; and that in the English College there in Douay, this paradox
+never had been approved and never would be, but had always been
+opposed and always would be."<a name="FNanchor_315_316" id="FNanchor_315_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_316" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p>
+
+<p>This opposition in the universities in Belgium continued throughout
+the century to be based not so much on scientific grounds as upon the
+Bible. This may be seen in the manuscript reports of lectures in
+physics and astronomy given at Liège in 1662, and at Louvain between
+1650-1660, though one of these does not mention the decree of
+1616.<a name="FNanchor_316_317" id="FNanchor_316_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_317" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> The general congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1650
+drew up a list of the propositions proscribed in their teaching,
+though, according to M. Monchamp (himself a Catholic) not thereby
+implying a denial of any probability they might have. The 35th
+proposition ran: "Terra movetur motu diurno; planetæ, tanquam
+viventia, moventur ab intrinseco. Firmamentum stat."<a name="FNanchor_317_318" id="FNanchor_317_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_318" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> The Jesuit
+astronomer Tacquet in his textbook (Antwerp, 1669) respected this
+decision, acknowledging that no scientific reason kept him from
+defending the theory, but solely his respect for the Christian
+faith.<a name="FNanchor_318_319" id="FNanchor_318_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_319" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p>
+
+<p>One of the pupils of the Jesuits revolted however. Martin van Welden,
+appointed professor of mathematics at Louvain in 1683, debated a
+series of theses in January, 1691. The second read: "Indubitum est
+systhema Copernici de planetarum motu circa sole; inter quos merito
+terra censetur." His refusal to alter the wording except to change
+<i>indubitum</i> to <i>certum</i> brought on a stormy controversy within the
+faculty which eventually reached the Council of Brabant and the papal
+nuncio at Brussels.<a name="FNanchor_319_320" id="FNanchor_319_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_320" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> The professor finally submitted, though he
+was not forbidden to teach the Copernician system, nor did the faculty
+affirm its falsity, merely that it was contrary to the Roman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">-77-</a></span> decree.
+The professor re-opened the matter with a similar thesis in July,
+thereby arousing a second controversy that this time reached even the
+Privy Council. Once more he submitted, but solely with an apology for
+having caused a disagreement. His new theses in 1695 contained no
+explicit mention of the Copernician system; at least he had learned
+tact.<a name="FNanchor_320_321" id="FNanchor_320_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_321" class="fnanchor">[320]</a></p>
+
+<p>The absorption of the German states in the Thirty Years War may
+account for the apparent absence there of Copernican discussion until
+after the Peace of Westphalia. A certain Georgius Ludovicus Agricola
+gave a syllogistic refutation of the doctrine as his disputation at
+the university of Wittenberg in 1665. While he acknowledged its
+ingenuity, he preferred to it "the noblest, truest, and divinely
+inspired system" of Tycho Brahe. The four requirements of an
+acceptable astronomical hypothesis according to this student are: (1)
+That it suit all the observations of all the ages; (2) That as far as
+possible, it be simple and clear; (3) That it be not contrary to the
+principles of physics and optics; (4) That it be not contrary to the
+Holy Scriptures. As the Copernican theory does not meet all these
+tests, it is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he considers it "ridiculous
+to include the earth among the planets, because then we would be
+living in Heaven, forsooth, since we would be in a star." He decides
+finally "that the decree of March, 1616, condemning the Copernican
+opinion was not unjust, nor was Galileo unfairly treated."<a name="FNanchor_321_322" id="FNanchor_321_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_322" class="fnanchor">[321]</a></p>
+
+<p>Two years later appeared a textbook at Nürnberg, by a Jesuit father,
+based on the twelfth century Sacrobosco treatise and without a single
+reference so far as I could find, to Copernicus!<a name="FNanchor_322_323" id="FNanchor_322_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_323" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> Another
+publication of the same year was a good deal more up to date. This was
+a kind of catechism in German by Johann-Henrich Voight<a name="FNanchor_323_324" id="FNanchor_323_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_324" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> explaining
+for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in
+a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish
+astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his
+reader<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">-78-</a></span> free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of
+which he carefully explained.<a name="FNanchor_324_325" id="FNanchor_324_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_325" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> He made an interesting summary in
+parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion
+which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common
+people were taught:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" summary="reasons">
+<tr>
+<td class="center">Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless:</td>
+<td class="center">Reasons for the belief that the earth is moved:</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be
+moved.</td>
+<td class="vat">1. The sun, the most excellent, the greatest and the midmost star,
+rightly stands still like a king while all the other stars with the
+earth swing round it.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">2. Joshua bade the sun stand still&mdash;which would not be notable were it
+not already at rest.</td>
+<td class="vat">2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular
+deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving shore.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at
+rest.</td>
+<td class="vat">3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in
+accordance with the popular misconception.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why
+should not the whole earth itself be at rest?</td>
+<td class="vat">4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so
+the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a
+great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and
+especially if it declined to the north and south....</td>
+<td class="vat">5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle
+of the human body.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if
+the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its
+starting point.</td>
+<td class="vat">6. Since the earth has in itself its especial <i>centrum</i>, a stone or an
+arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own <i>centrum</i> as do all
+earthly things.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps.</td>
+<td class="vat">7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun
+can go forty miles in the same time.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the
+swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of
+dizziness.</td>
+<td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>And similarly on both sides.<a name="FNanchor_325_326" id="FNanchor_325_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_326" class="fnanchor">[325]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">-79-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Another writer preferring the Tychonic scheme was Longomontanus, whose
+<i>Astronomica Danica</i> (Amsterdam, 1640) upheld this theory because it
+"obviates the absurdities of the Copernican hypothesis and most aptly
+corresponds to celestial appearances," and also because it is "midway
+between that and the Ptolemaic one."<a name="FNanchor_326_327" id="FNanchor_326_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_327" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> Even though he speaks of the
+"apparent motion of the sun," he attributed diurnal motion to the
+heavens, and believed the earth was at the center of the universe
+because (1), from the account of the Creation, the heaven and the
+earth were first created, and what could be more likely than that the
+heavens should fill the space between the center (the earth) and the
+circumference? (2) and because of the incredibly enormous interval
+between the sphere of the fixed stars and the earth necessitated by
+Copernican doctrine.<a name="FNanchor_327_328" id="FNanchor_327_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_328" class="fnanchor">[327]</a></p>
+
+<p>The high-water mark of opposition after Galileo's condemnation was
+reached in the <i>Almagestum Novum</i> (Bologna, 1651) by Father Riccioli
+of the Society of Jesus. It was the authoritative answer of that
+order, the leaders of the Church in matters of education, to the
+challenges of the literary world for a justification of the
+condemnation of the Copernican doctrine and of Galileo for upholding
+it. Father Riccioli had been professor of philosophy and of
+mathematics for six years and of theology for ten when by order of his
+superiors, he was released from his lectureship to prepare a book
+containing all the material he could gather together on this great
+controversy of the age.<a name="FNanchor_328_329" id="FNanchor_328_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_329" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> He wrote it as he himself said, as "an
+<i>apologia</i> for the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals who officially
+pronounced these condemnations, not so much because I thought such
+great height and eminence needed this at my hands but especially in
+behalf of Catholics; also out of the love of truth to which every
+non-Catholic, even, should be persuaded and from a certain notable
+zeal and eagerness for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures
+intact and unimpaired; and lastly because of that reverence and
+devotion which I owe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">-80-</a></span> from my particular position toward the Holy,
+Catholic and Apostolic Church."<a name="FNanchor_329_330" id="FNanchor_329_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_330" class="fnanchor">[329]</a></p>
+
+<p>This monumental work, the most important literary production of the
+Society in the 17th century,<a name="FNanchor_330_331" id="FNanchor_330_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_331" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> is abundant witness to Riccioli's
+remarkable erudition and industry. Nearly one-fifth of the total bulk
+of the two huge volumes is devoted to a statement of the Copernican
+controversy. This is prefaced by a brief account of his own theory of
+the universe&mdash;the invention of which is another proof of the ability
+of the man&mdash;for his scientific training prevented his acceptance of
+the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory in the light of Galileo's
+discoveries; his position as a Jesuit and a faithful son of the Church
+precluded him from adopting the system condemned by its
+representatives; and Tycho Brahe's scheme was not wholly to his
+liking. Therefor he proposed an adaptation of the last-named, more in
+accordance, as he thought, with the facts.<a name="FNanchor_331_332" id="FNanchor_331_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_332" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> Where Tycho had all
+the planets except the earth and the moon encircle the sun, and that
+in turn, together with the moon and the sphere of the fixed stars,
+sweep around the earth as the center of the universe, Riccioli made
+only Mars, Mercury and Venus encircle the sun,&mdash;Mars with an orbit the
+radius of which included the earth within its sweep, the other two
+planets with orbital radii shorter than that of the sun, and so
+excluding the earth. This he did, (1) because both Jupiter and Saturn
+have their own kingdoms in the heavens, and Mars, Mercury and Venus
+are but satellites of the sun; (2) because there are greater varieties
+of eccentricity among these three than the other two; (3) because
+Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the
+fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of
+their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the
+planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and
+with Mercury and Venus also.<a name="FNanchor_332_333" id="FNanchor_332_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_333" class="fnanchor">[332]</a></p>
+
+<p>Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre
+summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">-81-</a></span> against it,<a name="FNanchor_333_334" id="FNanchor_333_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_334" class="fnanchor">[333]</a> and
+Riccioli himself claims<a name="FNanchor_334_335" id="FNanchor_334_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_335" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> to have stated "40 new arguments in
+behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat
+familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for
+instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or,
+the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is
+smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of
+God's power; for to God all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.<a name="FNanchor_335_336" id="FNanchor_335_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_336" class="fnanchor">[335]</a>
+Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so,
+according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it,
+Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars
+revolve around him. The sun may be nobler than the earth, but man is
+nobler than the sun.<a name="FNanchor_336_337" id="FNanchor_336_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_337" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> If the earth's movement were admitted,
+Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the
+epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans
+appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,<a name="FNanchor_337_338" id="FNanchor_337_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_338" class="fnanchor">[337]</a> but he calls to his
+aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his
+defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.<a name="FNanchor_338_339" id="FNanchor_338_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_339" class="fnanchor">[338]</a> There are many
+more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more
+or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or
+novelty.</p>
+
+<p>To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the
+heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite
+view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern
+reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it,
+for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure
+men.<a name="FNanchor_339_340" id="FNanchor_339_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_340" class="fnanchor">[339]</a></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" summary="pro and anti">
+<tr>
+<td class="vat" style="width: 50%">In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].<a name="FNanchor_340_341" id="FNanchor_340_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_341" class="fnanchor">[340]</a></td>
+<td class="vat" style="width: 50%">Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="vat">Copernicus<br />
+Rheticus<br />
+Mæstlin<br />
+Kepler<br />
+Rothman<br />
+Galileo<br />
+Gilbert (diurnal motion)<br />
+Foscarini<br />
+Didacus Stunica (<i>sic</i>)<br />
+Ismael Bullialdus<br />
+Jacob Lansberg<br />
+Peter Herigonus<br />
+Gassendi,&mdash;"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees."<br />
+Descartes "inclines to this belief."<br />
+A.L. Politianus<br />
+Bruno</td>
+<td class="vat">Aristotle<br />
+Ptolemy<br />
+Theon the Alexandrine<br />
+Regiomontanus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">-82-</a></span><br />
+Alfraganus<br />
+Macrobius<br />
+Cleomedes<br />
+Petrus Aliacensis<br />
+George Buchanan<br />
+Maurolycus<br />
+Clavius<br />
+Barocius<br />
+Michael Neander<br />
+Telesius<br />
+Martinengus<br />
+Justus-Lipsius<br />
+Scheiner<br />
+Tycho<br />
+Tasso<br />
+Scipio Claramontius<br />
+Michael Incofer<br />
+Fromundus<br />
+Jacob Ascarisius<br />
+Julius Cæsar La Galla<br />
+Tanner<br />
+Bartholomæus Amicus<br />
+Antonio Rocce<br />
+Marinus Mersennius<br />
+Polacco<br />
+Kircher<br />
+Spinella<br />
+Pineda<br />
+Lorinis<br />
+Mastrius<br />
+Bellutris<br />
+Poncius<br />
+Delphinus<br />
+Elephantutius</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy.
+After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted
+the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one
+digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one
+unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never
+been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,&mdash;that man who
+accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even
+to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">-83-</a></span> triple
+motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before
+so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to
+carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his
+hypothesis!"<a name="FNanchor_341_342" id="FNanchor_341_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_342" class="fnanchor">[341]</a></p>
+
+<p>His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit
+restrained him from being a Copernican himself.<a name="FNanchor_342_343" id="FNanchor_342_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_343" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> "I. If the
+celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well
+explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The
+physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of
+percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or
+west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently
+between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures,
+which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other
+motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But
+with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under
+Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the
+sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile
+in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a
+diurnal and an annual motion."<a name="FNanchor_343_344" id="FNanchor_343_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_344" class="fnanchor">[343]</a></p>
+
+<p>Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the
+action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the
+doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of
+the Church. The full title of his <i>Apologia</i> runs: "An Apologia in
+behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican
+system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex
+motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his
+<i>Almagestum Novum</i> had received the approbation of professors of
+mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and
+he quotes the conclusion from <i>Nicetas Orthodoxus</i> ("a diatribe by
+Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and
+Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual
+motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly
+believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">-84-</a></span> but
+solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures,
+and the nod of approval (<i>nutu</i>) of the Roman See, whose rules laid
+down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits
+everyone, uphold as law."<a name="FNanchor_344_345" id="FNanchor_344_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_345" class="fnanchor">[344]</a></p>
+
+<p>Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that
+"the Church did not decide <i>ex cathedra</i> that the Scripture concerning
+movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by
+qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not
+merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the
+contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the
+primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical
+and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was
+absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any
+objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but
+only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to
+philosophy."<a name="FNanchor_345_346" id="FNanchor_345_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_346" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> These answers are indicative of the type of
+criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.<a name="FNanchor_346_347" id="FNanchor_346_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_347" class="fnanchor">[346]</a></p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">-85-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER IV.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican System.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">J</span>UST as Tycho Brahe's system proved to be for some a good half-way
+station between the improbable Ptolemaic and the heretical Copernican
+system;<a name="FNanchor_347_348" id="FNanchor_347_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_348" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> so the Cartesian philosophy helped others to reconcile
+their scientific knowledge with their reverence for the Scriptures,
+until Newton's work had more fully demonstrated the scientific truth.</p>
+
+<p>Its originator, Réné Descartes<a name="FNanchor_348_349" id="FNanchor_348_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_349" class="fnanchor">[<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote reference in original text has been added in a logical place">348</span>]</a> (1596-1650) was in Holland when
+word of Galileo's condemnation reached him in 1633, as he was seeking
+in the bookshops of Amsterdam and Leyden for a copy of the
+<i>Dialogo</i>.<a name="FNanchor_349_350" id="FNanchor_349_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_350" class="fnanchor">[349]</a> He at once became alarmed lest he too be accused of
+trying to establish the movement of the earth, a doctrine which he had
+understood was then publicly taught even in Rome, and which he had
+made the basis of his own philosophy. If this doctrine were condemned
+as false, then his philosophy must be also; and, true to his training
+by the Jesuits, rather than go against the Church he would not publish
+his books. He set aside his <i>Cosmos</i>, and delayed the publication of
+the <i>Méthode</i> for some years in consequence, even starting to
+translate it into Latin as a safeguard.<a name="FNanchor_350_351" id="FNanchor_350_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_351" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> His conception of the
+universe, the Copernican one modified to meet the requirements of a
+literally interpreted Bible, was not printed until 1644, when it
+appeared in his <i>Principes</i>.<a name="FNanchor_351_352" id="FNanchor_351_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_352" class="fnanchor">[351]</a></p>
+
+<p>According to this statement which he made only as a possible
+explanation of the phenomena and not as an absolute truth, while there
+was little to choose between the Tychonic and the Coper<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">-86-</a></span>nican
+conceptions, he inclined slightly toward the former. He conceived of
+the earth and the other planets as each borne along in its enveloping
+heaven like a ship by the tide, or like a man asleep on a ship that
+was sailing from Calais to Dover. The earth itself does not move, but
+it is transported so that its position is changed in relation to the
+other planets but not visibly so in relation to the fixed stars
+because of the vast intervening spaces. The laws of the universe
+affect even the most minute particle, and all alike are swept along in
+a series of vortices, or whirlpools, of greater or less size. Thus the
+whole planetary system sweeps around the sun in one great vortex, as
+the satellites sweep around their respective planets in lesser ones.
+In this way Descartes worked out a mechanical explanation of the
+universe of considerable importance because it was a rational one
+which anyone could understand. Its defects were many, to be sure, as
+for example, that it did not allow for the elliptical orbits of the
+planets;<a name="FNanchor_352_353" id="FNanchor_352_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_353" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> and one critic has claimed that this theory of a
+motionless earth borne along by an enveloping heaven was comparable to
+a worm in a Dutch cheese sent from Amsterdam to Batavia,&mdash;the worm has
+travelled about 6000 leagues but without changing its place!<a name="FNanchor_353_354" id="FNanchor_353_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_354" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> But
+this theory fulfilled Descartes's aim: to show that the universe was
+governed by mechanical laws of which we can be absolutely certain and
+that Galileo's discoveries simply indicated this.<a name="FNanchor_354_355" id="FNanchor_354_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_355" class="fnanchor">[354]</a></p>
+
+<p>This exposition of the Copernican doctrine strongly appealed to the
+literary world of the 17th and 18th centuries in western Europe,
+especially in the Netherlands, in the Paris salons and in the
+universities.<a name="FNanchor_355_356" id="FNanchor_355_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_356" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> M. Monchamp cites a number of contemporary comments
+upon its spread, in one of which it is claimed that in 1691, the
+university of Louvain had for the preceding forty years been
+practically composed of Cartesians.<a name="FNanchor_356_357" id="FNanchor_356_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_357" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> For the time being, this
+theory was a more or less satisfactory explanation of the universe
+according to known laws; it answered to Galileo's observations; it was
+in harmony with the Scriptures, and its vortices paved the way for the
+popular acceptance of Newton's law of universal gravitation.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">-87-</a></span></p><p>Protestant England was of course little disturbed by the decree
+against the Copernican doctrine, a fact that makes it possible,
+perhaps, to see there more clearly the change in people's attitude
+from antagonism to acceptance, than in Catholic Europe where fear of
+the Church's power, and respect for its decisions inhibited honest
+public expression of thought and conviction. While in England also the
+literal interpretation of the Scriptures continued to be with the
+common people a strong objection against the doctrine, the rationalist
+movement of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries along with
+Newton's great work, helped win acceptance for it among the better
+educated classes.</p>
+
+<p>Bruno had failed to win over his English hearers, and in 1600 when the
+<i>De Magnete</i> was published, William Gilbert, (1540-1603) was
+apparently the only supporter of the earth's movement then in
+England,<a name="FNanchor_357_358" id="FNanchor_357_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_358" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> and he advocated the diurnal motion only.<a name="FNanchor_358_359" id="FNanchor_358_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_359" class="fnanchor">[358]</a> Not many,
+however, were as outspoken as Bacon in denunciation of the system;
+they were simply somewhat ironically indifferent. An exception to this
+was Dean Wren of Windsor (father of the famous architect). He could
+not speak strongly enough against it in his marginal notes on Browne's
+<i>Pseudodoxia Epidemica</i>. As Dr. Johnson wrote,<a name="FNanchor_359_360" id="FNanchor_359_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_359_360" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> Sir Thomas Browne
+(1605-1682) himself in his zeal for the old errors, did not easily
+admit new positions, for he never mentioned the motion of the earth
+but with contempt and ridicule. This was not enough for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">-88-</a></span> Dean, who
+wrote in the margin of Browne's book, at such a passage,<a name="FNanchor_360_361" id="FNanchor_360_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_360_361" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> that
+there were "eighty-odd expresse places in the Bible affirming in
+plaine and overt terms the naturall and perpetuall motion of sun and
+moon" and that "a man should be affrighted to follow that audacious
+and pernicious suggestion which Satan used, and thereby undid us all
+in our first parents, that God hath a double meaning in his commands,
+in effect condemning God of amphibologye. And all this boldness and
+overweaning having no other ground but a seeming argument of some
+phenomena forsooth, which notwithstanding we know the learned Tycho,
+prince of astronomers, who lived fifty-two years since Copernicus,
+hath by admirable and matchlesse instruments and many yeares exact
+observations proved to bee noe better than a dreame."</p>
+
+<p><span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Robert">Richard</span> Burton (1576-1639) in
+<i>The Anatomy of Melancholy</i> speaks of the doctrine as a "prodigious
+tenent, or paradox," lately revived by "Copernicus, Brunus and some
+others," and calls Copernicus in consequence the successor of
+Atlas.<a name="FNanchor_361_362" id="FNanchor_361_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_361_362" class="fnanchor">[361]</a> The vast extent of the heavens that this supposition
+requires, he considers "quite opposite to reason, to natural
+philosophy, and all out as absurd as disproportional, (so some will)
+as prodigious, as that of the sun's swift motion of the heavens." If
+the earth is a planet, then other planets may be inhabited (as
+Christian Huygens argued later on); and this involves a possible
+plurality of worlds. Burton laughs at those who, to avoid the Church
+attitude and yet explain the celestial phenomena, invent new
+hypotheses and new systems of the world, "correcting others, doing
+worse themselves, reforming some and marring all," as he says of
+Roeslin's endeavors. "In the meantime the world is tossed in a blanket
+amongst them; they hoyse the earth up and down like a ball, make it
+stand and goe at their pleasure."<a name="FNanchor_362_363" id="FNanchor_362_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_362_363" class="fnanchor">[362]</a> He himself was indifferent.</p>
+
+<p>Others more sensitive to the implications of this system, might
+exclaim with George Herbert (1593-1633):<a name="FNanchor_363_364" id="FNanchor_363_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_363_364" class="fnanchor">[363]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">-89-</a></span></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Although there were some fourtie heav'ns, or more,<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Sometimes I peere above them all;</span><br />
+Sometimes I hardly reach a score,<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Sometimes to hell I fall.</span><br />
+<br />
+"O rack me not to such a vast extent,<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Those distances belong to thee.</span><br />
+The world's too little for thy tent,<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">A grave too big for me."</span>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Or they might waver, undecided, like Milton who had the archangel
+answer Adam's questions thus:<a name="FNanchor_364_365" id="FNanchor_364_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_364_365" class="fnanchor">[364]</a></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"But whether thus these things, or whether not,<br />
+Whether the Sun predominant in Heaven<br />
+Rise on the Earth, or Earth rise on the Sun,<br />
+Hee from the East his flaming robe begin,<br />
+Or Shee from West her silent course advance<br />
+With inoffensive pace that spinning sleeps<br />
+On her soft axle, while she paces ev'n<br />
+And bears thee soft with the smooth Air along,<br />
+Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid,<br />
+Leave them to God above, him serve and feare;<br />
+Of other Creatures, as him pleases best,<br />
+Wherever plac't, let him dispose; joy thou<br />
+In what he gives to thee, this Paradise<br />
+And the fair Eve: Heaven is for thee too high<br />
+To know what passes there: be lowlie wise." (1667)
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Whewell thinks<a name="FNanchor_365_366" id="FNanchor_365_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_365_366" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> that at this time the diffusion of the Copernican
+system was due more to the writings of Bishop Wilkins than to those of
+any one else, for their very extravagances drew stronger attention to
+it. The first, "The Discovery of a New World: or a Discourse tending
+to prove that there may be another habitable world in the moon,"
+appeared in 1638; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">-90-</a></span> a third edition was issued only two years later
+together with the second book; "Discourse concerning a New
+Planet&mdash;that 'tis probable our Earth is one of the planets." In this
+latter, the Bishop stated certain propositions as indubitable; among
+these were, that the scriptural passages intimating diurnal motion of
+the sun or of the heavens are fairly capable of another
+interpretation; that there is no sufficient reason to prove the earth
+incapable of those motions which Copernicus ascribes to it; that it is
+more probable the earth does move than the heavens, and that this
+hypothesis is exactly agreeable to common appearances.<a name="FNanchor_366_367" id="FNanchor_366_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_367" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> And these
+books appeared when political and constitutional matters, and not
+astronomical ones, were the burning questions of the day in England.</p>
+
+<p>The spread of the doctrine was also helped by Thomas Salusbury's
+translations of the books and passages condemned by the Index in 1616
+and 1619. This collection, "intended for gentlemen," he published by
+popular subscription immediately after the Restoration,<a name="FNanchor_367_368" id="FNanchor_367_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_368" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> a fact
+that indicates that not merely mathematicians (whom Whewell
+claims<a name="FNanchor_368_369" id="FNanchor_368_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_368_369" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> were by that time all decided Copernicans) but the general
+public were interested and awake.<a name="FNanchor_369_370" id="FNanchor_369_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_369_370" class="fnanchor">[369]</a></p>
+
+<p>The appearance of Newton's <i>Principia</i> in 1687 with his statement of
+the universal application of the law of gravitation, soon ended
+hesitancy for most people. Twelve years later, John Keill,
+(1671-1721), the Scotch mathematician and astronomer at Oxford,
+refuted Descartes's theory of vortices and opened the first course of
+lectures delivered at Oxford on the new Newtonian philosophy.<a name="FNanchor_370_371" id="FNanchor_370_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_370_371" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> Not
+only were his lectures thronged, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">-91-</a></span> his books advocating the
+Copernican system in full<a name="FNanchor_371_372" id="FNanchor_371_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_371_372" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> went through several editions in
+relatively few years.</p>
+
+<p>In the Colonies, Yale University which had hitherto been using
+Gassendi's textbook, adopted the Newtonian ideas a few years later,
+partly through the gift to the university of some books by Sir Isaac
+himself, and partly through the enthusiasm of two young instructors
+there, Johnson and Brown, who in 1714-1722 widened the mathematical
+course by including the new theories.<a name="FNanchor_372_373" id="FNanchor_372_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_372_373" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> The text they used was by
+Rohault, a Cartesian, edited by Samuel Clarke with critical notes
+exposing the fallacies of Cartesianism. This "disguised Newtonian
+treatise" was used at Yale till 1744. The University of Pennsylvania
+used this same text book even later.<a name="FNanchor_373_374" id="FNanchor_373_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_373_374" class="fnanchor">[373]</a></p>
+
+<p>In 1710 Pope (1688-1744) refers to "our Copernican system,"<a name="FNanchor_374_375" id="FNanchor_374_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_374_375" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> and
+Addison (1671-1719) in the <i>Spectator</i> (July 2, 1711) writes this very
+modern passage:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p>"But among this set of writers, there are none who more
+gratify and enlarge the imagination, than the authors of the
+new philosophy, whether we consider their theories of the
+earth or heavens, the discoveries they have made by glasses,
+or any other of their contemplations on nature.... But when
+we survey the whole earth at once, and the several planets
+that lie within its neighborhood, we are filled with a
+pleasing astonishment, to see so many worlds hanging one
+above another, and sliding around their axles in such an
+amazing pomp and solemnity. If, after this, we contemplate
+those wide fields of æther, that reach in height as far as
+from Saturn to the fixed stars, and run abroad almost to an
+infinitude, our imagination finds its capacity filled with
+so immense a prospect, as puts it upon the stretch to
+comprehend it. But if we yet rise higher, and consider the
+fixed stars as so many vast oceans of flame, that are each
+of them attended with a different set of planets, and still
+discover new firmaments and new lights, that are sunk
+farther in those unfathomable depths of æther, so as not to
+be seen by the strongest of our telescopes, we are lost in
+such a labyrinth of suns and worlds, and confounded with the
+immensity and magnificence of nature.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">-92-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>"Nothing is more pleasant to the fancy, than to enlarge
+itself by degrees, in its contemplation of the various
+proportions which its several objects bear to each other,
+when it compares the body of man to the bulk of the whole
+earth, the earth to the circle it describes round the sun,
+that circle to the sphere of the fixed stars, the sphere of
+the fixed stars to the circuit of the whole creation, the
+whole creation itself to the infinite space that is
+everywhere diffused around it; ... But if, after all this,
+we take the least particle of these animal spirits, and
+consider its capacity wrought into a world, that shall
+contain within those narrow dimensions a heaven and earth,
+stars and planets, and every different species of living
+creatures, in the same analogy and proportion they bear to
+each other in our own universe; such a speculation, by
+reason of its nicety, appears ridiculous to those who have
+not turned their thoughts that way, though, at the same
+time, it is founded on no less than the evidence of a
+demonstration."<a name="FNanchor_375_376" id="FNanchor_375_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_375_376" class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>A little later, Cotton Mather declared (1721) that the "Copernican
+hypothesis is now generally preferred," and "that there is no
+objection against the motion of the earth but what has had a full
+solution."<a name="FNanchor_376_377" id="FNanchor_376_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_376_377" class="fnanchor">[376]</a> Soon the semi-popular scientific books took up the
+Newtonian astronomy. One such was described as "useful for all
+sea-faring Men, as well as Gentle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">-93-</a></span>men, and Others."<a name="FNanchor_377_378" id="FNanchor_377_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_377_378" class="fnanchor">[377]</a>
+"Newtonianisme pour les Dames" was advertised in France in the
+forties.<a name="FNanchor_378_379" id="FNanchor_378_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_378_379" class="fnanchor">[378]</a> By 1738 when Pope wrote the <i>Universal Prayer</i>:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Yet not to earth's contracted span<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Thy goodness let me bound</span><br />
+Or think thee Lord alone of man,<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">When thousand worlds are round,"</span>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>the Copernican-Newtonian astronomy had become a commonplace to most
+well-educated people in England. To be sure, the great John Wesley
+(1770) considered the systems of the universe merely "ingenious
+conjectures," but then, he doubted whether "more than Probabilities we
+shall ever attain in regard to things at so great a distance from
+us."<a name="FNanchor_379_380" id="FNanchor_379_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_379_380" class="fnanchor">[379]</a></p>
+
+<p>The old phraseology, however, did recur occasionally, especially in
+poetry and in hymns. For instance, a hymnal (preface dated 1806)
+contains such choice selections as:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Before the pondr'ous earthly globe<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">In fluid air was stay'd,</span><br />
+Before the ocean's mighty springs<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Their liquid stores display'd"&mdash;</span>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>and:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Who led his blest unerring hand<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Or lent his needful aid</span><br />
+When on its strong unshaken base<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The pondr'ous earth was laid?"<a name="FNanchor_380_381" id="FNanchor_380_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_380_381" class="fnanchor">[380]</a></span>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>But too much importance should not be attributed to such passages;
+though poetry and astronomy need not conflict, as Keble
+illustrated:<a name="FNanchor_381_382" id="FNanchor_381_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_381_382" class="fnanchor">[381]</a></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Ye Stars that round the Sun of Righteousness<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">In glorious order roll...."</span>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">-94-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>By the middle of the 18th century in England, one could say with Horne
+"that the Newtonian System had been in possession of the chair for
+some years;"<a name="FNanchor_382_383" id="FNanchor_382_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_382_383" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> but it had not yet convinced the common people, for
+as Pike wrote in 1753, "Many Common Christians to this day firmly
+believe that the earth really stands still and that the sun moves all
+round the earth once a day: neither can they be easily persuaded out
+of this opinion, because they look upon themselves bound to believe
+what the Scripture asserts."<a name="FNanchor_383_384" id="FNanchor_383_384"></a><a href="#Footnote_383_384" class="fnanchor">[383]</a></p>
+
+<p>There was, however, just at this time a little group of thinkers who
+objected to Newton's scheme, "because of the endless uninterrupted
+flux of matter from the sun in light, an expense which should destroy
+that orb."<a name="FNanchor_384_385" id="FNanchor_384_385"></a><a href="#Footnote_384_385" class="fnanchor">[384]</a> These Hutchinsonians conceived of light as pure ether
+in motion springing forth from the sun, growing more dense the further
+it goes till it becomes air, and, striking the circumference of the
+universe (which is perhaps an immovable solid), is thrown back toward
+the sun and melted into light again. Its force as its tides of motion
+strike the earth and the other planets produces their constant
+gyrations.<a name="FNanchor_385_386" id="FNanchor_385_386"></a><a href="#Footnote_385_386" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> Men like Duncan Forbes, Lord President of the Court of
+Sessions, and George Horne, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, as
+a weapon against rationalism, favored this notion that had been
+expounded by John Hutchinson (1674-1737) in his <i>Moses's Principia</i>
+(1724).<a name="FNanchor_386_387" id="FNanchor_386_387"></a><a href="#Footnote_386_387" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> They were also strongly attracted by the scriptural
+symbolism with which the book abounds. Leslie Stephen summarizes their
+doctrines as (1) extreme dislike for rationalism, (2) a fanatical
+respect for the letter of the Bible, and (3) an attempt to enlist the
+rising powers of scientific enquiry upon the side of orthodoxy.<a name="FNanchor_387_388" id="FNanchor_387_388"></a><a href="#Footnote_387_388" class="fnanchor">[387]</a>
+This "little eddy of thought"<a name="FNanchor_388_389" id="FNanchor_388_389"></a><a href="#Footnote_388_389" class="fnanchor">[388]</a> was not of much influence even at
+that time, but it has a certain interest as indicating the positions
+men have taken when on the defensive against new ideas.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">-95-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a><span class="gesperrt">CHAPTER V.</span><br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap">The Church and the New Astronomy: Conclusion.</span></h2>
+
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">A</span>STRONOMICAL 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."<a name="FNanchor_389_390" id="FNanchor_389_390"></a><a href="#Footnote_389_390" class="fnanchor">[389]</a> The great landmark in the development of the doctrine
+was the publication of Newton's <i>Principia</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_390_391" id="FNanchor_390_391"></a><a href="#Footnote_390_391" class="fnanchor">[390]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_391_392" id="FNanchor_391_392"></a><a href="#Footnote_391_392" class="fnanchor">[391]</a> also explained
+the different systems, but appears himself<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">-96-</a></span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_392_393" id="FNanchor_392_393"></a><a href="#Footnote_392_393" class="fnanchor">[392]</a></p>
+
+<p>Even in 1750, Mme. de Premontval thought it wiser to publish in
+Holland her little life of her father, <i>Le Méchaniste Philosophe</i>.
+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 Académie des
+Sciences.<a name="FNanchor_393_394" id="FNanchor_393_394"></a><a href="#Footnote_393_394" class="fnanchor">[393]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_394_395" id="FNanchor_394_395"></a><a href="#Footnote_394_395" class="fnanchor">[394]</a> M. Piegeon also
+wrote a book on the Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_395_396" id="FNanchor_395_396"></a><a href="#Footnote_395_396" class="fnanchor">[395]</a></p>
+
+<p>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 Académie des Sciences did not
+explicitly support it,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">-97-</a></span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_396_397" id="FNanchor_396_397"></a><a href="#Footnote_396_397" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> But
+the great orator, Bossuet, (1627-1703), clung to the Ptolemaic
+conception as alone orthodox, and scriptural.<a name="FNanchor_397_398" id="FNanchor_397_398"></a><a href="#Footnote_397_398" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> Abbé Fénelon
+(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
+<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: ceaselessly">ceasely</span> and regularly in spaces where
+nothing troubles it?"<a name="FNanchor_398_399" id="FNanchor_398_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_398_399" class="fnanchor">[398]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_399_400" id="FNanchor_399_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_399_400" class="fnanchor">[399]</a></p>
+
+<p>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),<a name="FNanchor_400_401" id="FNanchor_400_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_400_401" class="fnanchor">[400]</a> he added a note to this passage asking the reader to
+remember the time and the place of its former publication.<a name="FNanchor_401_402" id="FNanchor_401_402"></a><a href="#Footnote_401_402" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> Just
+at the end of the preceding century, one of the seminary fathers at
+Liège maintained that were the earth to move, being made up<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">-98-</a></span> of so
+many and divers combustible materials, it would soon burst into flames
+and be reduced to ashes!<a name="FNanchor_402_403" id="FNanchor_402_403"></a><a href="#Footnote_402_403" class="fnanchor">[402]</a></p>
+
+<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_403_404" id="FNanchor_403_404"></a><a href="#Footnote_403_404" class="fnanchor">[403]</a> A few years earlier, (1728) a Jesuit at Liège,
+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."<a name="FNanchor_404_405" id="FNanchor_404_405"></a><a href="#Footnote_404_405" class="fnanchor">[404]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_405_406" id="FNanchor_405_406"></a><a href="#Footnote_405_406" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> Two
+others, one a Jesuit in 1682 at Naples,<a name="FNanchor_406_407" id="FNanchor_406_407"></a><a href="#Footnote_406_407" class="fnanchor">[406]</a> the other in 1741 at
+Verona, frankly preferred the Tychonic system, and the latter called
+the system found by "Tommaso Copernico" a mere fancy.<a name="FNanchor_407_408" id="FNanchor_407_408"></a><a href="#Footnote_407_408" class="fnanchor">[407]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_408_409" id="FNanchor_408_409"></a><a href="#Footnote_408_409" class="fnanchor">[408]</a> At this time, however,
+a father was teaching the Copernican system at Liège without
+differentiating between thesis and hypothesis.<a name="FNanchor_409_410" id="FNanchor_409_410"></a><a href="#Footnote_409_410" class="fnanchor">[409]</a> 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 Liège had adopted the
+Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_410_411" id="FNanchor_410_411"></a><a href="#Footnote_410_411" class="fnanchor">[410]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">-99-</a></span></p><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_411_412" id="FNanchor_411_412"></a><a href="#Footnote_411_412" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_412_413" id="FNanchor_412_413"></a><a href="#Footnote_412_413" class="fnanchor">[412]</a></p>
+
+<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_413_414" id="FNanchor_413_414"></a><a href="#Footnote_413_414" class="fnanchor">[413]</a> 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 <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i> under "Faith," written by an English
+Dominican:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"If, now, the will moves the intellect to consider some
+debatable point&mdash;<i>e.g.</i>, the Copernican and Ptolemaic
+theories of the relationship between the sun and the
+earth&mdash;it is clear that the intellect can only assent to one
+of these views in proportion that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">-100-</a></span> 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, <i>e.g.</i>, that it is absurd not to hold to what
+a vast majority of men hold."</p></div>
+
+<p>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&mdash;the first
+edition since the decrees of 1616 and 1619 which did not contain the
+works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, à 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,<a name="FNanchor_414_415" id="FNanchor_414_415"></a><a href="#Footnote_414_415" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> they first claimed that Galileo was condemned not for
+upholding a heresy, but for attempting to reconcile these ideas with
+the Scriptures,&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_415_416" id="FNanchor_415_416"></a><a href="#Footnote_415_416" class="fnanchor">[415]</a>
+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,&mdash;a still worse
+argument for the Church itself. Then some claimed that the
+condemnation was merely provisional,&mdash;a position hardly warranted by
+the wording of the decrees themselves and flatly contradicted by
+Father Riccioli, the spokesman of the Jesuit authorities.<a name="FNanchor_416_417" id="FNanchor_416_417"></a><a href="#Footnote_416_417" class="fnanchor">[416]</a> More
+recently, Roman Catholics have held that Galileo was no more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">-101-</a></span> a victim
+of the Roman Church than of the Protestant&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_417_418" id="FNanchor_417_418"></a><a href="#Footnote_417_418" class="fnanchor">[417]</a></p>
+
+<p>One present-day Catholic calls the action of the Congregations "a
+theoretical mistake;"<a name="FNanchor_418_419" id="FNanchor_418_419"></a><a href="#Footnote_418_419" class="fnanchor">[418]</a> another admits it was a deplorable mistake,
+but practically their only serious one;<a name="FNanchor_419_420" id="FNanchor_419_420"></a><a href="#Footnote_419_420" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_420_421" id="FNanchor_420_421"></a><a href="#Footnote_420_421" class="fnanchor">[420]</a> Few would accept
+today, however, the opinion of the anonymous writer in the <i>Dublin
+Review</i> 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 <i>stylus
+curiæ</i>, for it was termed heresy only in the technical sense.<a name="FNanchor_421_422" id="FNanchor_421_422"></a><a href="#Footnote_421_422" class="fnanchor">[421]</a></p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">-102-</a></span> 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."<a name="FNanchor_422_423" id="FNanchor_422_423"></a><a href="#Footnote_422_423" class="fnanchor">[422]</a> Another, by "Anglo-American," is
+entitled "Copernicus Refuted; or the True Solar System" (Baltimore,
+1846). It begins thus:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"One of these must go, the other stand still,<br />
+It matters not which, so choose at your will;<br />
+But when you find one already stuck fast,<br />
+You've only got Hobson's choice left at last."
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_423_424" id="FNanchor_423_424"></a><a href="#Footnote_423_424" class="fnanchor">[423]</a> 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!"<a name="FNanchor_424_425" id="FNanchor_424_425"></a><a href="#Footnote_424_425" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> One might remark
+that the Anglo-American's own learning was at very low ebb.</p>
+
+<p>The Tychonic scheme was revived also some years later by a Dane,
+Zytphen (1856).<a name="FNanchor_425_426" id="FNanchor_425_426"></a><a href="#Footnote_425_426" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> Three years after, an assembly of Lutheran clergy
+met together at Berlin to protest against "science falsely
+so-called,"<a name="FNanchor_426_427" id="FNanchor_426_427"></a><a href="#Footnote_426_427" class="fnanchor">[426]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">-103-</a></span> would be no more
+amazing than the almost incredible velocity of light or of
+electricity.<a name="FNanchor_427_428" id="FNanchor_427_428"></a><a href="#Footnote_427_428" class="fnanchor">[427]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_428_429" id="FNanchor_428_429"></a><a href="#Footnote_428_429" class="fnanchor">[428]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_429_430" id="FNanchor_429_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_429_430" class="fnanchor">[429]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_430_431" id="FNanchor_430_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_430_431" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_431_432" id="FNanchor_431_432"></a><a href="#Footnote_431_432" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> 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,"<a name="FNanchor_432_433" id="FNanchor_432_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_432_433" class="fnanchor">[432]</a>&mdash;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;&mdash;like the
+Italian painter, Sindico, who bombarded the director of the Paris
+Observatory in 1878 with many letters protesting against the
+Copernican system.<a name="FNanchor_433_434" id="FNanchor_433_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_433_434" class="fnanchor">[433]</a></p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">-104-</a></span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_434_435" id="FNanchor_434_435"></a><a href="#Footnote_434_435" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> In this country at St. Louis was issued an
+<i>Astronomische Unterredung</i> (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.<a name="FNanchor_435_436" id="FNanchor_435_436"></a><a href="#Footnote_435_436" class="fnanchor">[435]</a></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The elements of this traditional conception are summarized in the
+fifth book of Bodin's <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum</i>, a scholar's account
+of astronomy at the close of the sixteenth century.<a name="FNanchor_436_437" id="FNanchor_436_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_436_437" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> Man in his
+terrestrial habitation occupies the center of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">-105-</a></span> 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"<a name="FNanchor_437_438" id="FNanchor_437_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_437_438" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_438_439" id="FNanchor_438_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_438_439" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Yet it was fully one hundred and fifty years after the publication of
+the <i>De Revolutionibus</i> 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-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">-106-</a></span>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 <i>De Revolutionibus</i> 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
+<i>Principia</i> 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 <i>apologias</i> in explanation and
+extenuation of the Church's decided stand in this matter for so many
+generations.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Narratio Prima</i>, the
+first widely known account of the Copernican system: "One who intends
+to philosophize must be free in mind."</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">-107-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_A" id="APPENDIX_A"></a>APPENDIX A.<br />
+<br />
+<span class="sm"><span class="smcap">Ptolemy</span>: <i>Syntaxis Mathematica (Almagest)</i></span></h2>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"That the earth has no movement of rotation," in <i>Opera Quæ
+Exstant Omnia</i>, edidit Heiberg, Leipsic, 1898, Bk. I, sec.
+7: (I, 21-25); compared with the translation into French by
+Halma, Paris, 1813.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>up</i>,
+because that is how we speak of the space above our heads<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">-108-</a></span> 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 <i>down</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">-109-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_B" id="APPENDIX_B"></a>APPENDIX B.<br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap sm">&#8220;To His Holiness, Paul III, Supreme Pontiff,<br />
+Preface By Nicholas Copernicus to His Books on Revolutions.&#8221;</span></h2>
+
+<p class="center">(A translation of the <i>Præfatio</i> in Copernicus: <i>De
+Revolutionibus</i>; pp. 3-8.)</p>
+
+
+<p>"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.<a name="FNanchor_439_440" id="FNanchor_439_440"></a><a href="#Footnote_439_440" class="fnanchor">[439]</a> But verily they seemed to me not to have done this, as
+some think, from any dis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">-110-</a></span>like 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.</p>
+
+<p>"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 Schönberg, 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.</p>
+
+<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">-111-</a></span> observe and prove the
+constant length of the great year.<a name="FNanchor_440_441" id="FNanchor_440_441"></a><a href="#Footnote_440_441" class="fnanchor">[440]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">-112-</a></span> the
+same opinion; and in order that this passage may be available to all,
+I wish to write it down here:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_441_442" id="FNanchor_441_442"></a><a href="#Footnote_441_442" class="fnanchor">[441]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p class="bp">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">-115-</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<div class="bbox"><a name="REV_2" id="REV_2"></a>
+<p class="center">
+<img src="images/revolutionibus2_sm.jpg" width="421" height="500" alt="De Revolutionibus" title="De Revolutionibus" />
+</p>
+
+<p class="center">[<a href="images/revolutionibus2_lg.jpg">Enlarge</a>]</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p class="bp">A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from
+Mulier's edition (1617) as "corrected" according to the <i>Monitum</i> 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 <i>Almagestum Novum</i> 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 <i>De Revolutionibus</i> is now in the
+Dartmouth College Library.</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="tp">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.<a name="FNanchor_442_443" id="FNanchor_442_443"></a><a href="#Footnote_442_443" class="fnanchor">[442]</a> 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.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_C" id="APPENDIX_C"></a>APPENDIX C.</h2>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">The Drama of Universal Nature</span>: in which are considered the
+efficient causes and the ends of all things, discussed in a
+connected series of five books, by <span class="smcap">Jean Bodin</span>, (Frankfort,
+1597).</p>
+
+<p><i>Book V</i>: 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).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">-116-</a></span></p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Bodin, Jean</span>: <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum in quo rerum omnium
+effectrices causa et fines contemplantur, et continuæ series
+quinque libris discutiuntur</i>. Frankfort, 1597. Book V
+translated into English by the writer and compared with the
+French translation by François de Fougerolles, (Lyons,
+1597).</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="centertp"><i>Section 1</i>: On the definition and the number of the spheres.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Mystagogue</span>: ... 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,<a name="FNanchor_443_444" id="FNanchor_443_444"></a><a href="#Footnote_443_444" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> having
+interpreted the Hebrew of these two words of the Psalm: "The heavens
+declare," has written that the phrase <i>Sapperim</i> (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,"<a name="FNanchor_444_445" id="FNanchor_444_445"></a><a href="#Footnote_444_445" class="fnanchor">[444]</a> indicated a power endowed with intelligence, as did the
+Master of Wisdom<a name="FNanchor_445_446" id="FNanchor_445_446"></a><a href="#Footnote_445_446" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> also when he said that God created the heavens
+with intelligence.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theodore</span>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst</span>. That is the doctrine of Aristotle. But Theophrastus and
+Alexander,<a name="FNanchor_446_447" id="FNanchor_446_447"></a><a href="#Footnote_446_447" class="fnanchor">[446]</a> (when they teach that the spheres are animated bodies)
+explain adequately that the spheres are agitated by their own
+coëssential 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. What do you call fixed stars?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst</span>. 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<a name="FNanchor_447_448" id="FNanchor_447_448"></a><a href="#Footnote_447_448" class="fnanchor">[447]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">-117-</a></span> 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,<a name="FNanchor_448_449" id="FNanchor_448_449"></a><a href="#Footnote_448_449" class="fnanchor">[448]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_449_450" id="FNanchor_449_450"></a><a href="#Footnote_449_450" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> Jerome,<a name="FNanchor_450_451" id="FNanchor_450_451"></a><a href="#Footnote_450_451" class="fnanchor">[450]</a>
+Thomas Aquinas<a name="FNanchor_451_452" id="FNanchor_451_452"></a><a href="#Footnote_451_452" class="fnanchor">[451]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> How many spheres are there?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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<a name="FNanchor_452_453" id="FNanchor_452_453"></a><a href="#Footnote_452_453" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> at forty-seven, which Alexander Aphrodisiensis<a name="FNanchor_453_454" id="FNanchor_453_454"></a><a href="#Footnote_453_454" class="fnanchor">[453]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">-118-</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What should one do with such a variety of opinions?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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<a name="FNanchor_454_455" id="FNanchor_454_455"></a><a href="#Footnote_454_455" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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 es<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">-119-</a></span>sence
+of the spheres consists of fire and water which is not fitting for the
+celestial waters above.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> By what arguments then can it be proved there are ten spheres?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Why so?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> Because every natural body<a name="FNanchor_455_456" id="FNanchor_455_456"></a><a href="#Footnote_455_456" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What then?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">-120-</a></span></p>
+
+<hr class="med" />
+
+<p class="center"><i>Section 10</i>: On the position of the universe according to its
+divisions.</p>
+
+<p class="center">* * * *</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Does it not also concern Physics to discuss those things that
+lie outside the universe?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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,<a name="FNanchor_456_457" id="FNanchor_456_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_456_457" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_457_458" id="FNanchor_457_458"></a><a href="#Footnote_457_458" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_458_459" id="FNanchor_458_459"></a><a href="#Footnote_458_459" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> and roofed<a name="FNanchor_459_460" id="FNanchor_459_460"></a><a href="#Footnote_459_460" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Why then are not eleven spheres counted?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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<a name="FNanchor_460_461" id="FNanchor_460_461"></a><a href="#Footnote_460_461" class="fnanchor">[460]</a>
+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,<a name="FNanchor_461_462" id="FNanchor_461_462"></a><a href="#Footnote_461_462" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> God
+covers the heavens with clouds, and the Scriptures often make mention
+of the waters beyond the heavens.<a name="FNanchor_462_463" id="FNanchor_462_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_462_463" class="fnanchor">[462]</a> There are those, however, who
+teach that the Hebrew word <i>Scamajim</i> may be applied only to a dual
+num<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">-121-</a></span>ber, so that they take it to mean the crystalline sphere and the
+starry one. But I think those words in Solomon's speech<a name="FNanchor_463_464" id="FNanchor_463_464"></a><a href="#Footnote_463_464" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> "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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst</span>. It is written most plainly that the firmament holds the middle
+place between the two waters. Therefore God is called<a name="FNanchor_464_465" id="FNanchor_464_465"></a><a href="#Footnote_464_465" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> in Hebrew
+<i>Helion</i>, the Sun, that is, the Most High, and under His feet the
+heaven is spread like a crystal,<a name="FNanchor_465_466" id="FNanchor_465_466"></a><a href="#Footnote_465_466" class="fnanchor">[465]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_466_467" id="FNanchor_466_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_466_467" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst</span>. 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. Is there some medium between God and the angels which shares in
+the nature of both?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst</span>. 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">-122-</a></span></p>
+
+<hr class="med" />
+
+<p class="center"><i>Section 12</i>: On guardian angels.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What then in corporeal nature is closest to God?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> The two Seraphim, who stand near the eternal Creator,<a name="FNanchor_467_468" id="FNanchor_467_468"></a><a href="#Footnote_467_468" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> It is true Plato and Aristotle attributed the cause of all ills
+to the imperfection of matter in which they thought was some
+<i>kakopoion</i>,<a name="FNanchor_468_469" id="FNanchor_468_469"></a><a href="#Footnote_468_469" class="fnanchor">[468]</a> but that is absurd since it is distinctly written:
+All that God had made was good, or as the Hebrews express it,
+beautiful,&mdash;so evil is nothing-else than the absence<a name="FNanchor_469_470" id="FNanchor_469_470"></a><a href="#Footnote_469_470" class="fnanchor">[469]</a> or privation
+of good.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Can not wicked angels be defined without privation since they
+are corporeal essences?</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">-123-</a></span> Thus God is
+said<a name="FNanchor_470_471" id="FNanchor_470_471"></a><a href="#Footnote_470_471" class="fnanchor">[470]</a> 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,"<a name="FNanchor_471_472" id="FNanchor_471_472"></a><a href="#Footnote_471_472" class="fnanchor">[471]</a> 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:<a name="FNanchor_472_473" id="FNanchor_472_473"></a><a href="#Footnote_472_473" class="fnanchor">[472]</a> "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<a name="FNanchor_473_474" id="FNanchor_473_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_473_474" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> to anyone in
+taking back what is His own.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?"</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Myst.</span> 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.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Here endeth the Drama of Nature which Jean Bodin wrote while
+all France was aflame with civil war.</p></div>
+
+<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Finis</span></p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">-124-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_D" id="APPENDIX_D"></a>APPENDIX D.<br />
+<br />
+<span class="smcap sm">A Translation of a Letter by Thomas Feyens<br />
+<br />
+On the Question: Is It True That the Heavens Are Moved and the Earth
+Is at Rest? (February, 1619)</span></h2>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>(<i>Thomæ Fieni Epistolica Quæstio</i>: An verum sit, c&#339;lum
+moveri et terram quiescere? Londini, 1655.)</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="tp">To the eminent and noble scholars, Tobias Matthias and George Gays:</p>
+
+<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>T 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<a name="FNanchor_474_475" id="FNanchor_474_475"></a><a href="#Footnote_474_475" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> and a very few others, the Holy
+Scriptures plainly attest it in at least two places which I have seen.
+In Joshua,<a name="FNanchor_475_476" id="FNanchor_475_476"></a><a href="#Footnote_475_476" class="fnanchor">[475]</a> are the words: Steteruntque sol et luna donec
+ulcisceretur gens de inimicis suis. And a little further on: Stetit
+itaque sol in medio c&#339;li, 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 <i>primum mobile</i> 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 <i>primum mobile</i>. Then Ecclesiastes, chapter 1,<a name="FNanchor_476_477" id="FNanchor_476_477"></a><a href="#Footnote_476_477" class="fnanchor">[476]</a> reads:
+Generatio præterit, et generatio advenit, terra autem semper stat,
+oritur sol et occidit, et ad locum suum revertitur.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">-125-</a></span> servant; therefore it is more probable that the heavens are
+moved and the earth is at rest than that the reverse is true.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">-126-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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,&mdash;and many other
+phenomena. For this reason those who said the earth moved, as
+Bernardus Patricius and the others said, claimed that the <i>primum
+mobile</i>, 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
+<i>primum mobile</i>, 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 <i>primum
+mobile</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">-127-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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].</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">-128-</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">-129-</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">-130-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="BIBLIOGRAPHY" id="BIBLIOGRAPHY"></a>BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />
+<span class="sm">(of references cited.)</span></h2>
+
+
+<h3>I<br />
+<span class="smcap">General Works.</span></h3>
+
+<p>Addis and Arnold: <i>Catholic Dictionary</i>, 2nd edit. London, 1884.</p>
+
+<p>Bailly: <i>Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne depuis la Fondation de
+l'Ecole d'Alexandrie, jusqu' a l'Epoque de 1730</i>. 3 vol. Paris, 1785.</p>
+
+<p>Berry, Arthur: <i>Short History of Astronomy</i>. New York, 1912.</p>
+
+<p>Cajori, Florian: <i>The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the
+United States</i>. Washington, 1890. (Bureau of Education, No. 3.)</p>
+
+<p>Delambre, J.B.J.: <i>Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne</i>. Paris, 1817.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Histoire de l'Astronomie du Moyen Age</i>. Paris, 1819.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne</i>. Paris, 1821.</p>
+
+<p>De Morgan, Augustus: <i>A Book of Paradoxes</i>. 2 vol. 2nd edit. ed. by
+David Eugene Smith. Chicago, 1915.</p>
+
+<p>Di Bruno, Joseph Faà: <i>Catholic Belief, or a short and simple
+exposition of Catholic Doctrine</i>. Author's American edit. 375th
+thousand. New York, [1912.]</p>
+
+<p>Jacoby, Harold: <i>Astronomy, a Popular Handbook</i>. New York, 1913.</p>
+
+<p>Janssen, J.: <i>History of the German People at the Close of the Middle
+Ages</i>. Trans. by Mitchell and Christie. 2 vol. St. Louis, no date.</p>
+
+<p>Lecky, Wm. E. Hartpole: <i>History of England in the 18th Century</i>. 8
+vol. New edit. New York, 1892.</p>
+
+<p>Libri, C.: <i>Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques en Italie depuis la
+Renaissance des Lettres</i>. 2me édit. 4 vol. Halle, 1865.</p>
+
+<p>Milman, Henry H.: <i>History of Latin Christianity</i>. 8 vol. in 4. New
+York, 1899.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">-131-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Owen, John: <i>The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance</i>. 2nd edit. New
+York, 1893.</p>
+
+<p>Peignot, G.: <i>Dictionnaire Critique Littéraire et Bibliographique des
+Principaux Livres Condamnés au Feu, Supprimés on Censurés</i>. 2 vol.
+Paris, 1806.</p>
+
+<p>Putnam, George Haven: <i>The Censorship of the Church of Rome</i>. 2 vol.
+New York, 1907.</p>
+
+<p>Rashdall, Hastings: <i>Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages</i>. 2
+vol. Oxford, 1895.</p>
+
+<p>Smith, David Eugene: <i>Rara Arithmetica</i>. Boston, 1908.</p>
+
+<p>Snyder, Carl: <i>The World Machine: The Cosmic Mechanism</i>. London, 1907.</p>
+
+<p>Stephen, Leslie: <i>History of English Thought in the 18th Century</i>. 2
+vol. 3rd edit. New York, 1902.</p>
+
+<p>Taylor, Henry Osborne: <i>The Mediæval Mind</i>. 2nd edit. London, 1914.</p>
+
+<p>Walsh, J.J.: <i>Catholic Churchmen in Science</i>. 2nd series.
+Philadelphia, 1909.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>The Popes and Science</i>. Knights of Columbus edit. New York,
+1911.</p>
+
+<p>Wegg-Prosser, F.R.: <i>Galileo and his Judges</i>. London. 1889.</p>
+
+<p>Whewell, William: <i>History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest
+to the Present Time</i>. New edit. revised. 3 vol. London, 1847.</p>
+
+<p>White, Andrew D.: <i>History of the Welfare of Science with Theology in
+Christendom</i>. 2 vol. New York, 1898.</p>
+
+<p>Windle, B.C.A.: <i>A Century of Scientific Thought and Other Essays</i>.
+London, 1915.</p>
+
+<p>Young, Charles: <i>Manual of Astronomy</i>. Boston, 1902.</p>
+
+
+<h3>II<br />
+<span class="smcap">Special Works.</span></h3>
+
+<p>Allaben, Frank: <i>John Watts de Peyster</i>. 2 vol. New York, 1908.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: see De Peyster.</p>
+
+<p>Anon: <i>Galileo&mdash;The Roman Inquisition: A Defence of the Catholic
+Church from the Charge of having persecuted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">-132-</a></span> Galileo for his
+philosophical opinions</i>. Reprinted from the <i>Dublin Review</i> with an
+introduction by an "American Catholic." Cincinnati, 1844.</p>
+
+<p>Baudrillart, Henri: <i>Jean Bodin et son Temps: Tableau des Théories
+Politiques et des Idées Economiques au 16me siècle</i>. Paris, 1853.</p>
+
+<p>Bartholmèss, Christian: <i>Jordano Bruno</i>. 2 vol. Paris, 1846.</p>
+
+<p>Berti, Domenico: <i>Vita di Giordano Bruno da Nola</i>. Turin, 1868.</p>
+
+<p>Bertrand, M.J.: <i>Copernic et ses Travaux</i> (Fév. 1864) in <i>Mémoires sur
+les Mathématiques</i>.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Le Procès de Galilée</i> (Oct. 1877), in <i>Eloges Académiques,
+nouvelle série</i>. Paris, 1902.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de Kepler</i>. (Dec. 1863) in
+<i>Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences</i>, XXXV. Paris, 1866.</p>
+
+<p>Betten, Francis S. (S.J.): <i>The Roman Index of Forbidden Books briefly
+explained for Catholic Booklovers and Students</i>. 4th edit. enlarged.
+St. Louis, 1915.</p>
+
+<p>Beyersdorf, Robert: <i>Giordano Bruno und Shakespeare</i>. Leipsic, 1889.</p>
+
+<p>Blavatsky, H.P.: <i>The Secret Doctrine</i>. 2 vol. Point Loma, Cal., 1909.</p>
+
+<p>Brewster, David: <i>Martyrs of Science: Lives of Galileo, Tycho Brahe
+and Kepler</i>. London, 1874.</p>
+
+<p>Bridges, J.H.: <i>Tycho Brahe</i>, in <i>Contemp. Rev.</i>: 81: 196-213 (Feb.
+1902).</p>
+
+<p>Brinton, Daniel G. and Davidson, Thomas: <i>Giordano Bruno, Philosopher
+and Martyr</i>. Philadelphia, 1890.</p>
+
+<p>Burckhardt, F.: <i>Zur Erinnerungaan Tycho Brahe. Vortrag 23, Oct. 1901,
+in den Naturforschen der Gesellschaft in Basel</i>. Vol. 13, Basel, 1901.</p>
+
+<p>Chasles, Philarète: <i>Galilei, sa vie, son procès et ses
+contemporains</i>. Paris, 1862.</p>
+
+<p>Conway, Bertrand L. (C.S.P.): <i>The Condemnation of Galileo</i>. Pamphlet.
+New York, 1913.</p>
+
+<p>Cumont, Franz: <i>Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans</i>.
+New York, 1912.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">-133-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Davidson: see Brinton.</p>
+
+<p>De l'Epinois, Henri: <i>Galilée, son procès, sa condemnation, d'après
+des documents inédits</i>, in <i>Revue des Quest. Hist.</i>, III, 68-145.
+Paris, 1867.</p>
+
+<p>Desdouits, Théophile: <i>La Légende Tragique de Jordano Bruno</i>. Paris,
+1885.</p>
+
+<p>Dreyer, J.L.E.: <i>Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in
+the 16th Century</i>. Edinburgh, 1890.</p>
+
+<p>Eastman, Charles R.: <i>Earliest Predecessors of Copernicus</i>, in <i>Pop.
+Sci.</i> LVIII: 323-327 (April, 1906).</p>
+
+<p>Fahie, J.J.: <i>Galileo, his Life and Work</i>. London, 1903.</p>
+
+<p>Flammarion, Camille: <i>Vie de Copernic et Histoire de la Découverte du
+Système du Monde</i>. Paris, 1872.</p>
+
+<p>Frisch: <i>Vita Joannis Kepler</i> in <i>Opera Omnia Kepleri</i>. VIII,
+668-1028.</p>
+
+<p>Frith, I.: <i>Life of Giordano Bruno the Nolan</i>. London, 1887.</p>
+
+<p>Graux, Charles: <i>L'Université de Salamanque</i> in <i>Notices
+Bibliographiques</i>. Paris, 1884.</p>
+
+<p>Haldane, Elizabeth S.: <i>Descartes, his Life and Times</i>. London, 1905.</p>
+
+<p>Heath, Thomas L.: <i>Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus</i>.
+Oxford, 1913.</p>
+
+<p>Holden, E.S.: <i>Copernicus</i> in <i>Pop. Sci.</i> LXV: 109-131 (June, 1904.)</p>
+
+<p>La Fuente, (Vicente de): <i>Historia de las Universidades ... de
+España</i>. 2 vol. 1884.</p>
+
+<p>Martin, Henri T.: <i>Galilée, les Droits de la Science et la Méthode des
+Sciences Physiques</i>. Paris, 1868.</p>
+
+<p>McIntyre, J. Lewis: <i>Giordano Bruno</i>. London, 1903.</p>
+
+<p>Monchamp, Georges: <i>Galilée et la Belgique, Essai Historique sur les
+Vicissitudes du Système du Copernic en Belgique</i>. Saint-Trond, 1892.</p>
+
+<p>Parchappe, Max: <i>Galilée, sa Vie, ses Découvertes et ses Travaux</i>.
+Paris, 1866.</p>
+
+<p>Prowe, Leopold: <i>Nicolaus Coppernicus</i>, 3 vol.: I and II, Biography,
+1883; III, Sources, 1884. Berlin.</p>
+
+<p>R&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Beitrage zur Beantwortung der Frage nach der Nationalität des
+Nicolaus Copernicus</i>. Pamphlet. Breslau, 1872.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">-134-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Reusch, F.H.: <i>Der Process Galilei's und Die Jesuiten</i>. Bonn, 1879.</p>
+
+<p>Robinson, James Howard: <i>The Great Comet of 1680: A Study in the
+History of Rationalism</i>. Northfield, Minn., 1916.</p>
+
+<p>Schiaparelli, G.V.: <i>Die Vorlaufer des Copernicus im Alterthum</i>,
+trans. by M. Curtze. Leipsic, 1876.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Studj Cosmologici: Opinioni e Ricerche degli Antichi sulle
+Distance e sulle Grandezze dei Corpi Celesti</i>. Pamphlet. 1865.</p>
+
+<p>Schwilgué, Charles: <i>Description Abregée de l'Horloge Astronomique de
+la Cathédrale de Strasbourg</i>, 6me édit. Strasbourg, 1856.</p>
+
+<p>Shields, Charles W.: <i>The Final Philosophy</i>. New York, 1877.</p>
+
+<p>Small, Robert: <i>Account of the Astronomical Discoveries of
+Kepler,&mdash;including an historical review of the Systems which had
+successively prevailed before his time</i>. London, 1804.</p>
+
+<p>Thayer, William Roscoe: <i>Throne-Makers</i>. New York, 1899. Pp. 252-308:
+Giordano Bruno: his Trial, Opinions and Death.</p>
+
+<p>Walsh, J.J.: <i>An Early Allusion to Accurate Methods in Diagnosis</i>.
+Pamphlet. 1909.</p>
+
+<p>Warren, William F.: <i>The Earliest Cosmologies</i>. New York, 1909.</p>
+
+<p>Vaughan, Roger Bede: <i>Life and Labours of S. Thomas of Aquin</i>. 2 vol.
+London, 1871.</p>
+
+<p>Von Gebler, Karl: <i>Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia</i>, trans. by
+Mrs. Sturge. London, 1879.</p>
+
+<p>Ziegler, Alexander: <i>Regiomontanus, ein geistiger Vorlaufer des
+Columbus</i>. Dresden. 1874.</p>
+
+
+<h3>III<br />
+<span class="smcap">Sources.</span></h3>
+
+<h4><i>A: Pre-Copernican (chapters I and II).</i></h4>
+
+<p>Archimedes: <i>Arenarius</i>, vol. II in <i>Opera Omnia</i> ed. Heiberg,
+Leipsic, 1781.</p>
+
+<p>Aquinas, Thomas: <i>Summa Theologica</i>, vol. V in <i>Opera Omnia ... cum
+commentariis ... Caietani....</i> Rome, 1889.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">-135-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Aristotle: <i>De Mundo</i>, vol. III in <i>Opera Omnia</i>. Paris, 1854.</p>
+
+<p>Augustine: <i>De Civitate Dei</i>, vol. XLI in Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i> (Cf.
+trans. in vol. II in Nicene and Post-Nicene Christian Library. New
+York, 1903.)</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>De Genesi</i>, vol. XXXIV in Migne: <i>Pair. Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>Bacon, Roger: <i>Opus Tertium</i>, vol. I in <i>Opera Quædam Hactenus
+Inedita</i>, ed. by Brewer. London, 1859.</p>
+
+<p>Capella, Martianus: <i>De Nuptiis Philologiæ et Mercurii et de Septem
+Artibus Liberalibus, libri novem</i>. Ed. by Kopp. Frankfort, 1836.</p>
+
+<p>Cicero: <i>Academica</i>, ed. by J.S. Reid, London, 1885. (Cf. trans. by
+Yonge in Bohn Classical Library, London, 1902.)</p>
+
+<p>Clement of Alexander: <i>Stromatum</i>, vol. III in <i>Opera Omnia</i>, Leipsic,
+1834 (Cf. trans. by Williams, vol. II in <i>Writings</i>, Edinburgh, 1869.)</p>
+
+<p>Cusanus, Nicolaus: <i>De Docta Ignorantia</i>, and <i>Sermones</i>, in <i>Opera</i>.
+Basle, [1565.]</p>
+
+<p>Diogenes Laërtius: <i>De Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis</i>, ed. Cobet.
+Paris, 1878. (Cf. trans. by Yonge in Bohn Classical Library, London,
+1909.)</p>
+
+<p>St. Dionysius the Areopagite: <i>De C&#339;lesti Ierarchia</i>, vol. CXXII in
+Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>St. Isidore: <i>De Ordine Creaturarum</i>, vol. LXXXIII in Migne: <i>Patr.
+Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>Lactantius: <i>Divinarum Institutionum</i>, vol. VI in Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i>
+(Cf. trans. by Fletcher, vol. XXI in Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
+Edinburgh, 1871.)</p>
+
+<p>Lombard, Peter: <i>Sententiæ</i>, vol. CXCII in Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>Origen: <i>De Principiis</i>, vol. XI in Migne: <i>Patr. Græc.</i> (Cf. trans.
+vol. X in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh, 1869.)</p>
+
+<p>St. Philastrius: <i>De Hæeresibus</i>, vol. XII in Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>Philo Judæus: <i>De Mundi Creatione</i> (vol. I), and <i>Quis Rerum Divinarum
+Hæres</i> (vol. IV) in <i>Opera Omnia</i>, Erlangæ, 1820. (Cf. trans. by
+Yonge, London, 1854.)</p>
+
+<p>Plato: <i>Timæus</i>, vol. IV in <i>Opera</i> ed. Burnet, Oxford, [1905.] (Cf.
+trans. by Jowett, vol. III of <i>Dialogues</i>, 3rd edit. revised. New
+York, 1892).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">-136-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Plutarch: <i>Moralia</i>, ed. Bernardakis, Teubner, Leipsic, 1893. (Cf.
+trans. ed. by Goodwin, Boston, 1898.)</p>
+
+<p>Ptolemy, Claudius: <i>Syntaxis Mathematica</i>, vol. I in <i>Opera Quæ
+Supersunt Omnia</i>, 3 vol., Teubner, Leipsic, 1898. (Cf. trans. into
+French by Halma, 2 vol., Paris, 1813.)</p>
+
+<p>Sacro Bosco: <i>Libellus de Sphæra</i>, Venice, 1488; Wittenberg, [1537];
+Wittenberg, 1545; Paris, 1564; Venice, 1574; Wittenberg, 1578.</p>
+
+<p>Scotus, Joannus: <i>Depositiones super Ierarchias sancti Dionysii</i>, vol.
+CXXII in Migne: <i>Patr. Lat.</i></p>
+
+<p>Seneca: <i>Naturalium Quæstionum Libros VIII</i>, ed. Gercke, vol. II in
+<i>Opera quæ supersunt</i>, Teubner, Leipsic, 1907. (Cf. trans. by Clarke,
+London, 1910.)</p>
+
+<p>Vitruvius: <i>De Architectura Libri Decem</i>, Teubner, Leipsic, 1867. (Cf.
+trans. by Gwilt, London, 1880.)</p>
+
+
+<h4><i>B: Copernican and Post-Copernican.</i></h4>
+
+<p>Addison, Joseph: <i>The Spectator, No. 420</i>, vol. IV in <i>Works</i>. New
+edit. with notes. 6 vol. London, 1811.</p>
+
+<p>Agricola, Georgius Ludovicus: <i>De Systemate Mundi Copernico,
+Disputatio Astronomica</i>. Pamphlet. Wittenberg, 1665.</p>
+
+<p>Allaben, see Schoepffer.</p>
+
+<p>"Anglo-American": <i>Copernicus Refuted: or the True Solar System</i>.
+Pamphlet. Baltimore, 1846.</p>
+
+<p>Bacon, Francis: <i>Philosophical Works</i>. Reprinted from texts and
+translations of Ellis and Spedding, ed. by Robertson. London, 1905.</p>
+
+<p>Barocio, Francisco: <i>Cosmographia in quatuor libros</i>. Venice, 1585.</p>
+
+<p>Bayle, Pierre: <i>Système Abregé de Philosophie</i>, vol. III in <i>Oeuvres
+Diverses</i>. 4 vol. The Hague, 1731.</p>
+
+<p>Bodin, Jean: <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum in quo rerum omnium effectrices
+causa et fines contemplantur et continuæ series quinque libris
+discutiuntur</i>. Frankfort, 1597.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Universæ Naturæ Theatrum</i>, trans. into French by François de
+Fougerolles. Lyons, 1597.</p>
+
+<p>Boscovich, Rogerio Josepho (S.J.): <i>De Determinanda Orbita Planetæ ope
+catoptricæ</i>. Rome, 1749.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">-137-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et Astronomiam</i>. 5 vol. Bassan,
+1785.</p>
+
+<p>Bottrigaro, Hercole: <i>Trattato della Descrittone della Sfera Celeste
+in Piano di Cl. Tolomeo Tradotto in parlare Italiano</i>. Bologna, 1572.</p>
+
+<p>Brahe, Tychonis: <i>Opera Omnia, sive Astronomiæ Instauratæ
+Progymnasmata</i>. Frankfort, 1648.</p>
+
+<p>Browne, Thomas: <i>Pseudodoxia Epidemica</i> in <i>Works</i>, ed. by S. Wilkins.
+3 vol. London, 1852.</p>
+
+<p>Bruno, Giordano: <i>De Immenso et Innumerabilis</i>, in <i>Opera Latina
+Conscripta</i>, ed. by Fiorentino. Naples, 1884.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>La Cena de le Ceneri</i>, in <i>Opere Italiane</i>, ed. by Gentile.
+Bari, 1907.</p>
+
+<p>Burnet, Thomas: <i>The Sacred Theory of the Earth</i>. 5th Edit., 2 vol.
+London, 1722.</p>
+
+<p>Burton, <span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Robert">Richard</span>: <i>Anatomy of Melancholy</i>.
+13th edit. corrected, 2 vol. London, 1827.</p>
+
+<p>Calvin, Jean: <i>Commentaria</i> in <i>Opera Omnia</i> in <i>Corpus Reformatorum</i>,
+vol. LIX. Brunswick, 1887.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Traité ou Avertissement contre l'Astrologie qu'on appelle
+Judiciaire et autre curiosités qui regnent aujourd'hui au monde</i>, in
+<i>Oeuvres François</i>, ed. by P.L. Jacob. Paris, 1842.</p>
+
+<p>Canevari, Petro, Giovannelli, Andrea, Giovannelli, Benedicto: <i>De
+Observationibus Astronomicis. Dissertatio habita in Seminario Romano</i>.
+Rome, 1742.</p>
+
+<p>Cassini, G.D.: <i>De l'Origine et du Progrès de l'Astronomie et de son
+usage dans la Géographie et dans la Navigation</i>, in <i>Recueil
+d'Observations faites en plusieurs voyages par ordre de sa majesté
+pour perfectionner l'Astronomie et la Géographie, par MM. de
+l'Académie Royale des Sciences</i>. Paris, 1693.</p>
+
+<p>Cavalieri, Bonaventura: <i>Sfera Astronomica, Lettore primario delle
+Matematiche nello studio di Bologna ... cavate da MS. dell'Autore da
+Antonio Manari</i>. Rome, 1690.</p>
+
+<p>Copernicus, Nicolas: <i>De Revolutionibus Orbium C&#339;lestium, Libri
+sex</i>. Nürnberg, 1543.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">-138-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Astronomia Instaurata, Libris sex comprehensa, qui De
+Revolutionibus Orbium C&#339;lestium, inscribuntur. Nunc demum post 75
+ab obitu authoris annum integritati suæ restituta, notisque
+illustrata, opera et studio Nicolai Mulerii</i>. Amsterdam, 1617.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>De Revolutionibus Orbium C&#339;lestium. Libri Sex. Accedit G.J.
+Rhetici Narratio Prima, cum Copernici nonnullis Scriptis minoribus
+nunc primum collectis, ejusque vita</i>. (In Latin and Polish). Warsaw,
+1854.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>De Revolutionibus Orbium C&#339;lestium, Libri Sex</i>, with
+Rheticus, George Joachim: <i>Narratio Prima</i>. Thorn, 1873.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: see also vol. III, Sources, of Prowe: <i>Nicolaus Coppernicus</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Cromer, Martin: <i>De Origine et Rebus Gestibus Polonorum Libri XXX.
+Tertium ab authore diligenter recogniti</i>. Basel, 1568.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Poloniæ</i>, in <i>Res Publicæ sive Status Regni Poloniæ, Lituanæ,
+Prussiæ, Livoniæ, etc. Diversorum Autorum</i>. Lugd: Batavorum, 1642.</p>
+
+<p>DuBartas, W. deSaluste: <i>The Divine Weeks</i>, trans. by Josuah
+Sylvester, (1501) ed. by T.W. Haight. Waukesha, Wis. 1908.</p>
+
+<p>De Brisbar, J.: <i>Calendrier Historique ... avec un Traité Historique
+de la Sphère</i>. 2me édit. Leyden, 1697.</p>
+
+<p>De Maupertius: <i>Eléments de Géographie</i>, in <i>Ouvrages Divers</i>.
+Amsterdam, 1744.</p>
+
+<p>De Premontval, Mme.: <i>Le Méchaniste Philosophe, Mémoir ... de la Vie
+et des Ouvrages du Sr. Jean Piegeon, mathématicien, Membre de la
+Société des arts, Auteur des premières Sphères mouvantes qui ayent été
+faites en France, selon l'hypothèse de Copernic</i>. The Hague, 1750.</p>
+
+<p>DePeyster, J.W., Allaben, F.: <i>Algol: The "Ghoul" or "Demon" Star, a
+Supplement to "The Earth Stands Fast."</i> Pamphlet. New York, 1900.</p>
+
+<p>Descartes, Réné: <i>Les Principes de la Philosophie</i>, vol. III in
+<i>Oeuvres</i> ed. by Cousin. II vol. Paris, 1824.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">-139-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Di Gallo, Marco Antonio Giovanni Gianesimi: <i>Opinione sopra il
+movimento della Terra e degli Astri</i>. Pamphlet. Bassano, 1771.</p>
+
+<p>Dobell, John (ed.): <i>Hymns</i>. No title-page. Preface dated England,
+1806.</p>
+
+<p>Favaro, Antonio: <i>Galileo e l'Inquisizione, Documenti de Processo
+Galileiano ... per la prima volta integralmente pubblicati</i>. Florence,
+1907.</p>
+
+<p>Fénelon, F. de S. de la Mothe: <i>Traité de l'existence et des attributs
+de Dieu</i>, in vol. I, <i>Oeuvres</i>. 3 vol. Paris, 1835.</p>
+
+<p>Ferramosca, Aegidius Leognanus: <i>Positiones suas Physioastronomicas De
+Sphæra C&#339;lesti publice Demonstrandas et Propugnandis in Collegio
+Neapolitano Soc. Jesu</i>. Naples, 1682.</p>
+
+<p>Fienus, Thomas, Fromundus, Liberti: <i>De Cometa Anni 1618,
+Dissertationes. Ejusdem Thomæ Fieni Epistolica quæstio, An Verum sit
+C&#339;lum moveri, et Terram quiescere?</i> London, 1655. Bound with
+Fromundus: <i>Meteorologicorum</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Fienus, Thomas: <i>Epistolica quæstio</i>. See above.</p>
+
+<p>Fontana, Cajetano: <i>Institutio Physico-Astronomica</i>. Mutinæ, 1695.</p>
+
+<p>Forbes, Duncan: <i>A Letter to a Bishop concerning some important
+Discoveries in Philosophy and Theology</i>, in <i>Works</i>. Dublin, 1755.</p>
+
+<p>Foscarini, Paolo Antonio: <i>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</i>, in Salusbury:
+<i>Math. Coll.</i>, q.v.</p>
+
+<p>Fromondus, Liberti: <i>Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis-Terræ Immobilis: Liber
+Unicus in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal, an 1616
+adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur</i>. Antwerp, 1631.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Meteorologicorum Libri Sex. Cui accessit in hac ultima Editione
+Thomæ Fieni et Lib. Fromondi Dissertationes de Cometa Anni 1618, et
+Clarorum Virorum Judicia De Pluvia Purpurea Bruxelliensis</i>. London,
+1656.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">-140-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi vindex adversus Iac. Lansbergium ...
+in quo Decretum ... 1616 et alterum anno adversus Copernicanos terræ
+motores editum, iterum defenditur</i>. Antwerp, 1634. See also Fienus.</p>
+
+<p>Gadbury, John and Timothy: <i>George Hartgill's Astronomical Tables</i>.
+London, 1656.</p>
+
+<p>Galilei, Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, Edizione Nazionale, ed. by Favaro. 20 vol.
+Florence, 1890-1909.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Dialogo sopra i due Massimi sistemi del Monde, Tolemaico, e
+Copernicano</i>. Florence, 1632. Trans. in Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i>, q.v.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Lettera a Madama Cristina di Lorena, Granduchessa di Toscana</i>,
+in vol. V, <i>Opere</i>; trans. in Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i>, q.v.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Sidereus Nuncius ... atque Medicea Sidera</i>, in vol. III,
+<i>Opere</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>Accusation, Condemnation and Abjuration of Galileo Galilei before the
+Holy Inquisition at Rome</i>, 1633. Pamphlet. London, 1819. See also
+Favaro.</p>
+
+<p>Gassendi, Petro: <i>Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis quam Veterum
+quam Copernici ac Tychonis</i>. 3rd edit. Hagæ-Comitum, 1656.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Institutio Astronomica....</i> 5th edit. London, 1675.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis Tam Veterum quam
+Recentiorum Cui accesserunt Galileo Galilei; Nuncius Sidereus, et
+Johannis Kepleri: Dioptrice</i>. 3rd edit. corrected. London, 1683.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Vita Tychonis Brahei, Equitis Dani, Astrononum Coryphæi.</i>, 2nd
+edit. corrected. Hagæ-Comitum, 1655.</p>
+
+<p>George, Earl of Macclesfield: <i>Speech in the House of Peers, Mar. 18,
+1750</i>. Pamphlet. London, 1751.</p>
+
+<p>Gilbert, William: <i>De Magnete, Magnetis qui corporibus, et de magno
+magnete tellure Physilogia nova</i>. London, 1600, reprinted Berlin 1892.
+Trans. by P.F. Mottelay, New York, 1893.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">-141-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Herbert, George: <i>Man</i>, in <i>English Works</i> ed. by G.H. Palmer, Boston,
+1905.</p>
+
+<p>Horne, George: <i>Commentary on Book of Psalms</i>. 2 vol. Oxford, 1784.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>A Fair, Candid and Impartial State of the Case between Sir
+Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson</i>. Pamphlet. Oxford, 1753.</p>
+
+<p>Hutchinson, John: <i>Moses's Principia</i>. London, 1724.</p>
+
+<p>Huygens, Christian: <i>The Celestial Worlds discover'd. Trans. from the
+Latin</i>. London, 1698.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Nouveau Traité de la Pluralité des Mondes ... traduit du Latin
+en François par M.D.</i> Amsterdam, 1718.</p>
+
+<p><i>Index Librorum Prohibitorum ... usque 1681</i>, (appendix to June,
+1704). Rome, 1704.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>usque 1711</i>. Rome, 1711.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>usque 1744</i>. Rome, 1744.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>usque 1752</i>. Rome, 1752.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>Benedicti XIV</i>. Rome, 1758.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>Pii Sexti</i>. Rome, 1786.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>Pii Septimi</i>. Rome, 1819.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>editum 1835</i>. Mechlin, 1838.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>Gregorii XVI</i>. Rome, 1841.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash; <i>Leonis XIII recognitus Pii X</i>. 3rd edit. Rome, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Justus-Lipsius: <i>Physiologiæ Stoicorum</i>, vol. IV, in <i>Opera Omnia</i>, 4
+vols. Vesaliæ, 1674.</p>
+
+<p>Keble, John: <i>Christian Year</i>. Ed. by Lock. London, 1895.</p>
+
+<p>Keill, John: <i>Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam, seu Lectiones
+Astronomicæ habitæ in Schola Astronomica Academiæ Oxoniensis</i>. Oxford,
+1718.</p>
+
+<p>Kepler, Joannis: <i>Opera Omnia</i>, edidit Frisch. 8 vol. Frankfort a.M.
+1858-1871.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Abstract of the "Introduction Upon Mars"</i>, trans. in Salusbury:
+<i>Math. Coll.</i>, q.v.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Tabulæ Rudolphinæ ... a Ph&#339;nice illo Astronomorum Tychone
+... primum concepta ... 1564 ... observatioribus siderum ... post
+annum præcipue 1572 ... Traducta in Germaniam ... 1598. Tabulas ipsas
+... jussu et stipendiis ... Imp. Rudolphi</i>. Ulm, 1627.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">-142-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Kircher, Athanasius (S.J.): <i>Iter Exstaticum C&#339;leste</i>, enlarged by
+Gaspare Schotto, S.J. Herbipoli, 1671.</p>
+
+<p>Kromer, see Cromer.</p>
+
+<p>La Galla, Julius Cæsar: <i>De Ph&#339;nomenis in Orbe Lunæ Novi Telescopii
+usu a Gallileo Gallileo. Physica Disputatio</i>. Venice, 1612.</p>
+
+<p>Lambert: <i>Système du Monde</i>. 2me édit. Berlin, 1784.</p>
+
+<p>Lange, J.R.L.: <i>The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurdity in the
+History of Human Thought</i>. No place, 1901.</p>
+
+<p>Leadbetter, Charles: <i>Astronomy of the Satellites of the Earth,
+Jupiter and Saturn, grounded upon Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of the
+Earth's Satellites</i>. London, 1729.</p>
+
+<p>Longomontanus, Christianus: <i>Astronomica Danica</i>. Amsterdam, 1640.</p>
+
+<p>Luther, Martin: <i>Tischreden oder Colloquia</i>, ed. by Forstemann. 4 vol.
+Leipsic, 1846.</p>
+
+<p>Mather, Cotton: <i>The Christian Philosopher, a Collection of the Best
+Discoveries in Nature with Religious Improvements</i>. London, 1721.</p>
+
+<p>Melancthon, Philip: <i>Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ</i>, 2nd edit. Wittenberg,
+1585.</p>
+
+<p>Milton, John: <i>Areopagitica</i>, ed. by Hales. Oxford, 1904.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Paradise Lost</i>, in <i>Complete Poetical Works</i>, ed. by Beeching.
+London, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Montaigne, Michel E. de: <i>Apologie of Raymond Sebonde</i>, vol. II in
+<i>Essayes</i>, trans. by Florio. 3 vol. London, 1908.</p>
+
+<p>Moxon, Joseph: <i>A Tutor to Astronomie and Geographie, or an Easie and
+Speedy Way to know the use of both the Globes, Celestial and
+Terrestrial</i>. 2nd edit. London, 1670.</p>
+
+<p>Mulerius, Nicolaus: <i>Tabulæ Friscæ Lunæ-Solares quadruplices è
+fontibus Cl. Ptolemæi, Regis Alfonsi, Nic. Copernici et Tychonis
+Brahe</i>. Amsterdam, 1611.</p>
+
+<p>Piccioli, Gregorio: <i>La Scienza dei Cieli e dei Corpi Celesti, e loro
+meravigliosa Posizione, Moto, e Grandezza: Epilogata colle sue Figure
+quattro più famosi Sistemi dell'Universo Tolemaico, Copernicano,
+Ticonico, e Novissimo. Colla patente Dimostrazione della quieta di
+nostra Terra, e che poco più, o<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">-143-</a></span> meno ci apparisce ella oggidi nella
+sua superfizie tal quale era avanti l'Universal Diluvio</i>. Verona,
+1741.</p>
+
+<p>Pike, Samuel: <i>Philosophica Sacra: or the Principles of Natural
+Philosophy extracted from Divine Revelation</i>. London, 1753.</p>
+
+<p>Pluche: <i>Histoire du Ciel considéré selon les idées des Poêtes, des
+Philosophes et de Moïse</i>. 2 vol. Paris, 1739.</p>
+
+<p>Pope, Alexander: <i>Letter</i> in vol. VI, <i>Works</i>, new edit. by Croker and
+Elwin. London, 1871.</p>
+
+<p>Record, Robert: <i>The Castle of Knowledge</i>. 3rd edit. London, 1596.</p>
+
+<p>Reisch, Gregorius: <i>Margarita Filosofica...</i> trans. into Italian by
+Gallucci. Venice, 1599.</p>
+
+<p>Rheticus, Georgius Joachim: <i>De Libris Revolutionum ad Joannem
+Schönerum Narratio Prima</i>, 1539, in Copernicus: <i>De Revolutionibus</i>,
+Thorn, 1873.</p>
+
+<p>Riccioli, Giovanni Baptista (S.J.): <i>Almagestum Novum, Astronomiam
+veterem novamque completens Observationibus Aliorum et Propriis,
+Novisque Theorematibus, Problematibus ac Tabulis promotam</i>. 2 vol.
+Bologna, 1651.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Apologia pro Argumento Physicomathematico contra Systema
+Copernicanum adiecto contra illud Novo Argumento ex Reflexo motu
+Gravium Decidentium</i>. Venice, 1669.</p>
+
+<p>Spooner, W.W.: <i>Great Copernican Myth</i>; a Review of Algol by de
+Peyster and Allaben. Pamphlet. Tivoli, N.Y., 1901.</p>
+
+<p>Salusbury, Thomas: <i>Mathematical Collections and Translations, first
+tome</i>. London, 1661.</p>
+
+<p>Schoepffer, C.: <i>The Earth Stands Fast</i>, trans. for and ed. by J.W. de
+Peyster with notes and Supplement by Frank Allaben. Pamphlet. New
+York, 1900.</p>
+
+<p>Schotto, Gaspar (S.J.): <i>Organum Mathematicum. Opus Posthumum</i>,
+Herbipoli, 1668.</p>
+
+<p>Simpson, Thomas: <i>Essays on Several Curious and Useful Subjects in
+Speculative and Mix'd Mathematicks</i>. London, 1740.</p>
+
+<p>Sindico, Pierre: <i>Refutation du Système de Copernic exposé en dix-sept
+lettres qui été adressées à feu M. Le Verrier</i>. Paris, 1878.</p>
+
+<p>Spagnio, Andrea: <i>De Motu</i>. Rome, 1774.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">-144-</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Tischner, August: <i>Le Système Solaire se Mouvant</i>. Pamphlet. Leipsic,
+1894.</p>
+
+<p>Toland, John: <i>Miscellaneous Works</i>. 2 vol. London, 1747.</p>
+
+<p>Vitali, Hieronymo: <i>Lexicon Mathematicum</i>. Rome, 1690.</p>
+
+<p>Voight, Johann-Henrich: <i>Der Kunstgünstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
+Raritäten Erstes Hundert: Allen Kunstgünstigen zum lustigen und
+nutzbaren Gebrauch mit Fleiss und Mühe zusammen geordnet und
+furgetragen</i>. Hamburg, 1668.</p>
+
+<p>Wesley, John: <i>Sermon</i>, vol. VII in <i>Works</i>. 5th edit. 14 vol. London,
+1860.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation, or a Compendium of
+Natural Philosophy</i>. 3 vol. in 2. 2nd edit. Bristol, 1770.</p>
+
+<p>Whiston, William: <i>A New Theory of the Earth</i>. 4th edit. London, 1725.</p>
+
+<p>Wilkins, G.: <i>The First Book: The Discovery of a New World</i>. 3rd edit.
+London, 1640.</p>
+
+<p>&mdash;&mdash;: <i>The Second Book: Discourse concerning a New Planet, that 'tis
+probable our Earth is one of the planets</i>. London, 1640. (Bound with
+<i>First Book</i>.)</p>
+
+<p>"W.R.": <i>The New Astronomer, or Astronomy made easy by such
+instruments that readily shew by Observation the Stars....</i> London,
+1735.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">-145-</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX</h2>
+
+
+<p>
+Addison, J., <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>-<a href='#Page_92'>92</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Agricola, G.L., <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Albategnius, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Allaben, F., <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Alphonse X of Castile, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Ambrose, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Arabian astronomers, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Archimedes, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Aristarchus of Samos, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>-<a href='#Page_12'>12</a>n., <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>n., <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Aristotle, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Augustine, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Bacon, Francis, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>-<a href='#Page_73'>73</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bacon, Roger, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bayle, Pierre, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>-<a href='#Page_96'>96</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bellarmin, Cardinal, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>-<a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Benedict XIV, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bessel, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bodin, Jean, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>-<a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>-<a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>-<a href='#Page_123'>123</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Boscovich, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bossuet, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bradley, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Browne, Thomas, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>-<a href='#Page_88'>88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bruno, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>-<a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Burton, <span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Robert">Richard</span>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Calvin, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cartesian-Copernicans, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>-<a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cassini, G.D., <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>-<a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Castelli, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Church Fathers, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>-<a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cicero, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cleanthes, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Clement of Alexandria, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Clement VIII, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>n.<br />
+<br />
+Congregations of the Index, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>-<a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>-<a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#REV_2'>113</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Copernicus, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>-<a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>.<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">name, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>n.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">life, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>-<a href='#Page_29'>29</a>.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">theory, <a href='#FRONT'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>-<a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>-<a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>-<a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opponents, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>-<a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>-<a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>-<a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>-<a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>-<a href='#Page_104'>104</a>.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">supporters, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>-<a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>-<a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>-<a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>-<a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>-<a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>-<a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-<a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>-<a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>-<a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>-<a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Dante, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Delambre, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+de Maupertius, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>.<br />
+<br />
+de Peyster, J.W., <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.<br />
+<br />
+de Premontval, Mme., <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<i>De Revolutionibus</i>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>-<a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>-<a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Descartes, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Didacus à Stunica, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Digges, Thomas, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>n.<br />
+<br />
+Diogenes Laërtius, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Dominicus Maria di Novara, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>.<br />
+<br />
+DuBartas, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Fénelon, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Feyens, Thomas, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>-<a href='#Page_129'>129</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Flammarion, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">-146-</a></span><br />
+<br />
+Forbes, Duncan, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Foscarini, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>-<a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Foucault, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Froidmont, see <a href="#Fromundus">Fromundus</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<a name="Fromundus" id="Fromundus"></a>Fromundus, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-<a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Galileo, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>-<a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-<a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Gassendi, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Gilbert, Wm., <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Greek philosophers, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>-<a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Herbert, George, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>-<a href='#Page_89'>89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Hipparchos, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Hicetas, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Horne, George, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Hutchinson, John, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Huygens, Christian, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Index, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>-<a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Inquisition, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>-<a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>-<a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Isidore of Seville, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Jasper, Bro., <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Jesuits, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>-<a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Johnson, S., <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Justus-Lipsius, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Keble, J., <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Keill, J., <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>-<a href='#Page_91'>91</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kepler, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>-<a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Knap, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kromer, M., <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>n.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Lactantius, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Lalande, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Lange, J.R., <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Lansberg, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-<a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Leo X, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Liège, Univ. of, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>-<a href='#Page_98'>98</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Longomontanus, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Louvain, Univ. of, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>-<a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Luther, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Lutherans, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Mæstlin, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Martianus Capella, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Mather, Cotton, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Melancthon, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>-<a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Milton, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Mivart, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Montaigne, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Narratio Prima</i>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Newton, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Nicolas Cusanus, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Origen, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Osiander, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Owen, J., <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>n., <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Paul III, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Paul V, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>-<a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Peter Lombard, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Peter the Great, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Philastrius, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Philo Judæus, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Philolaus, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Piegeon, J., <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pike, S., <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pius VII, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Plato, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Plutarch, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pope, Alexander, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pseudo-Dionysius, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Ptolemy, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>n., <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>-<a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>.<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">theory, <a href='#FRONT'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>-<a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Pürbach, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Recorde, R., <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>-<a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">-147-</a></span><br />
+<br />
+Regiomontanus, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Reinhold, Erasmus, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Rheticus, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>-<a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Riccioli, <a href='#FRONT'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>-<a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#REV_2'>113</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Roberts, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Roemer, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Sacrobosco, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Salamanca, Univ. of, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Schoepffer, C., <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Schwilgué, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Settele, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Shakespeare, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Sindico, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Stephen, Leslie, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Thomas Aquinas, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Turrettin, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Turrinus, J., <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tycho Brahe, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>-<a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">theory, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Urban VIII, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>-<a href='#Page_69'>69</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Van Welden, M., <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>-<a href='#Page_77'>77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Vitruvius, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Voight, J.H., <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>-<a href='#Page_78'>78</a>.<br />
+<br />
+von Schönberg, N., <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Wallis, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>n.<br />
+<br />
+Wesley, J., <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Whewell, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Widmanstadt, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Wilkins, Bp., <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>-<a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Wren, Dean, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>-<a href='#Page_88'>88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Yale, Univ. of, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Zytphen, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.<br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2>
+
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> The earliest observation Ptolemy uses is an Egyptian one
+of an eclipse occurring March 21, 721 B.C. (Cumont: 7). [In these
+references, the Roman numerals refer to the volume, the Arabic to the
+page, except as stated otherwise. The full title is given in the
+<a href="#BIBLIOGRAPHY">bibliography</a> at the back under the author's name.]</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Warren: 40. See "Calendar" in Hastings: <i>Ency. of
+Religion and Ethics</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> For a summary of recent researches, see the preface of
+Heath: <i>Aristarchus of Samos</i>. For further details, see Heath: <i>Op.
+cit.</i>, and the writings of Kugler and Schiaparelli.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> See Plutarch: <i>Moralia: De placitas Philosophorum</i>, Lib.
+I et II, (V. 264-277, 296-316).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Diogenes Laërtius: <i>De Vitis</i>, Lib. IX, c. 3 (252).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Plato: <i>Timæus</i>, sec. 39 (III, 459 in Jowett's
+translation).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Aristotle: <i>De Mundo</i>, c. 2 et 6 (III, 628 and 636).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Plutarch: <i>Op. cit.</i>, Lib. III, c. 2 (V, 303-4).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Diogenes Laërtius: <i>De Vitis</i>, Lib. VIII, c. 1, et 8
+(205, 225).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Diogenes: <i>Op. cit.</i>, Lib. VIII, c. 7 (225).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Cicero: <i>Academica</i>, Lib. II, c. 39 (322).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Plutarch: <i>Op. cit.</i>, Lib. II (V. 299-300).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Archimedes: <i>Arenarius</i>, c. 1. Delambre: <i>Astr. Anc.</i>,
+I, 102.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> This is the only account of his system. Even the age in
+which he flourished is so little known that there have been many
+disputes whether he was the original inventor of this system or
+followed some other. He was probably a contemporary of Cleanthes the
+Stoic in the 3rd century B.C. He is mentioned also by Ptolemy,
+Diogenes Laërtius and Vitruvius. (Schiaparelli: <i>Die Vorlaufer des
+Copernicus im Alterthum</i>, 75. See also Heath: <i>Op. cit.</i>)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Plutarch: <i>Op. cit.</i>: Bk. III, c. 2 (V, 317-318).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> The Stoic contemporary of Aristarchus, author of the
+famous Stoic hymn. See Diogenes Laërtius: <i>De Vitis</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Plutarch: <i>De Facie in Orbe Lunæ</i>, (V, 410).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Young: 109.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Milton: <i>Paradise Lost</i>, Bk. VIII, ll. 82-85.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Vitruvius: <i>De Architectura</i>, Lib. IX, c. 4 (220).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Martianus Capella: <i>De Nuptiis</i>, Lib. VIII, (668).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Ptolemy: <i>Almagest</i>, Lib. I, c. 7, (1, 21-25).
+Translated in <a href="#APPENDIX_B">Appendix B</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Whewell: I, 239.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Whewell: I, 294.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Berry: 79.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> His book <i>De Motu Stellarum</i>, translated into Latin by
+Plato Tiburtinus (fl. 1116) was published at Nuremberg (1557) by
+Melancthon with annotations by Regiomontanus. <i>Ency. Brit.</i> 11th.
+Edit.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Vaughan: I, 281.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Graux: 318.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Graux: 319.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Rashdall: II, pt. I, 77.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> MSS. of it are extremely numerous. It was the second
+astronomical book to be printed, the first edition appearing at
+Ferrara in 1472. 65 editions appeared before 1647. It was translated
+into Italian, French, German, and Spanish, and had many commentators.
+<i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Whewell: I, 277.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Blavatski: II, 29, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Philo Judæus: <i>Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres.</i> (IV, 7).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Clement of Alexandria: <i>Stromatum</i>, Lib. V, c. 14, (III,
+67).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Origen: <i>De Principiis</i>, Lib. I, c. 7, (XI, 171).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Lactantius: <i>Divinarum Institutionum</i>, Lib. III, c. 3
+(VI, 355).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Ibid: Lib. III, c. 24, (VI, 425-428).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Taylor: <i>Mediæval Mind</i>, I, 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> By the will of God the earth remains motionless and
+stands throughout the age.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Augustine: <i>De Civitate Dei</i>, Lib. XVI, c. 9, (41, p.
+437).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Augustine: <i>De Genesi</i>, II, c. 9, (v. 34, p. 270).
+(White's translation).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Augustine: <i>Civitate Dei</i>, Lib. V, c. 5, (v. 41, p.
+145).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Philastrius: <i>De Hæresibus</i>, c. 133, (v. 12, p. 1264).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Pseudo-Dionysius: <i>De C&#339;lesti Ierarchia</i>, (v. 122, p.
+10354).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Milman: VIII, p. 228-9. See the <i>Paradiso</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Isidore of Seville: <i>De Ordine Creaturarum</i>, c. 5, sec.
+3, (v. 83, p. 923).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Lombard: <i>Sententia</i>, Bk. II, Dist. I, sec. 8, (v. 192,
+p. 655).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Aquinas: <i>Summa Theologica</i>, pt. I, qu. 70, art. 2.
+(<i>Op. Om. Caietani</i>, V, 179).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Roger Bacon: <i>Opus Tertium</i>, 295, 30-31.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Ibid: 289.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Ibid: 282.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Moyen Age</i>, 365.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Prowe: II, 67-70.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Moyen Age</i>, 262-272.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Moyen Age</i>, 272.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> It has been claimed that Regiomontanus knew of the
+earth's motion around the sun a hundred years before Copernicus; but a
+German writer has definitely disproved this claim by tracing it to its
+source in Schöner's <i>Opusculum Geographicum</i> (1553) which states only
+that he believed in the earth's axial rotation. Ziegler: 62.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Ibid: 62.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Op. cit.</i>: 365.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Janssen: <i>Hist. of Ger.</i>, I, 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> <i>Cath. Ency.</i>: "Cusanus."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> From Cues near Treves.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Cusanus: <i>De Docta Ignorantia</i>, Bk. II, c. 11-12:
+"Centrum igitur mundi, coincideret cum circumferentiam, nam si centrum
+haberet et circumferentiam, et sic intra se haberet suum initium et
+finem et esset ad aliquid aliud ipse mundus terminatus, et extra
+mundum esset aluid et locus, quæ omnia veritate carent. Cum igitur non
+sit possibile, mundum claudi intra centrum corporale et
+circumferentiam, non intelligitur mundus, cuius centrum et
+circumferentia sunt Deus: et cum hic non sit mundus infinitus, tamen
+non potest concipi finitus, cum terminis careat, intra quos claudatur.
+Terra igitur, quæ centrum esse nequit, motu omni carere non potest,
+nam eam moveri taliter etiam necesse est, quod per infinitum minus
+moveri posset. Sicut igitur terra non est centram mundi.... Unde licet
+terra quasi stella sit, propinquior polo centrali, tamen movetur, et
+non describit minimum circulum in motu, ut est ostensum.... Terræ
+igitur figura est mobilis et sphærica et eius motus circularis, sed
+perfectior esse posset. Et quia maximum in perfectionibus motibus, et
+figuris in mundo non est, ut ex iam dictis patent: tunc non est verum
+quod terra ista sit vilissima et infima, nam quamvis videatur
+centralior, quo'ad mundum, est tamen etiam, eadem ratione polo
+propinquior, ut est dictum." (pp. 38-39).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>, II, 292.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Cusanus: <i>Opera</i>, 549: Excitationum, Lib. VII, ex
+sermone: <i>Debitores sumus</i>: "Est enim oratio, omnibus creaturis
+potentior. Nam angeli seu intelligentiæ, movent orbes, Solem et
+stellas: sed oratio potentior, quia impedit motum, sicut oratio Josuæ,
+fecit sistere Solem."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Di Bruno: 284, 286a; Walsh: <i>An Early Allusion</i>, 2-3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> <i>Nicolaus Coppernicus</i> (Berlin, 1883-4; 3 vol.; Pt. I,
+Biography, Pt. II, Sources), by Dr. Leopold Prowe gives an exhaustive
+account of all the known details in regard to Copernicus collected
+from earlier biographers and tested most painstakingly by the
+documentary evidence Dr. Prowe and his fellow-workers unearthed during
+a lifetime devoted to this subject. (<i>Allgemeine Deutsche
+Biographie.</i>) The manuscript authority Dr. Prowe cites (Prowe: I,
+19-27 and footnotes), requires the double p in Copernicus's name, as
+Copernicus himself invariably used the two p's in the Latinized form
+<i>Coppernic</i> without the termination <i>us</i>, and usually when this
+termination was added. Also official records and the letters from his
+friends usually give the double p; though the name is found in many
+variants&mdash;Koppernig, Copperinck, etc. His signatures in his books, his
+name in the letter he published in 1509, and the Latin form of it used
+by his friends all bear testimony to his use of the double p. But
+custom has for so many centuries sanctioned the simpler spelling, that
+it seems unwise not to conform in this instance to the time-honored
+usage.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Prowe: I, 85.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> <i>Ency. Brit.</i>: "Thorn."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Prowe: I, 47-53.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> These facts would seem to justify the Poles today in
+claiming Copernicus as their fellow-countryman by right of his
+father's nationality and that of his native city. Dr. Prowe, however,
+claims him as a "Prussian" both because of his long residence in the
+Prussian-Polish bishopric of Ermeland, and because of Copernicus's own
+reference to Prussia as "unser lieber Vaterland." (Prowe: II, 197.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Prowe: I, 73-82.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Ibid: I, 111.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Ibid: I, 124-129.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Ibid: I, 137.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Ibid: I, 141-143.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Rheticus: <i>Narratio Prima</i>, 448 (Thorn edit.).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Prowe: I, 154.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Ibid: I, 169.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Ibid: I, 174.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Ibid: I, 175. This insured him an annual income which
+amounted to a sum equalling about $2250 today. Later he received a
+sinecure appointment besides at Breslau. (Holden in <i>Pop. Sci.</i>,
+111.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> Prowe: I, 224.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Ibid: I, 308.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Ibid: I, 240 and note. Little is known about him today,
+except that he was primarily an observer, and was highly esteemed by
+his immediate successors; see Gilbert: <i>De Magnete</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> Clerke in <i>Ency. Brit.</i>, "Novara."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Prowe: I, 249.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Prowe: I, 279.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Ibid, 294.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Ibid: I, 319.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Prowe: I, 335-380.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Ibid: II, 75-110, 116, 124.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Ibid: II, 204-8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Ibid: II, 110.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Ibid: II, 144.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Ibid: II, 146.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Ibid: II, 293-319.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Ibid: II, 464-472.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> Ibid: II, 170-187.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> Holden in <i>Pop. Sci.</i>, 109.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> Prowe: II, 67-70.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Copernicus: <i>De Revolutionibus</i>, Thorn edit., 444. The
+last two words of the full title: <i>De Revolutionibus Orbium
+C&#339;lestium</i> are not on the original MS. and are believed to have
+been added by Osiander. Prowe: II, 541, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> Ibid: II, 490-1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Copernicus: Dedication, 4. (Thorn edit.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Prowe: II, 503-508.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> Ibid: II, 64.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> Ibid: II, 58-9.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> Rheticus: <i>Narratio Prima</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Prowe: II, 56.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> Copernicus: Dedication, 5-6. See <a href="#APPENDIX_B">Appendix B</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> For a translation of this dedication in full, see
+<a href="#APPENDIX_B">Appendix B</a>.
+</p><p>
+In the original MS. occurs a reference (struck out) to Aristarchus of
+Samos as holding the theory of the earth's motion. (Prowe: II, 507,
+note.) The finding of this passage proves that Copernicus had at least
+heard of Aristarchus, but his apparent indifference is the more
+strange since an account of his teaching occurs in the same book of
+Plutarch from which Copernicus learned about Philolaus. But the chief
+source of our knowledge about Aristarchus is through Archimedes, and
+the editio princeps of his works did not appear till 1544, a year
+after the death of Copernicus. C.R. Eastman in <i>Pop. Sci.</i> 68:325.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i> pp. xi-xii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> As the earth moves, the position in the heavens of a
+fixed star seen from the earth should differ slightly from its
+position observed six months later when the earth is on the opposite
+side of its orbit. The distance to the fixed stars is so vast,
+however, that this final proof of the earth's motion was not attained
+till 1838 when Bessel (1784-1846) observed stellar parallax from
+Königsberg. Berry: 123-24.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> <i>Commentariolus</i> in Prowe: III, 202.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> Holden in <i>Pop. Sci.</i>, 117.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i>, p. xi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Snyder: 165.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> Copernicus: Dedication, 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> Prowe: II, 362-7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Ibid: II, 406.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Ibid: II, 501.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> Ibid: II, 517-20.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> Four other editions have since appeared; at Basel,
+1566, Amsterdam 1617, Warsaw 1847, and Thorn 1873. For further
+details, see Prowe: II, 543-7, and Thorn edition pp. xii-xx. The
+edition cited in this study is the Thorn one of 1873.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> Prowe: II, 553-4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> Copernicus: <i>De Revolutionibus</i>, I. "To the reader on
+the hypotheses of this book."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> "For it is not necessary that these hypotheses be true,
+nor even probable, but this alone is sufficient, if they show
+reasoning fitting the observations."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Kepler: <i>Apologia Tychonis contra Ursum</i> in <i>Op. Om.</i>:
+I, 244-246.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> Prowe: II, 251, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Ibid: II, 537-9.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Ibid: II, 273.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> Ibid: II, 286-7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> A second copy was found at Upsala shortly afterwards,
+though for centuries its existence was unknown save for two slight
+references to such a book, one by Gemma Frisius, the other by Tycho
+Brahe. Prowe: II, 284.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> Ibid: II, 273-4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Prowe: II, 274, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> Prowe: II, 426-440.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Ibid: II, 387-405.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Ibid: II, 391.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Holden in <i>Pop. Sci.</i>, 119.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> Prowe: II, 233-244.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> Burckhardt: 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> The two standard lives of Tycho Brahe are the <i>Vita
+Tychonis Brahei</i> by Gassendi (1655) till recently the sole source of
+information, and Dreyer's <i>Tycho Brahe</i> (1890) based not only on
+Gassendi but on the documentary evidence disclosed by the researches
+of the 19th century. For Tycho's works I have used the <i>Opera Omnia</i>
+published at Frankfort in 1648. The Danish Royal Scientific Society
+has issued a reprint (1901) of the rare 1573 edition of the <i>De Nova
+Stella</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> Bridges: 206.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> Dreyer: 11-84.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> Gassendi: 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> Dreyer: 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> Gassendi: 9-10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Dreyer: 38-44.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Ibid: 84.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> Ibid: 234-5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Kepler: <i>Tabulæ Rudolphinæ</i>. Title page.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Dreyer: 317-363.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> As stated in his Book on the Comet of 1577 (pub.
+1588).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> Dreyer: 168-9.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> Schiaparelli in Snyder: 165.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Brahe: <i>Op. Om.</i>, pt. I, p. 337.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> Ibid: 409-410.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> The Tychonic system has supporters to this day. See
+<span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: Original incorrectly cites chap. viii"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">chap. v</a></span>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> Dreyer: 181.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> The authoritative biography is the <i>Vita</i> by Frisch in
+vol. VIII, pp. 668-1028 of <i>Op. Om. Kep.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Frisch: VIII, 718.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i> 314-315.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> Frisch: VIII, 999.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Ibid: VIII, 696.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Ibid: VIII, 699-715.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> Dreyer: 290-309.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> Frisch: VIII, 715.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> Bertrand: p. 870-1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> The two laws first appeared in 1609 in his <i>Physica
+C&#339;lestis tradita commentarius de motu stellæ martis</i>. (Frisch:
+VIII, 964.) The third he enunciated in his <i>Harmonia Mundi</i>, 1619.
+(Ibid: VIII, 1013-1017.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> "Cor et animam meam": Kepler's expression in regard to
+the Copernician theory. Ibid: VIII, 957.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> Ibid: VIII, 838.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> Ibid: VIII, 742.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> Kepler: <i>Op. Om.</i>, I, 106: <i>Præfatio ad Lectorem</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> Berry: 210.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> Berry: 265.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Ibid: 359.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> Jacoby: 89.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> See before, <a href="#Page_30">p. 30</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> Luther: <i>Tischreden</i>, IV, 575; "Der Narr will die ganze
+Kunst Astronomiæ umkehren. Aber wie die heilige Schrift anzeigt, so
+heiss Josua die Sonne still stehen, und nicht das Erdreich."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> "Non est autem hominis bene instituti dissentire a
+consensu tot sæculorum." Præfatio Philippi Melanthonis, 1531, in
+Sacro-Busto: <i>Libellus de Sphæra</i> (no date).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> "Vidi dialogum et fui dissuassor editionis. Fabula per
+sese paulatim consilescet; sed quidam putant esse egregiam
+<i>katorthoma</i> rem tam absurdam ornare, sicut ille Sarmaticus Astronomis
+qui movet terram et figet solem. Profecto sapientes gubernatores
+deberent ingeniorum petulantia cohercere." <i>Epistola B. Mithobio</i>, 16
+Oct. 1541. P. Melancthon: <i>Opera</i>: IV, 679.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> "Quamquam autem rident aliqui Physicum testimonia
+divina citantem, tamen nos honestum esse censemus, Philosophiam
+conferre ad c&#339;lestia dicta, et in tanta caligine humanæ mentis
+autoritatem divinam consulere ubicunque possumus." Melancthon: <i>Initia
+Doctrinæ Physicæ</i>: Bk. I, 63.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> Ibid: 60.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Ibid: 59-67.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> Farrar: <i>Hist. of Interpretation</i>: Preface, xviii:
+"Who," asks Calvin, "will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
+above that of the Holy Spirit?"</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> Calvin: <i>Oeuvres François</i>: <i>Traité ... contre
+l'Astrologie</i>, 110-112.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> Calvin: <i>Op. Om.</i> in <i>Corpus Reformatorum</i>: vol. 25,
+499-500; vol. 59, 195-196.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> P. 78-79: "Ce planétaire ... represente le système du
+monde tel qu'il a été expliqué par Copernic."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> Schwilgué: p. 15.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> Ibid: p. 48.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i>: "Recorde."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Quoted (p. 135), from the edition of 1596 in the
+library of Mr. George A. Plimpton. See also Recorde's <i>Whetstone of
+Witte</i> (1557) as cited by Berry, 127.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> DuBartas: <i>The Divine Weeks</i> (Sylvester's trans. edited
+by Haight): Preface, pp. xx-xxiii and note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>: 72.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> La Fuente: <i>Historia de la Universidades ... de
+España</i>: II, 314.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> <i>Doc. 86</i> in Favaro: 130.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> <i>Diccionario Enciclopédico Hispano-Americano de
+literatura, ciencias y artes</i> (Barcelona, 1898).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Quoted in Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i>: I, 468-470 (1661),
+as a work inaccessible to most readers at that time because of its
+extreme rarity. It remained on the Index until the edition of 1835.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> Montaigne: <i>Essays</i>: Bk. II, c. 2: <i>An Apologie of
+Raymonde Sebonde</i> (II, 352).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> This book, published at Frankfort in 1597, was
+translated into French by M. Fougerolles and printed in Lyons that
+same year. It has become extremely rare since its "atheistic
+atmosphere" (Peignot: <i>Dictionnaire</i>) caused the Roman Church to place
+it upon the Index by decree of 1628, where it has remained to this
+day.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Cromer in History of Poland.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> Cromer in History of Poland.<a name="FNanchor_A_202" id="FNanchor_A_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_202" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></p></div>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_A_202" id="Footnote_A_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_202"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> I could not find this reference in either of Martin
+Kromer's books; <i>De Origine et Rebus Gestis Polonorum, ad 1511</i>, or in
+his <i>Res Publicæ sive Status Regni Poloniæ</i>.</p></div></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_203" id="Footnote_202_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_203"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> Bodin: <i>Univ. Nat. Theatrum</i>: Bk. V, sec. 2 (end).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_204" id="Footnote_203_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_204"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i>: I, 663.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_205" id="Footnote_204_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_205"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> Justus-Lipsius: <i>Physiologiæ Stoicorum</i>: Bk. II,
+dissert. 19 (Dedication 1604, Louvain), (IV, 947); "Vides deliria,
+quomodo aliter appellent?"</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_206" id="Footnote_205_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_206"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> Berti: 285.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_207" id="Footnote_206_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_207"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> McIntyre: 3-15.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_208" id="Footnote_207_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_208"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> Four lives of Bruno have been written within the last
+seventy-five years. The first is <i>Jordano Bruno</i> by Christian
+Bartholmèss (2 vol., Paris 1846). The next, <i>Vita di Giordano Bruno da
+Nola</i> by Domenico Berti (1868, Turin), quotes in full the official
+documents of his trial. Frith's <i>Life of Giordano Bruno</i> (London,
+1887), has been rendered out of date by J.L. McIntyre's <i>Giordano
+Bruno</i> (London, 1903), which includes a critical bibliography. In
+addition, W.R. Thayer's <i>Throne Makers</i> (New York, 1899), gives
+translations of Bruno's confessions to the Venetian Inquisition.
+Bruno's Latin works (<i>Opera Latina Conscripta</i>), have been republished
+by Fiorentino (3 vol., Naples, 1879), and the <i>Opere Italiane</i> by
+Gentile (3 vol., Naples, 1907).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_209" id="Footnote_208_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_209"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> Bartholmèss: I, 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_210" id="Footnote_209_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_210"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> Libri: IV, 144.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_211" id="Footnote_210_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_211"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> McIntyre: 16-40.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_212" id="Footnote_211_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_212"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> Bartholmèss: I, 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_213" id="Footnote_212_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_213"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Gilbert: <i>De Magnete</i> (London, 1600).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_214" id="Footnote_213_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_214"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> Berti: 369, Doc. XIII.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_215" id="Footnote_214_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_215"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> McIntyre: 16-40.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_216" id="Footnote_215_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_216"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Bartholmèss: I, 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_217" id="Footnote_216_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_217"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Beyersdorf: <i>Giordano Bruno und Shakespear</i>, 8-36.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_218" id="Footnote_217_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_218"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Such passages as <i>Troilus and Cressida</i>: Act I, sc. 3;
+<i>King John</i>, Act III, sc. 1; and <i>Merry Wives</i>, Act III, sc. 2,
+indicate that Shakespeare accepted fully the Ptolemaic conception of a
+central, immovable earth. See also Beyersdorf: <i>op. cit.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_219" id="Footnote_218_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_219"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> McIntyre: 68.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_220" id="Footnote_219_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_220"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> Ibid: 47-72.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_221" id="Footnote_220_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_221"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> See official documents in Berti: 327-395.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_222" id="Footnote_221_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_222"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> Bruno: <i>De Immenso et Innumerabilis</i>: Lib. III, cap. 9
+(vol. 1, pt. 1, 380-386).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_223" id="Footnote_222_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_223"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> Thayer: 268.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_224" id="Footnote_223_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_224"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> Berti: 285.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_225" id="Footnote_224_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_225"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> Ibid: 282.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_226" id="Footnote_225_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_226"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Fahie: 82-89.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_227" id="Footnote_226_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_227"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> Thayer: 299.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_228" id="Footnote_227_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_228"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> The publication of A. Favaro's <i>Galileo e
+l'Inquisizione: Documenti del Processo Galileiano ... per la prima
+volta integralmente pubblicati</i>, (Firenze, 1907), together with that
+of the National Edition (in 20 vols.) of Galileo's works, edited by
+Favaro (Firenze, completed 1909), renders somewhat obsolete all
+earlier lives of Galileo. The more valuable, however, of these books
+are: Martin's <i>Galilée</i> (Paris, 1868), a scholarly Catholic study
+containing valuable bibliographical notes; Anon. (Mrs. Olney):
+<i>Private Life of Galileo</i>, based largely on his correspondence with
+his daughter from which many extracts are given; and von Gebler's
+<i>Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia</i> (trans. by Mrs. Sturge, London,
+1879), which includes in the appendix the various decrees in the
+original. Fahie's <i>Life of Galileo</i> (London, 1903), is based on
+Favaro's researches and is reliable. The documents of the trial have
+been published in part by de l'Epinois, von Gebler and Berti, but
+Favaro's is the complete and authoritative edition.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_229" id="Footnote_228_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_229"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> Fahie: 20-40.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_230" id="Footnote_229_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_230"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Ibid: 121.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_231" id="Footnote_230_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_231"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, X, 68.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_232" id="Footnote_231_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_232"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> 'The Second Day' in Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i> I,
+110-111.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_233" id="Footnote_232_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_233"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> Fahie: 265.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_234" id="Footnote_233_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_234"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> Conway: 46-47.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_235" id="Footnote_234_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_235"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> Conway: 46-47.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_236" id="Footnote_235_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_236"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Fahie: 77-126.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_237" id="Footnote_236_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_237"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_238" id="Footnote_237_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_238"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> Fahie: 149.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_239" id="Footnote_238_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_239"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, V, 281-288.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_240" id="Footnote_239_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_240"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 48-49.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_241" id="Footnote_240_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_241"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 49.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_242" id="Footnote_241_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_242"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> Ibid: 38: "amorevole avviso."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_243" id="Footnote_242_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_243"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> Ibid: 46, 47, 51.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_244" id="Footnote_243_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_244"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> Ibid: 47.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244_245" id="Footnote_244_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_245"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> Ibid: 49.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245_246" id="Footnote_245_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_246"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Ibid: 43-45, see original in Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, V,
+281-285.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246_247" id="Footnote_246_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_247"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 78.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247_248" id="Footnote_247_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_248"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Ibid: 61.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248_249" id="Footnote_248_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_249"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> Ibid: 61.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249_250" id="Footnote_249_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_250"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 61-62.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250_251" id="Footnote_250_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_251"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Ibid: 88.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251_252" id="Footnote_251_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_252"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Ibid: 80-86.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252_253" id="Footnote_252_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_253"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> Ibid: 145.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_253_254" id="Footnote_253_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_254"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Ibid: 16.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_254_255" id="Footnote_254_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_255"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 16.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255_256" id="Footnote_255_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_256"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> Monchamp: 46.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256_257" id="Footnote_256_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_257"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> Fromundus: <i>De Cometa Anni</i> 1618: chap. VII, p. 68.
+(From the private library of Dr. E.E. Slosson. A rare book which Lecky
+could not find. <i>History of Rationalism in Europe</i>, I, 280, note.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257_258" id="Footnote_257_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_258"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> In 1620 the Congregation issued the changes it required
+to have made in the <i>De Revolutionibus</i>. They are nine in all, and
+consist mainly in changing assertion of the earth's movement to
+hypothetical statement and in striking out a reference to the earth as
+a planet. Doc. in Favaro: 140-141. See <a href="#REV_1">illustration, p. 61</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258_259" id="Footnote_258_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_259"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 149.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259_260" id="Footnote_259_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_260"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Dialogo</i>: To the Reader.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260_261" id="Footnote_260_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_261"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 70.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261_262" id="Footnote_261_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_262"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> Fahie: 230.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262_263" id="Footnote_262_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_263"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> Ibid: 240.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_263_264" id="Footnote_263_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_264"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 88-89.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_264_265" id="Footnote_264_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_265"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> Ibid: 66.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_265_266" id="Footnote_265_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_266"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> Ibid: 17-18.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266_267" id="Footnote_266_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_267"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, XV, 26.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267_268" id="Footnote_267_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_268"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268_269" id="Footnote_268_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_269"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> Ibid: 75.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269_270" id="Footnote_269_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_270"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> Ibid: 76.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270_271" id="Footnote_270_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_271"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> Ibid: 80-81.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271_272" id="Footnote_271_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_272"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> Ibid: 80-81.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272_273" id="Footnote_272_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_273"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 83.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273_274" id="Footnote_273_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_274"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> Ibid: 84.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_274_275" id="Footnote_274_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_275"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> Ibid: 85-87.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275_276" id="Footnote_275_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_276"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> Ibid: 101.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_276_277" id="Footnote_276_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_277"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 101.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277_278" id="Footnote_277_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_278"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 146.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278_279" id="Footnote_278_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_279"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> Ibid: 145.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279_280" id="Footnote_279_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_280"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> Ibid: 103, 129.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280_281" id="Footnote_280_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_281"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> Ibid: 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281_282" id="Footnote_281_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_282"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> Milton: <i>Areopagitica</i>: 35.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282_283" id="Footnote_282_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_283"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 135.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283_284" id="Footnote_283_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_284"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> Ibid: 137.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_284_285" id="Footnote_284_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_285"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> Fahie: 402.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_285_286" id="Footnote_285_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_286"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 138; and Fahie: 402.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286_287" id="Footnote_286_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_287"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 101, 103.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287_288" id="Footnote_287_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_288"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> Ibid: 104-132.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288_289" id="Footnote_288_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_289"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> Fahie: 325, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289_290" id="Footnote_289_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_290"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> For full statement, see Martin: 133-207.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290_291" id="Footnote_290_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_291"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> Gebler: 263.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291_292" id="Footnote_291_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_292"><span class="label">[291]</span></a> See Gebler: 244-247; White: I, 159-167; also Martin.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292_293" id="Footnote_292_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_293"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> Martin: 136; and Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i> "To the
+reader."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293_294" id="Footnote_293_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_294"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Opere</i>, XV, 25.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294_295" id="Footnote_294_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_295"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> Putnam: I, 310.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295_296" id="Footnote_295_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_296"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> De Morgan: I, 98.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296_297" id="Footnote_296_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_297"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> Martin: 140.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297_298" id="Footnote_297_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_298"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> <i>Cath. Ency.</i>: "Boscovich."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298_299" id="Footnote_298_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_299"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 159.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299_300" id="Footnote_299_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_300"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> Ibid: 30, 31.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300_301" id="Footnote_300_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_301"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> In Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i>: I, 471-503.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301_302" id="Footnote_301_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_302"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> Bk. II: sec. 8, §1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302_303" id="Footnote_302_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_303"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> Bk. II, ch. 46.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303_304" id="Footnote_303_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_304"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> <i>Phil. Works</i>: 705.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_304_305" id="Footnote_304_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_305"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> Bk. III.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305_306" id="Footnote_305_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_306"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> <i>Phil. Works</i>: 684-685.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306_307" id="Footnote_306_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_307"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> Translated in <a href="#APPENDIX_C">Appendix C</a>. For criticism, see Monchamp:
+58-64.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307_308" id="Footnote_307_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_308"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> Fromundus: <i>Vesta</i>: Ad Lectorem.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308_309" id="Footnote_308_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_309"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> Monchamp: 41.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_310" id="Footnote_309_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_310"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> Justus-Lipsius: IV, 947.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_311" id="Footnote_310_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_311"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> Monchamp: 48.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_312" id="Footnote_311_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_312"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> Ibid: 94.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_312_313" id="Footnote_312_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_313"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> Galileo: <i>Opere</i>: XV, 25.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313_314" id="Footnote_313_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_314"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> Ibid: XIV, 340-341.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314_315" id="Footnote_314_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_315"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> Monchamp: 107-108.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315_316" id="Footnote_315_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_316"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> Doc. in Favaro: 120-121, 132, 133.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316_317" id="Footnote_316_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_317"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> Monchamp: 125, 143.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317_318" id="Footnote_317_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_318"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> Ibid: 148-149.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318_319" id="Footnote_318_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_319"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> Ibid: 152-153.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319_320" id="Footnote_319_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_320"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> Ibid: 182-234.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_320_321" id="Footnote_320_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_321"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> Monchamp: 321.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321_322" id="Footnote_321_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_322"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> Agricola: <i>Disputatio</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322_323" id="Footnote_322_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_323"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> Schotto: <i>Organum Mathematicum</i> (1667).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323_324" id="Footnote_323_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_324"><span class="label">[323]</span></a> Voight: <i>Der Kunstgünstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
+Raritäten Erstes Hundert</i>. (Hamburg, 1667).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324_325" id="Footnote_324_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_325"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> Voight: <i>op. cit.</i>: 28.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325_326" id="Footnote_325_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_326"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> Ibid: 30-31.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_327" id="Footnote_326_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_327"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> Longomontanus: <i>Op. cit.</i>: 162.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_328" id="Footnote_327_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_328"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> Longomontanus: <i>Op. cit.</i>: 158.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328_329" id="Footnote_328_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_329"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: Præfatio, I, xviii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329_330" id="Footnote_329_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_330"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 496.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330_331" id="Footnote_330_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_331"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> <i>Cath. Ency.</i>: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic
+Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331_332" id="Footnote_331_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_332"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 288-289; see <a href="#FRONT">frontispiece</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332_333" id="Footnote_332_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_333"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 288-289; see <a href="#FRONT">frontispiece</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333_334" id="Footnote_333_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_334"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i>: I, 674-680.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334_335" id="Footnote_334_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_335"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Apologia</i>: 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335_336" id="Footnote_335_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_336"><span class="label">[335]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 313, 315.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336_337" id="Footnote_336_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_337"><span class="label">[336]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 330-351.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337_338" id="Footnote_337_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_338"><span class="label">[337]</span></a> Ibid: II, 339-340.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338_339" id="Footnote_338_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_339"><span class="label">[338]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Op. cit.</i>: I, 677.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339_340" id="Footnote_339_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_340"><span class="label">[339]</span></a> Ibid: I, 673.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340_341" id="Footnote_340_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_341"><span class="label">[340]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Alm. Nov.</i>: II, 290.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341_342" id="Footnote_341_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_342"><span class="label">[341]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Op. cit.</i>: II, 304, 309.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342_343" id="Footnote_342_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_343"><span class="label">[342]</span></a> Delambre: <i>Astr. Mod.</i>: I, 680.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_343_344" id="Footnote_343_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_344"><span class="label">[343]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Op. cit.</i>: II, 478 (condensed), 500.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_344_345" id="Footnote_344_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_345"><span class="label">[344]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Apologia</i>: 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_345_346" id="Footnote_345_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_346"><span class="label">[345]</span></a> Ibid: 103.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_346_347" id="Footnote_346_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_347"><span class="label">[346]</span></a> One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his
+work has come down to us. A canon at Liège, Réné-François Sluse, wrote
+asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English
+mathematician, as to his opinion of the <i>Almagestum Novum</i>, and of
+this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies.
+Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all
+value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as
+intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a
+matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this."
+Monchamp: 165-166.
+</p><p>
+For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican
+system between 1631-1688, see Martin: <i>Galilée</i>: 386-388.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_347_348" id="Footnote_347_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_348"><span class="label">[347]</span></a> See Moxon: <i>Advice, A Tutor to Astronomy and Geography</i>
+(1670): 269.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_348_349" id="Footnote_348_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_349"><span class="label">[348]</span></a> Haldane's <i>Descartes</i> (1905) is the most recent and
+authoritative account based upon Descartes's works as published in the
+Adams-Tannery edition (Paris, 1896. foll.). This edition supersedes
+that of Cousin.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_349_350" id="Footnote_349_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_350"><span class="label">[349]</span></a> Haldane: 153.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_350_351" id="Footnote_350_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_351"><span class="label">[350]</span></a> Ibid: 158.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_351_352" id="Footnote_351_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_352"><span class="label">[351]</span></a> Descartes: <i>Principes</i>, Pt. III, chap. 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_352_353" id="Footnote_352_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_353"><span class="label">[352]</span></a> Haldane: 291.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_353_354" id="Footnote_353_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_354"><span class="label">[353]</span></a> Monchamp: 185, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_354_355" id="Footnote_354_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_355"><span class="label">[354]</span></a> Haldane: 292.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_355_356" id="Footnote_355_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_356"><span class="label">[355]</span></a> Ibid: 193, 279.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_356_357" id="Footnote_356_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_357"><span class="label">[356]</span></a> Monchamp: 177-181.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_357_358" id="Footnote_357_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_358"><span class="label">[357]</span></a> Berry quotes (p. 92) a passage from Thomas Digges (d.
+1595) with the date 1590: "But in this our age, one rare witte (seeing
+the continuall errors that from time to time more and more continually
+have been discovered, besides the infinite absurdities in their
+Theoricks, which they have been forced to admit that would not confess
+any mobility in the ball of the Earth) hath by long studye, paynfull
+practise, and rare invention delivered a new Theorick or Model of the
+World, shewing that the Earth resteth not in the Center of the whole
+world or globe of elements, which encircled or enclosed in the Moone's
+orbit, and together with the whole globe of mortality is carried round
+about the Sunne, which like a king in the middst of all, rayneth and
+giveth laws of motion to all the rest, sphærically dispersing his
+glorious beames of light through all this sacred celestiall Temple."
+Browne also refers to Digges (I, 383).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_358_359" id="Footnote_358_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_359"><span class="label">[358]</span></a> Gilbert: <i>De Magnete</i>, Bk. VI, c. 3-5 (214-228).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_359_360" id="Footnote_359_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359_360"><span class="label">[359]</span></a> Johnson: <i>Life</i>, in Browne: I, xvii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_360_361" id="Footnote_360_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360_361"><span class="label">[360]</span></a> Browne: I, 35.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_361_362" id="Footnote_361_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361_362"><span class="label">[361]</span></a> Burton: <i>Anatomy of Melancholy</i>, I, 1; I, 66. First
+edition, 1621; reprinted 1624, 1628, 1632, 1638, 1651-2, 1660, 1676.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_362_363" id="Footnote_362_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362_363"><span class="label">[362]</span></a> Ibid: I, 385, 389.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_363_364" id="Footnote_363_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363_364"><span class="label">[363]</span></a> Herbert: II, 315.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_364_365" id="Footnote_364_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364_365"><span class="label">[364]</span></a> Milton: <i>Paradise Lost</i>, Bk. VIII, lines 159 <i>et seq.</i>
+</p><p>
+The great Puritan divine, John Owen (1616-1683), accepts the miracle
+of the sun's standing still without a word of reference to the new
+astronomy. (<i>Works</i>: II, 160.) Farrar states that Owen declared
+Newton's discoveries were against the evident testimonies of Scripture
+(Farrar: <i>History of Interpretation</i>: xviii.), but I have been unable
+to verify this statement. Owen died before the <i>Principia</i> was
+published in 1687.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_365_366" id="Footnote_365_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365_366"><span class="label">[365]</span></a> Whewell: I, 410.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_366_367" id="Footnote_366_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366_367"><span class="label">[366]</span></a> Wilkins: <i>Discourse Concerning a New Planet</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_367_368" id="Footnote_367_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367_368"><span class="label">[367]</span></a> Salusbury: <i>Math. Coll.</i>: To the Reader.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_368_369" id="Footnote_368_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368_369"><span class="label">[368]</span></a> Whewell: I, 411.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_369_370" id="Footnote_369_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369_370"><span class="label">[369]</span></a> One London bookseller in 1670 advertised for sale
+"spheres according to the Ptolmean, Tychonean and Copernican systems
+with books for their use." (Moxon: 272.) In 1683 in London appeared
+the third edition of Gassendi's <i>Institutio</i>, the textbook of
+astronomy in the universities during this period of uncertainty. It
+too wavers between the Tychonic and the Copernican systems.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_370_371" id="Footnote_370_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370_371"><span class="label">[370]</span></a> <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i>: "Keill."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_371_372" id="Footnote_371_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371_372"><span class="label">[371]</span></a> Keill: <i>Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_372_373" id="Footnote_372_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372_373"><span class="label">[372]</span></a> Cajori: 29-30.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_373_374" id="Footnote_373_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373_374"><span class="label">[373]</span></a> Cajori: 37.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_374_375" id="Footnote_374_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374_375"><span class="label">[374]</span></a> Pope: <i>Works</i>, VI, 110.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_375_376" id="Footnote_375_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375_376"><span class="label">[375]</span></a> Addison: <i>Spectator</i>, No. 420, (IV, 372-373). An
+interesting contrast to this passage and a good illustration of how
+the traditional phraseology continued in poetry is found in Addison's
+famous hymn, written a year later:</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="poem">
+<tr>
+<td>
+"Whilst all the stars that round her [earth] burn<br />
+And all the planets in their turn,<br />
+Confirm the tidings as they roll,<br />
+And spread the truth from pole to pole.<br />
+<br />
+"What though in solemn silence all<br />
+Move round this dark terrestrial ball;<br />
+What though no real voice nor sound<br />
+Amidst their radiant orbs be found;<br />
+<br />
+"In reason's ear they all rejoice,<br />
+And utter forth a glorious voice;<br />
+Forever singing, as they shine,<br />
+'The hand that made us is divine'."<br />
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_376_377" id="Footnote_376_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376_377"><span class="label">[376]</span></a> Mather: <i>Christian Philosopher</i>, 75, 76.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_377_378" id="Footnote_377_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377_378"><span class="label">[377]</span></a> Leadbetter: <i>Astronomy</i> (1729).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_378_379" id="Footnote_378_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378_379"><span class="label">[378]</span></a> In de Maupertius: <i>Ouvrages Divers</i>, (at the back).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_379_380" id="Footnote_379_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379_380"><span class="label">[379]</span></a> Wesley: <i>Compendium of Natural Philosophy</i>, I, 14,
+139.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_380_381" id="Footnote_380_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_380_381"><span class="label">[380]</span></a> Dobell: <i>Hymns</i>, No. 5, No. 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_381_382" id="Footnote_381_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_381_382"><span class="label">[381]</span></a> Keble: <i>Christian Year</i>, 279.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_382_383" id="Footnote_382_383"></a><a href="#FNanchor_382_383"><span class="label">[382]</span></a> Horne: <i>Fair, Candid, Impartial Statement ...</i>, 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_383_384" id="Footnote_383_384"></a><a href="#FNanchor_383_384"><span class="label">[383]</span></a> Pike: <i>Philosophia Sacra</i>, 43.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_384_385" id="Footnote_384_385"></a><a href="#FNanchor_384_385"><span class="label">[384]</span></a> Forbes: <i>Letter</i>, (1755).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_385_386" id="Footnote_385_386"></a><a href="#FNanchor_385_386"><span class="label">[385]</span></a> See Wesley: I, 136-7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_386_387" id="Footnote_386_387"></a><a href="#FNanchor_386_387"><span class="label">[386]</span></a> <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i>: "Hutchinson."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_387_388" id="Footnote_387_388"></a><a href="#FNanchor_387_388"><span class="label">[387]</span></a> Stephen: <i>Hist. of Eng. Thought</i>: I, 390.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_388_389" id="Footnote_388_389"></a><a href="#FNanchor_388_389"><span class="label">[388]</span></a> Ibid: 391.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_389_390" id="Footnote_389_390"></a><a href="#FNanchor_389_390"><span class="label">[389]</span></a> de Premontval: <i>Le Méchaniste Philosophe</i>, 54, 72. (The
+Hague, 1750).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_390_391" id="Footnote_390_391"></a><a href="#FNanchor_390_391"><span class="label">[390]</span></a> de Brisbar: <i>Calendrier Historique</i>, (Leyden),
+228-233.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_391_392" id="Footnote_391_392"></a><a href="#FNanchor_391_392"><span class="label">[391]</span></a> Bayle: <i>Système Abregé de Philosophie</i> (The Hague,
+1731), IV, 394-412.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_392_393" id="Footnote_392_393"></a><a href="#FNanchor_392_393"><span class="label">[392]</span></a> de Maupertius: <i>Eléments de Géographie</i>, xv, 9-14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_393_394" id="Footnote_393_394"></a><a href="#FNanchor_393_394"><span class="label">[393]</span></a> de Premontval: 123.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_394_395" id="Footnote_394_395"></a><a href="#FNanchor_394_395"><span class="label">[394]</span></a> Ibid: 132.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_395_396" id="Footnote_395_396"></a><a href="#FNanchor_395_396"><span class="label">[395]</span></a> Ibid: 157.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_396_397" id="Footnote_396_397"></a><a href="#FNanchor_396_397"><span class="label">[396]</span></a> Cassini: <i>De l'Origine et du Progrès ...</i>, 35.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_397_398" id="Footnote_397_398"></a><a href="#FNanchor_397_398"><span class="label">[397]</span></a> Shields: 59. I have failed to find this reference in
+Bossuet's works.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_398_399" id="Footnote_398_399"></a><a href="#FNanchor_398_399"><span class="label">[398]</span></a> Fénelon: <i>Oeuvres</i>, I, 3 and 7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_399_400" id="Footnote_399_400"></a><a href="#FNanchor_399_400"><span class="label">[399]</span></a> Pluche: <i>Histoire du Ciel</i>: viii, ix, xiii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_400_401" id="Footnote_400_401"></a><a href="#FNanchor_400_401"><span class="label">[400]</span></a> <i>Cath. Ency.</i>: "Boscovich."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_401_402" id="Footnote_401_402"></a><a href="#FNanchor_401_402"><span class="label">[401]</span></a> <i>Opera</i>: III (1785).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_402_403" id="Footnote_402_403"></a><a href="#FNanchor_402_403"><span class="label">[402]</span></a> Cited in Monchamp: 335 note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_403_404" id="Footnote_403_404"></a><a href="#FNanchor_403_404"><span class="label">[403]</span></a> Ibid: 326.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_404_405" id="Footnote_404_405"></a><a href="#FNanchor_404_405"><span class="label">[404]</span></a> Ibid: 330.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_405_406" id="Footnote_405_406"></a><a href="#FNanchor_405_406"><span class="label">[405]</span></a> Fontana: <i>Institutio</i>, II, 32-35.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_406_407" id="Footnote_406_407"></a><a href="#FNanchor_406_407"><span class="label">[406]</span></a> Ferramosca: <i>Positiones ...</i>: 19.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_407_408" id="Footnote_407_408"></a><a href="#FNanchor_407_408"><span class="label">[407]</span></a> Piccoli: <i>La Scienza</i>, 4, 7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_408_409" id="Footnote_408_409"></a><a href="#FNanchor_408_409"><span class="label">[408]</span></a> Spagnio, <i>De Motu</i>, 81.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_409_410" id="Footnote_409_410"></a><a href="#FNanchor_409_410"><span class="label">[409]</span></a> Monchamp: 331.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_410_411" id="Footnote_410_411"></a><a href="#FNanchor_410_411"><span class="label">[410]</span></a> Monchamp: 345.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_411_412" id="Footnote_411_412"></a><a href="#FNanchor_411_412"><span class="label">[411]</span></a> Bailly: II, 132, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_412_413" id="Footnote_412_413"></a><a href="#FNanchor_412_413"><span class="label">[412]</span></a> Flammarion: 196-198.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_413_414" id="Footnote_413_414"></a><a href="#FNanchor_413_414"><span class="label">[413]</span></a> Shields: 60.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_414_415" id="Footnote_414_415"></a><a href="#FNanchor_414_415"><span class="label">[414]</span></a> White: I, 159-167.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_415_416" id="Footnote_415_416"></a><a href="#FNanchor_415_416"><span class="label">[415]</span></a> See di Bruno: <i>Catholic Belief</i>, 286a.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_416_417" id="Footnote_416_417"></a><a href="#FNanchor_416_417"><span class="label">[416]</span></a> Riccioli: <i>Apologia</i>, 103.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_417_418" id="Footnote_417_418"></a><a href="#FNanchor_417_418"><span class="label">[417]</span></a> White: I, 165. See the answer by Wegg-Prosser: <i>Galileo
+and his Judges</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_418_419" id="Footnote_418_419"></a><a href="#FNanchor_418_419"><span class="label">[418]</span></a> Donat: 183.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_419_420" id="Footnote_419_420"></a><a href="#FNanchor_419_420"><span class="label">[419]</span></a> Walsh: <i>Popes and Science</i>, 17.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_420_421" id="Footnote_420_421"></a><a href="#FNanchor_420_421"><span class="label">[420]</span></a> Conway: 48.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_421_422" id="Footnote_421_422"></a><a href="#FNanchor_421_422"><span class="label">[421]</span></a> Anon.: <i>Galileo&mdash;the Roman Congregation</i>, 39, 60.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_422_423" id="Footnote_422_423"></a><a href="#FNanchor_422_423"><span class="label">[422]</span></a> De Morgan: I, 172.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_423_424" id="Footnote_423_424"></a><a href="#FNanchor_423_424"><span class="label">[423]</span></a> "Anglo-American": 5-6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_424_425" id="Footnote_424_425"></a><a href="#FNanchor_424_425"><span class="label">[424]</span></a> Ibid: 11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_425_426" id="Footnote_425_426"></a><a href="#FNanchor_425_426"><span class="label">[425]</span></a> De Morgan: II, 335.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_426_427" id="Footnote_426_427"></a><a href="#FNanchor_426_427"><span class="label">[426]</span></a> White: I, 150.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_427_428" id="Footnote_427_428"></a><a href="#FNanchor_427_428"><span class="label">[427]</span></a> Schoepffer: <i>The Earth Stands Fast</i>, title-page, 6-7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_428_429" id="Footnote_428_429"></a><a href="#FNanchor_428_429"><span class="label">[428]</span></a> Ibid: Supplement by Allaben, 21, 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_429_430" id="Footnote_429_430"></a><a href="#FNanchor_429_430"><span class="label">[429]</span></a> Ibid: Note by J.W. de P., 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_430_431" id="Footnote_430_431"></a><a href="#FNanchor_430_431"><span class="label">[430]</span></a> De Peyster and Allaben: <i>Algol</i>, preface.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_431_432" id="Footnote_431_432"></a><a href="#FNanchor_431_432"><span class="label">[431]</span></a> Lange: <i>The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurdity
+in the History of Human Thought</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_432_433" id="Footnote_432_433"></a><a href="#FNanchor_432_433"><span class="label">[432]</span></a> De Peyster and Allaben: <i>Algol</i>, 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_433_434" id="Footnote_433_434"></a><a href="#FNanchor_433_434"><span class="label">[433]</span></a> Sindico: <i>Refutation du Système de Copernic....</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_434_435" id="Footnote_434_435"></a><a href="#FNanchor_434_435"><span class="label">[434]</span></a> Tischner: <i>Le Système Solaire se Mouvant</i>. (1894).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_435_436" id="Footnote_435_436"></a><a href="#FNanchor_435_436"><span class="label">[435]</span></a> White: I, 151.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_436_437" id="Footnote_436_437"></a><a href="#FNanchor_436_437"><span class="label">[436]</span></a> See translated sections in <a href="#APPENDIX_C">Appendix C</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_437_438" id="Footnote_437_438"></a><a href="#FNanchor_437_438"><span class="label">[437]</span></a> Robinson: 107.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_438_439" id="Footnote_438_439"></a><a href="#FNanchor_438_439"><span class="label">[438]</span></a> Ibid: 119.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_439_440" id="Footnote_439_440"></a><a href="#FNanchor_439_440"><span class="label">[439]</span></a> See Prowe: <i>Nic. Cop.</i>: III, 128-137.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_440_441" id="Footnote_440_441"></a><a href="#FNanchor_440_441"><span class="label">[440]</span></a> <i>i.e.</i>, the 15,000 solar years in which all the
+heavenly bodies complete their circuits and return to their original
+positions.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_441_442" id="Footnote_441_442"></a><a href="#FNanchor_441_442"><span class="label">[441]</span></a> Plutarch: <i>Moralia: De Placitis Philosophorum</i>, Lib.
+III, c. 13 (V. 326).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_442_443" id="Footnote_442_443"></a><a href="#FNanchor_442_443"><span class="label">[442]</span></a> These two sentences the Congregations in 1620 ordered
+struck out, as part of their "corrections."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_443_444" id="Footnote_443_444"></a><a href="#FNanchor_443_444"><span class="label">[443]</span></a> As Rabbi David testified on the 19th Psalm [these
+footnotes are by Bodin].</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_444_445" id="Footnote_444_445"></a><a href="#FNanchor_444_445"><span class="label">[444]</span></a> Job: 38.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_445_446" id="Footnote_445_446"></a><a href="#FNanchor_445_446"><span class="label">[445]</span></a> Proverbs.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_446_447" id="Footnote_446_447"></a><a href="#FNanchor_446_447"><span class="label">[446]</span></a> Metaphysics: II. c. 6, de C&#339;lo. I. c. 6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_447_448" id="Footnote_447_448"></a><a href="#FNanchor_447_448"><span class="label">[447]</span></a> In his last chapter.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_448_449" id="Footnote_448_449"></a><a href="#FNanchor_448_449"><span class="label">[448]</span></a> Which is confirmed by Pico of Mirandola: Heptaplus: Bk.
+V.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_449_450" id="Footnote_449_450"></a><a href="#FNanchor_449_450"><span class="label">[449]</span></a> Enchiridion: cap. 43; Gen.: 2 and 18.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_450_451" id="Footnote_450_451"></a><a href="#FNanchor_450_451"><span class="label">[450]</span></a> On Psalm: Audite c&#339;li.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_451_452" id="Footnote_451_452"></a><a href="#FNanchor_451_452"><span class="label">[451]</span></a> Summa: pt. 1, art. 3, ques. 70.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_452_453" id="Footnote_452_453"></a><a href="#FNanchor_452_453"><span class="label">[452]</span></a> Metaphy. XII.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_453_454" id="Footnote_453_454"></a><a href="#FNanchor_453_454"><span class="label">[453]</span></a> In his commentaries on Book XII of Metaph. where he
+gives the opinion of Calippus and Eudoxus.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_454_455" id="Footnote_454_455"></a><a href="#FNanchor_454_455"><span class="label">[454]</span></a> Ex. XVIII and following. Philo Judæus in the
+Allegories.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_455_456" id="Footnote_455_456"></a><a href="#FNanchor_455_456"><span class="label">[455]</span></a> Aristotle: Metaph. II and XII and de C&#339;lo I.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_456_457" id="Footnote_456_457"></a><a href="#FNanchor_456_457"><span class="label">[456]</span></a> Gen.: 1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_457_458" id="Footnote_457_458"></a><a href="#FNanchor_457_458"><span class="label">[457]</span></a> Chap. 1 and 10. Exod.: 24.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_458_459" id="Footnote_458_459"></a><a href="#FNanchor_458_459"><span class="label">[458]</span></a> I Kings: 8. Deut.: 28.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_459_460" id="Footnote_459_460"></a><a href="#FNanchor_459_460"><span class="label">[459]</span></a> Psalm 146.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_460_461" id="Footnote_460_461"></a><a href="#FNanchor_460_461"><span class="label">[460]</span></a> According to Maymon: Perplexorum, III.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_461_462" id="Footnote_461_462"></a><a href="#FNanchor_461_462"><span class="label">[461]</span></a> Psalm 147.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_462_463" id="Footnote_462_463"></a><a href="#FNanchor_462_463"><span class="label">[462]</span></a> Psalm 148. Gen. 1 and 7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_463_464" id="Footnote_463_464"></a><a href="#FNanchor_463_464"><span class="label">[463]</span></a> Also in Psalm 67 and 123.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_464_465" id="Footnote_464_465"></a><a href="#FNanchor_464_465"><span class="label">[464]</span></a> Psalm 92.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_465_466" id="Footnote_465_466"></a><a href="#FNanchor_465_466"><span class="label">[465]</span></a> Exod. 24. Ezek. 1, 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_466_467" id="Footnote_466_467"></a><a href="#FNanchor_466_467"><span class="label">[466]</span></a> Isa. 6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_467_468" id="Footnote_467_468"></a><a href="#FNanchor_467_468"><span class="label">[467]</span></a> Isa. 6. Ezek. 1 and 10. Zach. 4. Exod. 24, 25.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_468_469" id="Footnote_468_469"></a><a href="#FNanchor_468_469"><span class="label">[468]</span></a> Maleficium quidam, <i>i.e.</i>, some evil-power. Job 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_469_470" id="Footnote_469_470"></a><a href="#FNanchor_469_470"><span class="label">[469]</span></a> Augustine against Faustus wrote that vanity is not
+produced from the dust, nor evil from the earth.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_470_471" id="Footnote_470_471"></a><a href="#FNanchor_470_471"><span class="label">[470]</span></a> Job 41 and 49. Isa. 54. Ezek. 31.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_471_472" id="Footnote_471_472"></a><a href="#FNanchor_471_472"><span class="label">[471]</span></a> Isa. 54.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_472_473" id="Footnote_472_473"></a><a href="#FNanchor_472_473"><span class="label">[472]</span></a> Isa. 45.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_473_474" id="Footnote_473_474"></a><a href="#FNanchor_473_474"><span class="label">[473]</span></a> Job 34.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_474_475" id="Footnote_474_475"></a><a href="#FNanchor_474_475"><span class="label">[474]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_475_476" id="Footnote_475_476"></a><a href="#FNanchor_475_476"><span class="label">[475]</span></a> Joshua X: 13-14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_476_477" id="Footnote_476_477"></a><a href="#FNanchor_476_477"><span class="label">[476]</span></a> Ecclesiastes I: 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr />
+
+<div class="notes">
+<p class="center"><a name="ERRATA" id="ERRATA"></a><i>Transcriber's Errata List</i></p>
+
+<p><a href="#FRONT">Frontispiece</a> Explanation, second paragraph: Original incorrectly cites p. 68;
+corrected to <a href="#Page_80">p. 80</a>.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_15">Page 15</a>: "829 A.D." should be "929 A.D."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_35">Page 35</a>: Missing reference to <a href="#Footnote_160_160">Footnote 160</a> in original text has been added in a logical place.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_64">Page 64</a>: Missing reference to <a href="#Footnote_263_264">Footnote 263</a> in original text has been added in a logical place.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_65">Page 65</a>: "if were" should be "if he were."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_85">Page 85</a>: Missing reference to <a href="#Footnote_348_349">Footnote 348</a> in original text has been added in a logical place.</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_88">Page 88</a>: "Richard Burton" should be "Robert Burton."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_97">Page 97</a>: "ceasely" should be "ceaselessly."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_137">Page 137</a>: "Burton, Richard" should be "Burton, Robert."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Page_145">Page 145</a>: "Burton, Richard" should be "Burton, Robert."</p>
+
+<p><a href="#Footnote_157_157">Footnote 157</a>: Original incorrectly cites chap. viii; corrected to <a href="#CHAPTER_V">chap. v</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the
+Copernican theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 35744-h.htm or 35744-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/7/4/35744/
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/35744-h/images/front_lg.jpg b/35744-h/images/front_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f69c218
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/front_lg.jpg
diff --git a/35744-h/images/front_sm.jpg b/35744-h/images/front_sm.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c3e5f0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/front_sm.jpg
diff --git a/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_lg.jpg b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1458946
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_lg.jpg
diff --git a/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_sm.jpg b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_sm.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..661ff3e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus2_sm.jpg
diff --git a/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_lg.jpg b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..844cff0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_lg.jpg
diff --git a/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_sm.jpg b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_sm.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4e5613
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744-h/images/revolutionibus_sm.jpg
diff --git a/35744.txt b/35744.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..48e046c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6920 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the Copernican
+theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The gradual acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe
+
+Author: Dorothy Stimson
+
+Release Date: April 1, 2011 [EBook #35744]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer errors have been corrected
+without note. Other questionable items are marked with a
+[Transcriber's Note].]
+
+
+
+
+The Gradual Acceptance
+
+OF THE
+
+Copernican Theory of the Universe
+
+
+DOROTHY STIMSON, Ph.D.
+
+
+NEW YORK
+1917
+
+COPYRIGHT 1917 BY DOROTHY STIMSON
+
+  Trade Selling Agents
+  The Baker & Taylor Co.,
+  354 Fourth Ave.,
+  New York
+
+
+
+
+TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER
+
+
+
+
+[Illustration: THE SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD IN 1651 ACCORDING TO FATHER
+RICCIOLI
+
+(Reduced facsimile of the frontispiece in Riccioli: _Almagestum
+Novum_. Bologna, 1651.)]
+
+
+EXPLANATION
+
+"Astrea, goddess of the heaven, wearing angel's wings and gleaming
+everywhere with stars, stands at the right; on the left is Argus of
+the hundred eyes, not tense, but indicating by the position of the
+telescope at his knee rather than at the eyes in his head, that while
+observing the work of God's hand, he appears at the same time to be
+worshipping as in genuflexion." (Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._, _Praefatio_,
+xvii). He points to the cherubs in the heavens who hold the planets,
+each with its zodiacal sign: above him at the top is Mars, then
+Mercury in its crescent form, the Sun, and Venus also in the crescent
+phase; on the opposite side are Saturn in its "tripartite" form (the
+ring explanation was yet to be given), the sphere of Jupiter encircled
+by its four satellites, the crescent Moon, its imperfections clearly
+shown, and a comet. Thus Father Riccioli summarized the astronomical
+knowledge of his day. The scrolls quote Psalms 19:2, "Day unto day
+uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge."
+
+Astrea holds in her right hand a balance in which Riccioli's theory of
+the universe (an adaptation of the Tychonic, see p. 68) far outweighs
+the Copernican or heliocentric one. At her feet is the Ptolemaic
+sphere, while Ptolemy himself half lies, half sits, between her and
+Argus, with the comment issuing from his mouth: "I will arise if only
+I am corrected." His left hand rests upon the coat of arms of the
+Prince of Monaco to whom the _Almagestum Novum_ is dedicated.
+
+At the top is the Hebrew _Yah-Veh_, and the hand of God is stretched
+forth in reference to the verse in the Book of Wisdom (10:20): "But
+thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number and weight."
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+  ILLUSTRATIONS                                                      7
+
+  PREFACE                                                            8
+
+
+  PART I. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE HELIOCENTRIC
+  THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
+
+  Chapter I. The Development of Astronomical Thought to 1400:
+  Preliminary Review                                                 9
+
+  Chapter II. Copernicus and his Times                              20
+
+  Chapter III. Later Development and Scientific Defense
+  of the Copernican Theory                                          33
+
+
+  PART II. THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.
+
+  Chapter I. Opinions and Arguments in the Sixteenth Century        39
+
+  Chapter II. Bruno and Galileo                                     49
+
+  Chapter III. The Opposition and their Arguments                   71
+
+  Chapter IV. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory       85
+
+  Chapter V. The Church and the New Astronomy: Conclusion           95
+
+
+  APPENDICES: TRANSLATIONS BY THE WRITER.
+
+  A. Ptolemy: _Almagest_. Bk. I, chap. 7: That the earth has no
+  movement of rotation                                             107
+
+  B. Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, Dedication to the Pope       109
+
+  C. Bodin: _Universae Naturae Theatrum_, Bk. V, sections 1 and 2
+  in part, and section 10 entire                                   115
+
+  D. Fienus: _Epistolica Quaestio_: Is it true that the heavens
+  are moved and the earth is at rest?                              124
+
+
+  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                     130
+
+  INDEX                                                            145
+
+
+
+
+ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+
+  Facsimile of the frontispiece "The Systems of the
+  World" in Riccioli: _Almagestum Novum_,
+  1651                                                  _Frontispiece_
+
+  Photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from a
+  copy of Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, as
+  "corrected" in the 17th century according to
+  the directions of the Congregations of the
+  Index in 1620                                                  p. 61
+
+  Photographic facsimile (reduced) of another "corrected"
+  page from the same copy                                       p. 113
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+This study does not belong in the field of astronomy, but in that of
+the history of thought; for it is an endeavor to trace the changes in
+people's beliefs and conceptions in regard to the universe as these
+were wrought by the dissolution of superstition resulting from the
+scientific and rationalist movements. The opening chapter is intended
+to do no more than to review briefly the astronomical theories up to
+the age of Copernicus, in order to provide a background for the better
+comprehension of the work of Copernicus and its effects.
+
+Such a study has been rendered possible only by the generous loan of
+rare books by Professor Herbert D. Foster of Dartmouth College,
+Professor Edwin E. Slosson of Columbia University, Doctor George A.
+Plimpton and Major George Haven Putnam, both of New York, and
+especially by the kindly generosity of Professor David Eugene Smith of
+Teachers College who placed his unique collection of rare mathematical
+books at the writer's disposal and gave her many valuable suggestions
+as to available material. Professors James T. Shotwell and Harold
+Jacoby of Columbia University have read parts of this study in
+manuscript. The writer gratefully acknowledges her indebtedness not
+only to these gentlemen, but to the many others, librarians and their
+assistants, fellow-students and friends, too numerous to mention
+individually, whose ready interest and whose suggestions have been of
+real service, and above all to Professor James Harvey Robinson at
+whose suggestion and under whose guidance the work was undertaken, and
+to the Reverend Doctor Henry A. Stimson whose advice and criticism
+have been an unfailing source of help and encouragement.
+
+
+
+
+PART ONE
+
+AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE HELIOCENTRIC THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASTRONOMICAL THOUGHT TO 1400 A.D.
+
+_A Preliminary Sketch of Early Theories as a Background._
+
+
+The appearances in the heavens have from earliest historic ages filled
+men with wonder and awe; then they gradually became a source of
+questioning, and thinkers sought for explanations of the daily and
+nightly phenomena of sun, moon and stars. Scientific astronomy,
+however, was an impossibility until an exact system of chronology was
+devised.[1] Meanwhile men puzzled over the shape of the earth, its
+position in the universe, what the stars were and why the positions of
+some shifted, and what those fiery comets were that now and again
+appeared and struck terror to their hearts.
+
+[Footnote 1: The earliest observation Ptolemy uses is an Egyptian one
+of an eclipse occurring March 21, 721 B.C. (Cumont: 7). [In these
+references, the Roman numerals refer to the volume, the Arabic to the
+page, except as stated otherwise. The full title is given in the
+bibliography at the back under the author's name.]]
+
+In answer to such questions, the Chaldean thinkers, slightly before
+the rise of the Greek schools of philosophy, developed the idea of the
+seven heavens in their crystalline spheres encircling the earth as
+their center.[2] This conception seems to lie back of both the later
+Egyptian and Hebraic cosmologies, as well as of the Ptolemaic. Through
+the visits of Greek philosophers to Egyptian shores this conception
+helped to shape Greek thought and so indirectly affected western
+civilization. Thus our heritage in astronomical thought, as in many
+other lines, comes from the Greeks and the Romans reaching Europe (in
+part through Arabia and Spain), where it was shaped by the influence
+of the schools down to the close of the Middle Ages when men began
+anew to withstand authority in behalf of observation and were not
+afraid to follow whither their reason led them.
+
+[Footnote 2: Warren: 40. See "Calendar" in Hastings: _Ency. of
+Religion and Ethics_.]
+
+But not all Greek philosophers, it seems,[3] either knew or accepted
+the Babylonian cosmology.[4] According to Plutarch, though Thales
+(640?-546? B.C.) and later the Stoics believed the earth to be
+spherical in form, Anaximander (610-546? B.C.) thought it to be like a
+"smooth stony pillar," Anaximenes (6th cent.) like a "table."
+Beginning with the followers of Thales or perhaps Parmenides (?-500
+B.C.), as Diogenes Laertius claims,[5] a long line of Greek thinkers
+including Plato (428?-347? B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) placed
+the earth in the center of the universe. Whether Plato held that the
+earth "encircled" or "clung" around the axis is a disputed point;[6]
+but Aristotle claimed it was the fixed and immovable center around
+which swung the spherical universe with its heaven of fixed stars and
+its seven concentric circles of the planets kept in their places by
+their transparent crystalline spheres.[7]
+
+[Footnote 3: For a summary of recent researches, see the preface of
+Heath: _Aristarchus of Samos_. For further details, see Heath: _Op.
+cit._, and the writings of Kugler and Schiaparelli.]
+
+[Footnote 4: See Plutarch: _Moralia: De placitas Philosophorum_, Lib.
+I et II, (V. 264-277, 296-316).]
+
+[Footnote 5: Diogenes Laertius: _De Vitis_, Lib. IX, c. 3 (252).]
+
+[Footnote 6: Plato: _Timaeus_, sec. 39 (III, 459 in Jowett's
+translation).]
+
+[Footnote 7: Aristotle: _De Mundo_, c. 2 et 6 (III, 628 and 636).]
+
+The stars were an even greater problem. Anaximenes thought they were
+"fastened like nails" in a crystalline firmament, and others thought
+them to be "fiery plates of gold resembling pictures."[8] But if the
+heavens were solid, how could the brief presence of a comet be
+explained?
+
+[Footnote 8: Plutarch: _Op. cit._, Lib. III, c. 2 (V, 303-4).]
+
+Among the philosophers were some noted as mathematicians whose leader
+was Pythagoras (c. 550 B.C.). He and at least one of the members of
+his school, Eudoxus (409?-356? B.C.), had visited Egypt, according to
+Diogenes Laertius,[9] and had in all probability been much interested
+in and influenced by the astronomical observations made by the
+Egyptian priests. On the same authority, Pythagoras was the first to
+declare the earth was round and to discuss the antipodes. He too
+emphasized the beauty and perfection of the circle and of the sphere
+in geometry, forms which became fixed for 2000 years as the fittest
+representations of the perfection of the heavenly bodies.
+
+[Footnote 9: Diogenes Laertius: _De Vitis_, Lib. VIII, c. 1, et 8
+(205, 225).]
+
+There was some discussion in Diogenes' time as to the author of the
+theory of the earth's motion of axial rotation. Diogenes[10] gives the
+honor to Philolaus (5th cent. B.C.) one of the Pythagoreans, though he
+adds that others attribute it to Icetas of Syracuse (6th or 5th cent.
+B.C.). Cicero, however, states[11] the position of Hicetas of Syracuse
+as a belief in the absolute fixedness of all the heavenly bodies
+except the earth, which alone moves in the whole universe, and that
+its rapid revolutions upon its own axis cause the heavens apparently
+to move and the earth to stand still.
+
+[Footnote 10: Diogenes: _Op. cit._, Lib. VIII, c. 7 (225).]
+
+[Footnote 11: Cicero: _Academica_, Lib. II, c. 39 (322).]
+
+Other thinkers of Syracuse may also have felt the Egyptian influence;
+for one of the greatest of them, Archimedes (c. 287-212 B.C.), stated
+the theory of the earth's revolution around the sun as enunciated by
+Aristarchus of Samos. (Perhaps this is the "hearth-fire of the
+universe" around which Philolaus imagined the earth to whirl.[12]) In
+_Arenarius_, a curious study on the possibility of expressing infinite
+sums by numerical denominations as in counting the sands of the
+universe, Archimedes writes:[13] "For you have known that the universe
+is called a sphere by several astrologers, its center the center of
+the earth, and its radius equal to a line drawn from the center of the
+sun to the center of the earth. This was written for the unlearned, as
+you have known from the astrologers.... [Aristarchus of Samos][14]
+concludes that the world is many times greater than the estimate we
+have just given. He supposes that the fixed stars and the sun remain
+motionless, but that the earth following a circular course, revolves
+around the sun as a center, and that the sphere of the fixed stars
+having the same sun as a center, is so vast that the circle which he
+supposes the earth to follow in revolving holds the same ratio to the
+distance of the fixed stars as the center of a sphere holds to its
+circumference."
+
+[Footnote 12: Plutarch: _Op. cit._, Lib. II (V. 299-300).]
+
+[Footnote 13: Archimedes: _Arenarius_, c. 1. Delambre: _Astr. Anc._,
+I, 102.]
+
+[Footnote 14: This is the only account of his system. Even the age in
+which he flourished is so little known that there have been many
+disputes whether he was the original inventor of this system or
+followed some other. He was probably a contemporary of Cleanthes the
+Stoic in the 3rd century B.C. He is mentioned also by Ptolemy,
+Diogenes Laertius and Vitruvius. (Schiaparelli: _Die Vorlaufer des
+Copernicus im Alterthum_, 75. See also Heath: _Op. cit._)]
+
+These ancient philosophers realized in some degree the immensity of
+the universe in which the earth was but a point. They held that the
+earth was an unsupported sphere the size of which Eratosthenes (c.
+276-194 B.C.) had calculated approximately. They knew the sun was far
+larger than the earth, and Cicero with other thinkers recognized the
+insignificance of earthly affairs in the face of such cosmic
+immensity. They knew too about the seven planets, had studied their
+orbits, and worked out astronomical ways of measuring the passage of
+time with a fair amount of accuracy. Hipparchus and other thinkers had
+discovered the fact of the precession of the equinoxes, though there
+was no adequate theory to account for it until Copernicus formulated
+his "motion of declination." The Pythagoreans accepted the idea of the
+earth's turning upon its axis, and some even held the idea of its
+revolution around the motionless sun. Others suggested that comets had
+orbits which they uniformly followed and therefore their reappearance
+could be anticipated.[15]
+
+[Footnote 15: Plutarch: _Op. cit._: Bk. III, c. 2 (V, 317-318).]
+
+Why then was the heliocentric theory not definitely accepted?
+
+In the first place, such a theory was contrary to the supposed facts
+of daily existence. A man did not have to be trained in the schools to
+observe that the earth seemed stable under his feet and that each
+morning the sun swept from the east to set at night in the west.
+Sometimes it rose more to the north or to the south than at other
+times. How could that be explained if the sun were stationary?
+
+Study of the stars was valuable for navigators and for surveyors,
+perhaps, but such disturbing theories should not be propounded by
+philosophers. Cleanthes,[16] according to Plutarch,[17] "advised that
+the Greeks ought to have prosecuted Aristarchus the Samian for
+blasphemy against religion, as shaking the very foundations of the
+world, because this man endeavoring to save appearances, supposed that
+the heavens remained immovable and that the earth moved through an
+oblique circle, at the same time turning about its own axis." Few
+would care to face their fellows as blasphemers and impious thinkers
+on behalf of an unsupported theory. Eighteen hundred years later
+Galileo would not do so, even though in his day the theory was by no
+means unsupported by observation.
+
+[Footnote 16: The Stoic contemporary of Aristarchus, author of the
+famous Stoic hymn. See Diogenes Laertius: _De Vitis_.]
+
+[Footnote 17: Plutarch: _De Facie in Orbe Lunae_, (V, 410).]
+
+Furthermore, one of the weaknesses of the Greek civilization militated
+strongly against the acceptance of this hypothesis so contrary to the
+evidence of the senses. Experimentation and the development of applied
+science was practically an impossibility where the existence of slaves
+made manual labor degrading and shameful. Men might reason
+indefinitely; but few, if any, were willing to try to improve the
+instruments of observation or to test their observations by
+experiments.
+
+At the same time another astronomical theory was developing which was
+an adequate explanation for the phenomena observed up to that
+time.[18] This theory of epicycles and eccentrics worked out by
+Apollonius of Perga (c. 225 B.C.) and by Hipparchus (c. 160 B.C.) and
+crystallized for posterity in Ptolemy's great treatise on astronomy,
+the _Almagest_, (c. 140 A.D.) became the fundamental principle of the
+science until within the last three hundred years. The theory of the
+eccentric was based on the idea that heavenly bodies Following
+circular orbits revolved around a center that did not coincide with
+that of the observer on the earth. That would explain why the sun
+appeared sometimes nearer the earth and sometimes farther away. The
+epicycle represented the heavenly body as moving along the
+circumference of one circle (called the epicycle) the center of which
+moves on another circle (the deferent). With better observations
+additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly
+observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a
+
+                                  "----Sphere
+    With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,
+    Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb"--[19]
+
+[Footnote 18: Young: 109.]
+
+[Footnote 19: Milton: _Paradise Lost_, Bk. VIII, ll. 82-85.]
+
+Yet the heliocentric theory was not forgotten. Vitruvius, a famous
+Roman architect of the Augustan Age, discussing the system of the
+universe, declared that Mercury and Venus, the planets nearest the
+sun, moved around it as their center, though the earth was the center
+of the universe.[20] This same notion recurs in Martianus Capella's
+book[21] in the fifth century A.D. and again, somewhat modified, in
+the 16th century in Tycho Brahe's conception of the universe.
+
+[Footnote 20: Vitruvius: _De Architectura_, Lib. IX, c. 4 (220).]
+
+[Footnote 21: Martianus Capella: _De Nuptiis_, Lib. VIII, (668).]
+
+Ptolemy devotes a column or two of his _Almagest_[22] (to use the
+familiar Arabic name for his _Syntaxis Mathematica_) to the refutation
+of the heliocentric theory, thereby preserving it for later ages to
+ponder on and for a Copernicus to develop. He admits at the outset
+that such a theory is only tenable for the stars and their phenomena,
+and he gives at least three reasons why it is ridiculous. If the earth
+were not at the center, the observed facts of the seasons and of day
+and night would be disturbed and even upset. If the earth moves, its
+vastly greater mass would gain in speed upon other bodies, and soon
+animals and other lighter bodies would be left behind unsupported in
+the air--a notion "ridiculous to the last degree," as he comments,
+"even to imagine it." Lastly, if it moves, it would have such
+tremendous velocity that stones or arrows shot straight up in the air
+must fall to the ground east of their starting point,--a "laughable
+supposition" indeed to Ptolemy.
+
+[Footnote 22: Ptolemy: _Almagest_, Lib. I, c. 7, (1, 21-25).
+Translated in Appendix B.]
+
+This book became the great text of the Middle Ages; its author's name
+was given to the geocentric theory it maintained. Astronomy for a
+thousand years was valuable only to determine the time of Easter and
+other festivals of the Church, and to serve as a basis for astrology
+for the mystery-loving people of Europe.
+
+To the Arabians in Syria and in Spain belongs the credit of preserving
+for Europe during this long period the astronomical works of the
+Greeks, to which they added their own valuable observations of the
+heavens--valuable because made with greater skill and better
+instruments,[23] and because with these observations later scientists
+could illustrate the permanence or the variability of important
+elements. They also discovered the so-called "trepidation" or apparent
+shifting of the fixed stars to explain which they added another sphere
+to Ptolemy's eight. Early in the sixth century Uranus translated
+Aristotle's works into Syrian, and this later was translated into
+Arabic.[24] Albategnius[25] (c. 850-829 [Transcriber's Note: 929]
+A.D.), the Arabian prince who was the greatest of all their
+astronomers, made his observations from Aracte and Damascus, checking
+up and in some cases amending Ptolemy's results.[26]
+
+[Footnote 23: Whewell: I, 239.]
+
+[Footnote 24: Whewell: I, 294.]
+
+[Footnote 25: Berry: 79.]
+
+[Footnote 26: His book _De Motu Stellarum_, translated into Latin by
+Plato Tiburtinus (fl. 1116) was published at Nuremberg (1557) by
+Melancthon with annotations by Regiomontanus. _Ency. Brit._ 11th.
+Edit.]
+
+Then the center of astronomical development shifted from Syria to
+Spain and mainly through this channel passed on into Western Europe.
+The scientific fame of Alphonse X of Castile (1252-1284 A.D.) called
+the Wise, rests chiefly upon his encouragement of astronomy. With his
+support the Alfonsine Tables were calculated. He is said[27] to have
+summoned fifty learned men from Toledo, Cordova and Paris to translate
+into Spanish the works of Ptolemy and other philosophers. Under his
+patronage the University of Salamanca developed rapidly to become
+within two hundred years one of the four great universities of
+Europe[28]--a center for students from all over Europe and the
+headquarters for new thought, where Columbus was sheltered,[29] and
+later the Copernican system was accepted and publicly taught at a time
+when Galileo's views were suppressed.[30]
+
+[Footnote 27: Vaughan: I, 281.]
+
+[Footnote 28: Graux: 318.]
+
+[Footnote 29: Graux: 319.]
+
+[Footnote 30: Rashdall: II, pt. I, 77.]
+
+Popular interest in astronomy was evidently aroused, for Sacrobosco
+(to give John Holywood[31] his better known Latin name) a Scotch
+professor at the Sorbonne in Paris in the 13th century, published a
+small treatise _De Sphaeri Mundo_ that was immensely popular for
+centuries,[32] though it was practically only an abstract of the
+_Almagest_. Whewell[33] tells of a French poem of the time of Edward I
+entitled _Ymage du Monde_, which gave the Ptolemaic view and was
+illustrated in the manuscript in the University of Cambridge with a
+picture of the spherical earth with men upright on it at every point,
+dropping balls down perforations in the earth to illustrate the
+tendency of all things toward the center. Of the same period (13th
+century) is an Arabian compilation in which there is a reference to
+another work, the book of Hammarmunah the Old, stating that "the earth
+turns upon itself in the form of a circle, and that some are on top,
+the others below ... and there are countries in which it is constantly
+day or in which at least the night continues only some instants."[34]
+Apparently, however, such advanced views were of no influence, and the
+Ptolemaic theory remained unshaken down to the close of the 15th
+century.
+
+[Footnote 31: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._]
+
+[Footnote 32: MSS. of it are extremely numerous. It was the second
+astronomical book to be printed, the first edition appearing at
+Ferrara in 1472. 65 editions appeared before 1647. It was translated
+into Italian, French, German, and Spanish, and had many commentators.
+_Dict. of Nat. Biog._]
+
+[Footnote 33: Whewell: I, 277.]
+
+[Footnote 34: Blavatski: II, 29, note.]
+
+Aside from the adequacy of this explanation of the universe for the
+times, the attitude of the Church Fathers on the matter was to a
+large degree responsible for this acquiescence. Early in the first
+century A.D., Philo Judaeus[35] emphasized the minor importance of
+visible objects compared with intellectual matters,--a foundation
+stone in the Church's theory of an homocentric universe. Clement of
+Alexandria (c. 150 A.D.) calls the heavens solid since what is solid
+is capable of being perceived by the senses.[36] Origen (c. 185-c.
+254.) has recourse to the Holy Scriptures to support his notion that
+the sun, moon, and stars are living beings obeying God's commands.[37]
+Then Lactantius thunders against those who discuss the universe as
+comparable to people discussing "the character of a city they have
+never seen, and whose name only they know." "Such matters cannot be
+found out by inquiry."[38] The existence of the antipodes and the
+rotundity of the earth are "marvelous fictions," and philosophers are
+"defending one absurd opinion by another"[39] when in explanation why
+bodies would not fall off a spherical earth, they claim these are
+borne to the center.
+
+[Footnote 35: Philo Judaeus: _Quis Rerum Divinarum Haeres._ (IV, 7).]
+
+[Footnote 36: Clement of Alexandria: _Stromatum_, Lib. V, c. 14, (III,
+67).]
+
+[Footnote 37: Origen: _De Principiis_, Lib. I, c. 7, (XI, 171).]
+
+[Footnote 38: Lactantius: _Divinarum Institutionum_, Lib. III, c. 3
+(VI, 355).]
+
+[Footnote 39: Ibid: Lib. III, c. 24, (VI, 425-428).]
+
+How clearly even this brief review illustrates what Henry Osborn
+Taylor calls[40] the fundamental principles of patristic faith: that
+the will of God is the one cause of all things (voluntate Dei
+immobilis manet et stat in saeculum terra.[41] Ambrose: _Hexaemeron_.)
+and that this will is unsearchable. He further points out that
+Augustine's and Ambrose's sole interest in natural fact is as
+"confirmatory evidence of Scriptural truth." The great Augustine
+therefore denies the existence of antipodes since they could not be
+peopled by Adam's children.[42] He indifferently remarks
+elsewhere:[43] "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a
+sphere enclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on
+either side?" Augustine does, however, dispute the claims of
+astrologers accurately to foretell the future by the stars, since the
+fates of twins or those born at the same moment are so diverse.[44]
+
+[Footnote 40: Taylor: _Mediaeval Mind_, I, 74.]
+
+[Footnote 41: By the will of God the earth remains motionless and
+stands throughout the age.]
+
+[Footnote 42: Augustine: _De Civitate Dei_, Lib. XVI, c. 9, (41, p.
+437).]
+
+[Footnote 43: Augustine: _De Genesi_, II, c. 9, (v. 34, p. 270).
+(White's translation).]
+
+[Footnote 44: Augustine: _Civitate Dei_, Lib. V, c. 5, (v. 41, p.
+145).]
+
+Philastrius (d. before 397 A.D.) dealing with various heresies,
+denounces those who do not believe the stars are fixed in the heavens
+as "participants in the vanity of pagans and the foolish opinions of
+philosophers," and refers to the widespread idea of the part the
+angels play in guiding and impelling the heavenly bodies in their
+courses.[45]
+
+[Footnote 45: Philastrius: _De Haeresibus_, c. 133, (v. 12, p. 1264).]
+
+It would take a brave man to face such attitudes of scornful
+indifference on the one hand and denunciation on the other, in support
+of a theory the Church considered heretical.
+
+Meanwhile the Church was developing the homocentric notion which
+would, of course, presuppose the central position in the universe for
+man's abiding place. In the pseudo-Dionysius[46] is an elaborately
+worked out hierarchy of the beings in the universe that became the
+accepted plan of later centuries, best known to modern times through
+Dante's blending of it with the Ptolemaic theory in the _Divine
+Comedy_.[47] Isidore of Seville taught that the universe was created
+to serve man's purposes,[48] and Peter Lombard (12th cent.) sums up
+the situation in the definite statement that man was placed at the
+center of the universe to be served by that universe and in turn
+himself to serve God.[49] Supported by the mighty Thomas Aquinas[50]
+this became a fundamental Church doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 46: Pseudo-Dionysius: _De Coelesti Ierarchia_, (v. 122, p.
+10354).]
+
+[Footnote 47: Milman: VIII, p. 228-9. See the _Paradiso_.]
+
+[Footnote 48: Isidore of Seville: _De Ordine Creaturarum_, c. 5, sec.
+3, (v. 83, p. 923).]
+
+[Footnote 49: Lombard: _Sententia_, Bk. II, Dist. I, sec. 8, (v. 192,
+p. 655).]
+
+[Footnote 50: Aquinas: _Summa Theologica_, pt. I, qu. 70, art. 2.
+(_Op. Om. Caietani_, V, 179).]
+
+An adequate explanation of the universe existed. Aristotle, Augustine,
+and the other great authorities of the Middle Ages, all upheld the
+conception of a central earth encircled by the seven planetary spheres
+and by the all embracing starry firmament. In view of the phrases used
+in the Bible about the heavens, and in view of the formation of
+fundamental theological doctrines based on this supposition by the
+Church Fathers, is it surprising that any other than a geocentric
+theory seemed untenable, to be dismissed with a smile when not
+denounced as heretical? Small wonder is it, in the absence of the
+present day mechanical devices for the exact measurement of time and
+space as aids to observation, that the Ptolemaic, or geocentric,
+theory of the universe endured through centuries as it did, upheld by
+the authority both of the Church and, in essence at least, by the
+great philosophers whose works constituted the teachings of the
+schools.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+COPERNICUS AND HIS TIMES.
+
+
+During these centuries, one notable scholar at least stood forth in
+open hostility to the slavish devotion to Aristotle's writings and
+with hearty appreciation for the greater scientific accuracy of
+"infidel philosophers among the Arabians, Hebrews and Greeks."[51] In
+his _Opus Tertium_ (1267), Roger Bacon also pointed out how inaccurate
+were the astronomical tables used by the Church, for in 1267,
+according to these tables "Christians will fast the whole week
+following the true Easter, and will eat flesh instead of fasting at
+Quadragesima for a week--which is absurd," and thus Christians are
+made foolish in the eyes of the heathen.[52] Even the rustic, he
+added, can observe the phases of the moon occurring a week ahead of
+the date set by the calendar.[53] Bacon's protests were unheeded,
+however, and the Church continued using the old tables which grew
+increasingly inaccurate with each year. Pope Sixtus IV sought to
+reform the calendar two centuries later with the aid of Regiomontanus,
+then the greatest astronomer in Europe (1475);[54] the Lateran Council
+appealed to Copernicus for help (1514), but little could be done, as
+Copernicus replied, till the sun's and the moon's positions had been
+observed far more precisely;[55] and the modern scientific calendar
+was not adopted until 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.
+
+[Footnote 51: Roger Bacon: _Opus Tertium_, 295, 30-31.]
+
+[Footnote 52: Ibid: 289.]
+
+[Footnote 53: Ibid: 282.]
+
+[Footnote 54: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 365.]
+
+[Footnote 55: Prowe: II, 67-70.]
+
+What was the state of astronomy in the century of Copernicus's birth?
+Regiomontanus--to use Johann Mueller's Latin name--his teacher Puerbach,
+and the great cardinal Nicolas of Cues were the leading astronomers of
+this fifteenth century. Puerbach[56] (1432-1462) died before he had
+fulfilled the promise of his youth, leaving his _Epitome of Ptolemy's
+Almagest_ to be completed by his greater pupil. In his _Theorica
+Planetarum_ (1460) Puerbach sought to explain the motions of the
+planets by placing each planet between the walls of two curved
+surfaces with just sufficient space in which the planet could move. As
+M. Delambre remarked:[57] "These walls might aid the understanding,
+but one must suppose them transparent; and even if they guided the
+planet as was their purpose, they hindered the movement of the comets.
+Therefore they had to be abandoned, and in our own modern physics they
+are absolutely superfluous; they have even been rather harmful, since
+they interfered with the slight irregularities caused by the force of
+attraction in planetary movements which observations have disclosed."
+This scheme gives some indication of the elaborate devices scholars
+evolved in order to cope with the increasing number of seeming
+irregularities observed in "the heavens," and perhaps it makes clearer
+why Copernicus was so dissatisfied with the astronomical hypothesis of
+his day, and longed for some simpler, more harmonious explanation.
+
+[Footnote 56: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 262-272.]
+
+[Footnote 57: Delambre: _Moyen Age_, 272.]
+
+Regiomontanus[58] (1436-1476) after Puerbach's death, continued his
+work, and his astronomical tables (pub. 1475) were in general use
+throughout Europe till superseded by the vastly more accurate
+Copernican Tables a century later. It has been said[59] that his fame
+inspired Copernicus (born three years before the other's death in
+1476) to become as great an astronomer. M. Delambre hails him as the
+wisest astronomer Europe had yet produced[60] and certainly his renown
+was approached only by that of the great Cardinal.
+
+[Footnote 58: It has been claimed that Regiomontanus knew of the
+earth's motion around the sun a hundred years before Copernicus; but a
+German writer has definitely disproved this claim by tracing it to its
+source in Schoener's _Opusculum Geographicum_ (1553) which states only
+that he believed in the earth's axial rotation. Ziegler: 62.]
+
+[Footnote 59: Ibid: 62.]
+
+[Footnote 60: Delambre: _Op. cit._: 365.]
+
+Both Janssen,[61] the Catholic historian, and Father Hagen[62] of the
+Vatican Observatory, together with many other Catholic writers, claim
+that a hundred years before Copernicus, Cardinal Nicolas Cusanus[63]
+(c. 1400-1464) had the courage and independence to uphold the theory
+of the earth's motion and its rotation on its axis. As Father Hagen
+remarked: "Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would
+probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental
+work." But the Cardinal stated these views of the earth's motions in a
+mystical, hypothetical way which seems to justify the marginal heading
+"Paradox" (in the edition of 1565).[64] And unfortunately for these
+writers, the Jesuit father, Riccioli, the official spokesman of that
+order in the 17th century after Galileo's condemnation, speaking of
+this paradox, called attention, also, to a passage in one of the
+Cardinal's sermons as indicating that the latter had perhaps
+"forgotten himself" in the _De Docta Ignorantia_, or that this paradox
+"was repugnant to him, or that he had thought better of it."[65] The
+passage he referred to is as follows: "Prayer is more powerful than
+all created things. Although angels, or some kind of beings, move the
+spheres, the Sun and the stars; prayer is more powerful than they are,
+since it impedes motion, as when the prayer of Joshua made the Sun
+stand still."[66] This may explain why Copernicus apparently
+disregarded the Cardinal's paradox, for he made no reference to it in
+his book; and the statement itself, to judge by the absence of
+contemporary comment, aroused no interest at the time. But of late
+years, the Cardinal's position as stated in the _De Docta Ignorantia_
+has been repeatedly cited as an instance of the Church's friendly
+attitude toward scientific thought,[67] to show that Galileo's
+condemnation was due chiefly to his "contumacy and disobedience."
+
+[Footnote 61: Janssen: _Hist. of Ger._, I, 5.]
+
+[Footnote 62: _Cath. Ency._: "Cusanus."]
+
+[Footnote 63: From Cues near Treves.]
+
+[Footnote 64: Cusanus: _De Docta Ignorantia_, Bk. II, c. 11-12:
+"Centrum igitur mundi, coincideret cum circumferentiam, nam si centrum
+haberet et circumferentiam, et sic intra se haberet suum initium et
+finem et esset ad aliquid aliud ipse mundus terminatus, et extra
+mundum esset aluid et locus, quae omnia veritate carent. Cum igitur non
+sit possibile, mundum claudi intra centrum corporale et
+circumferentiam, non intelligitur mundus, cuius centrum et
+circumferentia sunt Deus: et cum hic non sit mundus infinitus, tamen
+non potest concipi finitus, cum terminis careat, intra quos claudatur.
+Terra igitur, quae centrum esse nequit, motu omni carere non potest,
+nam eam moveri taliter etiam necesse est, quod per infinitum minus
+moveri posset. Sicut igitur terra non est centram mundi.... Unde licet
+terra quasi stella sit, propinquior polo centrali, tamen movetur, et
+non describit minimum circulum in motu, ut est ostensum.... Terrae
+igitur figura est mobilis et sphaerica et eius motus circularis, sed
+perfectior esse posset. Et quia maximum in perfectionibus motibus, et
+figuris in mundo non est, ut ex iam dictis patent: tunc non est verum
+quod terra ista sit vilissima et infima, nam quamvis videatur
+centralior, quo'ad mundum, est tamen etiam, eadem ratione polo
+propinquior, ut est dictum." (pp. 38-39).]
+
+[Footnote 65: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._, II, 292.]
+
+[Footnote 66: Cusanus: _Opera_, 549: Excitationum, Lib. VII, ex
+sermone: _Debitores sumus_: "Est enim oratio, omnibus creaturis
+potentior. Nam angeli seu intelligentiae, movent orbes, Solem et
+stellas: sed oratio potentior, quia impedit motum, sicut oratio Josuae,
+fecit sistere Solem."]
+
+[Footnote 67: Di Bruno: 284, 286a; Walsh: _An Early Allusion_, 2-3.]
+
+Copernicus[68] himself was born in Thorn on February 19, 1473,[69]
+seven years after that Hansa town founded by the Teutonic Order in
+1231 had come under the sway of the king of Poland by the Second Peace
+of Thorn.[70] His father,[71] Niklas Koppernigk, was a wholesale
+merchant of Cracow who had removed to Thorn before 1458, married
+Barbara Watzelrode of an old patrician Thorn family, and there had
+served as town councillor for nineteen years until his death in
+1483.[72] Thereupon his mother's brother, Lucas Watzelrode, later
+bishop of Ermeland, became his guardian, benefactor and close
+friend.[73]
+
+[Footnote 68: _Nicolaus Coppernicus_ (Berlin, 1883-4; 3 vol.; Pt. I,
+Biography, Pt. II, Sources), by Dr. Leopold Prowe gives an exhaustive
+account of all the known details in regard to Copernicus collected
+from earlier biographers and tested most painstakingly by the
+documentary evidence Dr. Prowe and his fellow-workers unearthed during
+a lifetime devoted to this subject. (_Allgemeine Deutsche
+Biographie._) The manuscript authority Dr. Prowe cites (Prowe: I,
+19-27 and footnotes), requires the double p in Copernicus's name, as
+Copernicus himself invariably used the two p's in the Latinized form
+_Coppernic_ without the termination _us_, and usually when this
+termination was added. Also official records and the letters from his
+friends usually give the double p; though the name is found in many
+variants--Koppernig, Copperinck, etc. His signatures in his books, his
+name in the letter he published in 1509, and the Latin form of it used
+by his friends all bear testimony to his use of the double p. But
+custom has for so many centuries sanctioned the simpler spelling, that
+it seems unwise not to conform in this instance to the time-honored
+usage.]
+
+[Footnote 69: Prowe: I, 85.]
+
+[Footnote 70: _Ency. Brit._: "Thorn."]
+
+[Footnote 71: Prowe: I, 47-53.]
+
+[Footnote 72: These facts would seem to justify the Poles today in
+claiming Copernicus as their fellow-countryman by right of his
+father's nationality and that of his native city. Dr. Prowe, however,
+claims him as a "Prussian" both because of his long residence in the
+Prussian-Polish bishopric of Ermeland, and because of Copernicus's own
+reference to Prussia as "unser lieber Vaterland." (Prowe: II, 197.)]
+
+[Footnote 73: Prowe: I, 73-82.]
+
+After the elementary training in the Thorn school,[74] the lad entered
+the university at Cracow, his father's former home, where he studied
+under the faculty of arts from 1491-1494.[75] Nowhere else north of
+the Alps at this time were mathematics and astronomy in better
+standing than at this university.[76] Sixteen teachers taught these
+subjects there during the years of Copernicus's stay, but no record
+exists of his work under any of them.[77] That he must have studied
+these two sciences there, however, is proved by Rheticus's remark in
+the _Narratio Prima_[78] that Copernicus, after leaving Cracow, went
+to Bologna to work with Dominicus Maria di Novara "non tarn discipulus
+quam adjutor." He left Cracow without receiving a degree,[79] returned
+to Thorn in 1494 when he and his family decided he should enter the
+Church after first studying in Italy.[80] Consequently he crossed the
+Alps in 1496 and was that winter matriculated at Bologna in the
+"German nation."[81] The following summer he received word of his
+appointment to fill a vacancy among the canons of the cathedral
+chapter at Ermeland where his uncle had been bishop since 1489.[82] He
+remained in Italy, however, about ten years altogether, studying civil
+law at Bologna, and canon law and medicine at Padua,[83] yet receiving
+his degree as doctor of canon law from the university of Ferrara in
+1503.[84] He was also in Rome for several months during the Jubilee
+year, 1500.
+
+[Footnote 74: Ibid: I, 111.]
+
+[Footnote 75: Ibid: I, 124-129.]
+
+[Footnote 76: Ibid: I, 137.]
+
+[Footnote 77: Ibid: I, 141-143.]
+
+[Footnote 78: Rheticus: _Narratio Prima_, 448 (Thorn edit.).]
+
+[Footnote 79: Prowe: I, 154.]
+
+[Footnote 80: Ibid: I, 169.]
+
+[Footnote 81: Ibid: I, 174.]
+
+[Footnote 82: Ibid: I, 175. This insured him an annual income which
+amounted to a sum equalling about $2250 today. Later he received a
+sinecure appointment besides at Breslau. (Holden in _Pop. Sci._,
+111.)]
+
+[Footnote 83: Prowe: I, 224.]
+
+[Footnote 84: Ibid: I, 308.]
+
+At this period the professor of astronomy at Bologna was the famous
+teacher Dominicus Maria di Novara (1454-1504), a man "ingenio et animo
+liber" who dared to attack the immutability of the Ptolemaic system,
+since his own observations, especially of the Pole Star, differed by a
+degree and more from the traditional ones.[85] He dared to criticise
+the long accepted system and to emphasize the Pythagorean notion of
+the underlying harmony and simplicity in nature[86]; and from him
+Copernicus may have acquired these ideas, for whether they lived
+together or not in Bologna, they were closely associated. It was here,
+too, that Copernicus began his study of Greek which later was to be
+the means[87] of encouraging him in his own theorizing by acquainting
+him with the ancients who had thought along similar lines.
+
+[Footnote 85: Ibid: I, 240 and note. Little is known about him today,
+except that he was primarily an observer, and was highly esteemed by
+his immediate successors; see Gilbert: _De Magnete_.]
+
+[Footnote 86: Clerke in _Ency. Brit._, "Novara."]
+
+[Footnote 87: Prowe: I, 249.]
+
+In the spring of the year (1501) following his visit to Rome,[88]
+Copernicus returned to the Chapter at Frauenburg to get further leave
+of absence to study medicine at the University of Padua.[89] Whether
+he received a degree at Padua or not and how long he stayed there are
+uncertain points.[90] He was back in Ermeland early in 1506.
+
+[Footnote 88: Prowe: I, 279.]
+
+[Footnote 89: Ibid, 294.]
+
+[Footnote 90: Ibid: I, 319.]
+
+His student days were ended. And now for many years he led a very
+active life, first as companion and assistant to his uncle the Bishop,
+with whom he stayed at Schloss Heilsberg till after the Bishop's death
+in 1512; then as one of the leading canons of the chapter at
+Frauenburg, where he lived most of the rest of his life.[91] As the
+chapter representative for five years (at intervals) he had oversight
+of the spiritual and temporal affairs of two large districts in the
+care of the chapter.[92] He went on various diplomatic and other
+missions to the King of Poland,[93] to Duke Albrecht of the Teutonic
+Order,[94] and to the councils of the German states.[95] He wrote a
+paper of considerable weight upon the much needed reform of the
+Prussian currency.[96] His skill as a physician was in demand not only
+in his immediate circle[97] but in adjoining countries, Duke Albrecht
+once summoning him to Koenigsberg to attend one of his courtiers.[98]
+He was a humanist as well as a Catholic Churchman, and though he did
+not approve of the Protestant Revolt, he favored reform and
+toleration.[99] Gassendi claims that he was also a painter, at least
+in his student days, and that he painted portraits well received by
+his contemporaries.[100] But his interest and skill in astronomy must
+have been recognized early in his life for in 1514 the committee of
+the Lateran Council in charge of the reform of the calendar summoned
+him to their aid.[101]
+
+[Footnote 91: Prowe: I, 335-380.]
+
+[Footnote 92: Ibid: II, 75-110, 116, 124.]
+
+[Footnote 93: Ibid: II, 204-8.]
+
+[Footnote 94: Ibid: II, 110.]
+
+[Footnote 95: Ibid: II, 144.]
+
+[Footnote 96: Ibid: II, 146.]
+
+[Footnote 97: Ibid: II, 293-319.]
+
+[Footnote 98: Ibid: II, 464-472.]
+
+[Footnote 99: Ibid: II, 170-187.]
+
+[Footnote 100: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 109.]
+
+[Footnote 101: Prowe: II, 67-70.]
+
+He was no cloistered monk devoting all his time to the study of the
+heavens, but a cultivated man of affairs, of recognized ability in
+business and statesmanship, and a leader among his fellow canons. His
+mathematical and astronomical pursuits were the occupations of his
+somewhat rare leisure moments, except perhaps during the six years
+with his uncle in the comparative freedom of the bishop's castle, and
+during the last ten or twelve years of his life, after his request for
+a coadjutor had resulted in lightening his duties. In his masterwork
+_De Revolutionibus_[102] there are recorded only 27 of his own
+astronomical observations, and these extend over the years from 1497
+to 1529. The first was made at Bologna, the second at Rome in 1500,
+and seven of the others at Frauenburg, where the rest were also
+probably made. It is believed the greater part of the _De
+Revolutionibus_ was written at Heilsburg[103] where Copernicus was
+free from his chapter duties, for as he himself says[104] in the
+Dedication to the Pope (dated 1543) his work had been formulated not
+merely nine years but for "more than three nines of years." It had not
+been neglected all this time, however, as the original MS. (now in the
+Prague Library) with its innumerable changes and corrections shows how
+continually he worked over it, altering and correcting the tables and
+verifying his statements.[105]
+
+[Footnote 102: Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, Thorn edit., 444. The
+last two words of the full title: _De Revolutionibus Orbium
+Coelestium_ are not on the original MS. and are believed to have
+been added by Osiander. Prowe: II, 541, note.]
+
+[Footnote 103: Ibid: II, 490-1.]
+
+[Footnote 104: Copernicus: Dedication, 4. (Thorn edit.)]
+
+[Footnote 105: Prowe: II, 503-508.]
+
+Copernicus was a philosopher.[106] He thought out a new explanation of
+the world machine with relatively little practical work of his
+own,[107] though we know he controlled his results by the accumulated
+observations of the ages.[108] His instruments were inadequate,
+inaccurate and out of date even in his time, for much better ones were
+then being made at Nuernberg[109]; and the cloudy climate of Ermeland
+as well as his own active career prevented him from the
+long-continued, painstaking observing, which men like Tycho Brahe were
+to carry on later. Despite such handicaps, because of his
+dissatisfaction with the complexities and intricacies of the Ptolemaic
+system and because of his conviction that the laws of nature were
+simple and harmonious, Copernicus searched the writings of the classic
+philosophers, as he himself tells us,[110] to see what other
+explanation of the universe had been suggested. "And I found first in
+Cicero that a certain Nicetas had thought the earth moved. Later in
+Plutarch I found certain others had been of the same opinion." He
+quoted the Greek referring to Philolaus the Pythagorean, Heraclides of
+Pontus, and Ecphantes the Pythagorean.[111] As a result he began to
+consider the mobility of the earth and found that such an explanation
+seemingly solved many astronomical problems with a simplicity and a
+harmony utterly lacking in the old traditional scheme. Unaided by a
+telescope, he worked out in part the right theory of the universe and
+for the first time in history placed all the then known planets in
+their true positions with the sun at the center. He claimed that the
+earth turns on its axis as it travels around the sun, and careens
+slowly as it goes, thus by these three motions explaining many of the
+apparent movements of the sun and the planets. He retained,[112]
+however, the immobile heaven of the fixed stars (though vastly farther
+off in order to account for the non-observance of any stellar
+parallax[113]), the "perfect" and therefore circular orbits of the
+planets, certain of the old eccentrics, and 34 new epicycles in place
+of all the old ones which he had cast aside.[114] He accepted the
+false notion of trepidation enunciated by the Arabs in the 9th century
+and later overthrown by Tycho Brahe.[115] His calculations were
+weak.[116] But his great book is a sane and modern work in an age of
+astrology and superstition.[117] His theory is a triumph of reason and
+imagination and with its almost complete independence of authority is
+perhaps as original a work as an human being may be expected to
+produce.
+
+[Footnote 106: Ibid: II, 64.]
+
+[Footnote 107: Ibid: II, 58-9.]
+
+[Footnote 108: Rheticus: _Narratio Prima_.]
+
+[Footnote 109: Prowe: II, 56.]
+
+[Footnote 110: Copernicus: Dedication, 5-6. See Appendix B.]
+
+[Footnote 111: For a translation of this dedication in full, see
+Appendix B.
+
+In the original MS. occurs a reference (struck out) to Aristarchus of
+Samos as holding the theory of the earth's motion. (Prowe: II, 507,
+note.) The finding of this passage proves that Copernicus had at least
+heard of Aristarchus, but his apparent indifference is the more
+strange since an account of his teaching occurs in the same book of
+Plutarch from which Copernicus learned about Philolaus. But the chief
+source of our knowledge about Aristarchus is through Archimedes, and
+the editio princeps of his works did not appear till 1544, a year
+after the death of Copernicus. C.R. Eastman in _Pop. Sci._ 68:325.]
+
+[Footnote 112: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._ pp. xi-xii.]
+
+[Footnote 113: As the earth moves, the position in the heavens of a
+fixed star seen from the earth should differ slightly from its
+position observed six months later when the earth is on the opposite
+side of its orbit. The distance to the fixed stars is so vast,
+however, that this final proof of the earth's motion was not attained
+till 1838 when Bessel (1784-1846) observed stellar parallax from
+Koenigsberg. Berry: 123-24.]
+
+[Footnote 114: _Commentariolus_ in Prowe: III, 202.]
+
+[Footnote 115: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 117.]
+
+[Footnote 116: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._, p. xi.]
+
+[Footnote 117: Snyder: 165.]
+
+Copernicus was extremely reluctant to publish his book because of the
+misunderstandings and malicious attacks it would unquestionably
+arouse.[118] Possibly, too, he was thinking of the hostility already
+existing between himself and his Bishop, Dantiscus,[119] whom he did
+not wish to antagonize further. But his devoted pupil and friend,
+Rheticus, aided by Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm and a lifelong
+friend, at length (1542) persuaded him.[120] So he entrusted the
+matter to Giese who passed it on to Rheticus, then connected with the
+University at Wittenberg as professor of mathematics.[121] Rheticus,
+securing leave of absence from Melancthon his superior, went to
+Nuernberg to supervise the printing.[122] This was done by Petrejus.
+Upon his return to Wittenberg, Rheticus left in charge Johann Schoener,
+a famous mathematician and astronomer, and Andreas Osiander, a
+Lutheran preacher interested in astronomy. The printed book[123] was
+placed in Copernicus's hands at Frauenburg on May 24th, 1543, as he
+lay dying of paralysis.[124]
+
+[Footnote 118: Copernicus: Dedication, 3.]
+
+[Footnote 119: Prowe: II, 362-7.]
+
+[Footnote 120: Ibid: II, 406.]
+
+[Footnote 121: Ibid: II, 501.]
+
+[Footnote 122: Ibid: II, 517-20.]
+
+[Footnote 123: Four other editions have since appeared; at Basel,
+1566, Amsterdam 1617, Warsaw 1847, and Thorn 1873. For further
+details, see Prowe: II, 543-7, and Thorn edition pp. xii-xx. The
+edition cited in this study is the Thorn one of 1873.]
+
+[Footnote 124: Prowe: II, 553-4.]
+
+Copernicus passed away that day in ignorance that his life's work
+appeared before the world not as a truth but as an hypothesis; for
+there had been inserted an anonymous preface "ad lectorem de
+hypothesibus huius opera" stating this was but another hypothesis for
+the greater convenience of astronomers.[125] "Neque enim necesse est
+eas hypotheses esse veras, imo ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufficit hoc
+unum, si calculum observationibus congruentem exhibeant."[126] For
+years Copernicus was thought to have written this preface to disarm
+criticism. Kepler sixty years later (1601) called attention to this
+error,[127] and quoted Osiander's letters to Copernicus and to
+Rheticus of May, 1541, suggesting that the system be called an
+hypothesis to avert attacks by theologians and Aristotelians. He
+claimed that Osiander had written the preface; but Kepler's article
+never was finished and remained unpublished till 1858.[128] Giese and
+Rheticus of course knew that the preface falsified Copernicus's work,
+and Giese, highly indignant at the "impiety" of the printer (who he
+thought had written it to save himself from blame) wrote Rheticus
+urging him to write another "praefatiunculus" purging the book of this
+falsehood.[129] This letter is dated July 26, 1543, and the book had
+appeared in April. Apparently nothing was done and the preface was
+accepted without further challenge.
+
+[Footnote 125: Copernicus: _De Revolutionibus_, I. "To the reader on
+the hypotheses of this book."]
+
+[Footnote 126: "For it is not necessary that these hypotheses be true,
+nor even probable, but this alone is sufficient, if they show
+reasoning fitting the observations."]
+
+[Footnote 127: Kepler: _Apologia Tychonis contra Ursum_ in _Op. Om._:
+I, 244-246.]
+
+[Footnote 128: Prowe: II, 251, note.]
+
+[Footnote 129: Ibid: II, 537-9.]
+
+It remains to ask whether people other than Copernicus's intimates had
+known of his theory before 1543. Peucer, Melancthon's nephew, declared
+Copernicus was famous by 1525,[130] and the invitation from the
+Lateran Council committee indicates his renown as early as 1514. In
+Vienna in 1873[131] there was found a _Commentariolus_, or summary of
+his great work,[132] written by Copernicus for the scholars friendly
+to him. It was probably written soon after 1530, and gives a full
+statement of his views following a series of seven axioms or theses
+summing up the new theory. This little book probably occasioned the
+order from Pope Clement VII in 1533 to Widmanstadt to report to him on
+the new scheme.[133] This Widmanstadt did in the papal gardens before
+the Pope with several of the cardinals and bishops, and was presented
+with a book as his reward.
+
+[Footnote 130: Ibid: II, 273.]
+
+[Footnote 131: Ibid: II, 286-7.]
+
+[Footnote 132: A second copy was found at Upsala shortly afterwards,
+though for centuries its existence was unknown save for two slight
+references to such a book, one by Gemma Frisius, the other by Tycho
+Brahe. Prowe: II, 284.]
+
+[Footnote 133: Ibid: II, 273-4.]
+
+In 1536, the Cardinal Bishop of Capua, Nicolas von Schoenberg,
+apparently with the intent to pave the way for the theory at Rome,
+wrote for a report of it.[134] It is not known whether the report was
+sent, and the cardinal died the following year. But that Copernicus
+was pleased by this recognition is evident from the prominence he gave
+to the cardinal's letter, as he printed it in his book at the
+beginning, even before the dedication to the Pope.
+
+[Footnote 134: Prowe: II, 274, note.]
+
+The most widely circulated account at this time, however, was the
+_Narratio Prima_, a letter from Georg Joachim of Rhaetia (better known
+as Rheticus), written in October, 1539, from Frauenburg to Johann
+Schoener at Nuernberg.[135] Rheticus,[136] at twenty-five years of age
+professor of mathematics at Wittenberg, had gone uninvited to
+Frauenburg early that summer to visit Copernicus and learn for himself
+more in detail about this new system. This was rather a daring
+undertaking, for not only were Luther and Melancthon outspoken in
+their condemnation of Copernicus, but Rheticus was going from
+Wittenberg, the headquarters of the Lutheran heresy, into the
+bishopric of Ermeland where to the Bishop and the King his overlord,
+the very name of Luther was anathema. Nothing daunted, Rheticus
+departed for Frauenberg and could not speak too highly of the cordial
+welcome he received from the old astronomer. He came for a few weeks,
+and remained two years to return to Wittenberg as an avowed believer
+in the system and its first teacher and promulgator. Not only did he
+write the _Narratio Prima_ and an _Encomium Borussae_, both extolling
+Copernicus, but what is more important, he succeeded in persuading him
+to allow the publication of the _De Revolutionibus_. Rheticus returned
+to his post in 1541, to resign it the next year and become Dean of the
+Faculty of Arts. In all probability the conflict was too intense
+between his new scientific beliefs and the statements required of him
+as professor of the old mathematics and astronomy.
+
+[Footnote 135: Prowe: II, 426-440.]
+
+[Footnote 136: Ibid: II, 387-405.]
+
+His colleague, Erasmus Reinhold, continued to teach astronomy there,
+though he, too, accepted the Copernican system.[137] He published a
+series of tables (_Tabulae Prutenicae_, 1551) based on the Copernican
+calculations to supersede the inaccurate ones by Regiomontanus; and
+these were in general use throughout Europe for the next seventy-odd
+years. As he himself declared, the series was based in its principles
+and fundamentals upon the observations of the famous Nicolaus
+Copernicus. The almanacs deduced from these calculations probably did
+more to bring the new system into general recognition and gradual
+acceptance than did the theoretical works.[138]
+
+[Footnote 137: Ibid: II, 391.]
+
+[Footnote 138: Holden in _Pop. Sci._, 119.]
+
+Opposition to the theory had not yet gathered serious headway. There
+is record[139] of a play poking fun at the system and its originator,
+written by the Elbing schoolmaster (a Dutch refugee from the
+Inquisition) and given in 1531 by the villagers at Elbing (3 miles
+from Frauenburg). Elbing and Ermeland were hostile to each other,
+Copernicus was well known in Elbing though probably from afar, for
+there seems to have been almost no personal intercourse between canons
+and people, and the spread of Luther's teachings had intensified the
+hostility of the villagers towards the Church and its representatives.
+But not until Giordano Bruno made the Copernican system the
+starting-point of his philosophy was the Roman Catholic Church
+seriously aroused to combat it. Possibly Osiander's preface turned
+opposition aside, and certainly the non-acceptance of the system as a
+whole by Tycho Brahe, the leading astronomer of Europe at that time,
+made people slow to consider it.
+
+[Footnote 139: Prowe: II, 233-244.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+THE LATER DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENTIFIC DEFENSE OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.
+
+
+Copernicus accomplished much, but even his genius could not far outrun
+the times in which he lived. When one realizes that not only all the
+astronomers before him, but he and his immediate successor, Tycho
+Brahe, made all their observations and calculations unaided by even
+the simplest telescope, by logarithms or by pendulum clocks for
+accurate measurement of time,[140] one marvels not at their errors,
+but at the greatness of their genius in rising above such
+difficulties. This lack of material aids makes the work of Tycho
+Brahe,[141] accounted one of the greatest observers that has ever
+lived,[142] as notable in its way perhaps as that of Copernicus.
+
+[Footnote 140: Burckhardt: 8.]
+
+[Footnote 141: The two standard lives of Tycho Brahe are the _Vita
+Tychonis Brahei_ by Gassendi (1655) till recently the sole source of
+information, and Dreyer's _Tycho Brahe_ (1890) based not only on
+Gassendi but on the documentary evidence disclosed by the researches
+of the 19th century. For Tycho's works I have used the _Opera Omnia_
+published at Frankfort in 1648. The Danish Royal Scientific Society
+has issued a reprint (1901) of the rare 1573 edition of the _De Nova
+Stella_.]
+
+[Footnote 142: Bridges: 206.]
+
+His life[143] was a somewhat romantic one. Born of noble family on
+December 14th, 1546, at Knudstrup in Denmark, Tyge Brahe, the second
+of ten children,[144] was early practically adopted by his father's
+brother. His family wished him to become a statesman and sent him in
+1559 to the university at Copenhagen to prepare for that career. A
+partial eclipse of the sun on August 21st, 1560 as foretold by the
+astronomers thrilled the lad and determined him to study a science
+that could foretell the future and so affect men's lives.[145] When he
+was sent to Leipsic with a tutor in 1562 to study law, he devoted his
+time and money to the study of mathematics and astronomy. Two years
+later when eighteen years of age, he resolved to perform anew the task
+of Hipparchos and Ptolemy and make a catalogue of the stars more
+accurate than theirs. His family hotly opposed these plans; and for
+six years he wandered through the German states, now at Wittenberg,
+now at Rostock (where he fought the duel in which he lost part of his
+nose and had to have it replaced by one of gold and silver)[146] or at
+Augsburg--everywhere working on his chosen subjects. But upon his
+return to Denmark (1570) he spent two years on chemistry and medicine,
+till the startling appearance of the New Star in the constellation of
+Cassiopaea (November, 1572) recalled him to what became his life
+work.[147]
+
+[Footnote 143: Dreyer: 11-84.]
+
+[Footnote 144: Gassendi: 2.]
+
+[Footnote 145: Dreyer: 13.]
+
+[Footnote 146: Gassendi: 9-10.]
+
+[Footnote 147: Dreyer: 38-44.]
+
+Through the interest and favor of King Frederick II, he was given the
+island of Hveen near Elsinore, with money to build an observatory and
+the pledge of an annual income from the state treasury for his
+support.[148] There at Uraniborg from 1576 to 1597 he and his pupils
+made the great catalogue of the stars, and studied comets and the
+moon. When he was forced to leave Hveen by the hostility and the
+economical tendencies of the young king,[149] after two years of
+wandering he accepted the invitation of the Emperor Rudolphus and
+established himself at Prague in Bohemia. Among his assistants at
+Prague was young Johann Kepler who till Tycho's death (on October 24,
+1601) was his chief helper for twenty months, and who afterwards
+completed his observations, publishing the results in the Rudolphine
+Tables of 1627.
+
+[Footnote 148: Ibid: 84.]
+
+[Footnote 149: Ibid: 234-5.]
+
+This "Phoenix among Astronomers"--as Kepler calls him,[150]--was the
+father of modern practical astronomy.[151] He also propounded a third
+system of the universe, a compromise between the Ptolemaic and the
+Copernican. In this the Tychonic system,[152] the earth is motionless
+and is the center of the orbits of the sun, the moon, and the sphere
+of the fixed stars, while the sun is the center of the orbits of the
+five planets.[153] Mercury and Venus move in orbits with radii shorter
+than the sun's radius, and the other three planets include the earth
+within their circuits. This system was in harmony with the Bible and
+accounted as satisfactorily by geometry as either of the other two
+systems for the observed phenomena.[154] To Tycho Brahe, the Ptolemaic
+system was too complex,[155] and the Copernican absurd, the latter
+because to account for the absence of stellar parallax it left vacant
+and purposeless a vast space between Saturn and the sphere of the
+fixed stars,[156] and because Tycho's observations did not show any
+trace of the stellar parallax that must exist if the earth moves.[157]
+
+[Footnote 150: Kepler: _Tabulae Rudolphinae_. Title page.]
+
+[Footnote 151: Dreyer: 317-363.]
+
+[Footnote 152: As stated in his Book on the Comet of 1577 (pub.
+1588).]
+
+[Footnote 153: Dreyer: 168-9.]
+
+[Footnote 154: Schiaparelli in Snyder: 165.]
+
+[Footnote 155: Brahe: _Op. Om._, pt. I, p. 337.]
+
+[Footnote 156: Ibid: 409-410.]
+
+[Footnote 157: The Tychonic system has supporters to this day. See
+chap. viii.]
+
+Though Tycho thus rejected the Copernican theory, his own proved to be
+the stepping stone toward the one he rejected,[158] for by it and by
+his study of comets he completely destroyed the ideas of solid
+crystalline spheres to the discredit of the scholastics; and his
+promulgation of a third theory of the universe helped to diminish
+men's confidence in authority and to stimulate independent thinking.
+
+[Footnote 158: Dreyer: 181.]
+
+Copernicus worked out his system by mathematics with but slight aid
+from his own observations. It was a theory not yet proven true. Tycho
+Brahe, though denying its validity, contributed in his mass of
+painstaking, accurate observations the raw material of facts to be
+worked up by Kepler into the great laws of the planets attesting the
+fundamental truth of the Copernican hypothesis.
+
+Johann Kepler[159] earned for himself the proud title of "lawmaker for
+the universe" in defiance of his handicaps of ill-health, family
+troubles, and straitened finances.[160] Born in Weil, Wurtemberg,
+(December 27, 1571) of noble but indigent parents, he was a sickly
+child unable for years to attend school regularly. He finally left the
+monastery school in Mulifontane in 1586 and entered the university at
+Tuebingen to stay for four and a half years. There he studied
+philosophy, mathematics, and theology (he was a Lutheran) receiving
+the degree of Master of Arts in 1591. While at the university he
+studied under Maestlin, professor of mathematics and astronomy, and a
+believer in the Copernican theory. Because of Maestlin's teaching
+Kepler developed into a confirmed and enthusiastic adherent to the new
+doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 159: The authoritative biography is the _Vita_ by Frisch in
+vol. VIII, pp. 668-1028 of _Op. Om. Kep._]
+
+[Footnote 160: Frisch: VIII, 718. [Transcriber's Note: Missing
+footnote reference in original text has been added above in a logical
+place.]]
+
+In 1594 he reluctantly abandoned his favorite study, philosophy, and
+accepted a professorship in mathematics at Graetz in Styria. Two years
+later he published his first work: _Prodromus Dissertationum continens
+mysterium cosmographicum_ etc. (1596) in which he sought to prove that
+the Creator in arranging the universe had thought of the five regular
+bodies which can be inscribed in a sphere according to which He had
+regulated the order, the number and the proportions of the heavens and
+their movements.[161] The book is important not only because of its
+novelty, but because it gave the Copernican doctrine public
+explanation and defense.[162] Kepler himself valued it enough to
+reprint it with his _Harmonia Mundi_ twenty-five years later. And it
+won for him appreciative letters from various scientists, notably from
+Tycho Brahe and Galileo.[163]
+
+[Footnote 161: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._ 314-315.]
+
+[Footnote 162: Frisch: VIII, 999.]
+
+[Footnote 163: Ibid: VIII, 696.]
+
+As Kepler, a Lutheran, was having difficulties in Graetz, a Catholic
+city, he finally accepted Tycho's urgent invitation to come to
+Prague.[164] He came early in 1600, and after some adjustments had
+been made between the two,[165] he and his family settled with Tycho
+that autumn to remain till the latter's death the following November.
+Kepler himself then held the office of imperial mathematician by
+appointment for many years thereafter.[166]
+
+[Footnote 164: Ibid: VIII, 699-715.]
+
+[Footnote 165: Dreyer: 290-309.]
+
+[Footnote 166: Frisch: VIII, 715.]
+
+With the researches of Tycho's lifetime placed at his disposal, Kepler
+worked out two of his three great planetary laws from Tycho's
+observations of the planet Mars. Yet, as M. Bertrand remarks,[167] it
+was well for Kepler that his material was not too accurate or its
+variations (due to the then unmeasured force of attraction) might have
+hindered him from proving his laws; and luckily for him the earth's
+orbit is so nearly circular that in calculating the orbit of Mars to
+prove its elliptical form, he could base his work on the earth's orbit
+as a circle without vitiating his results for Mars.[168] That a
+planet's orbit is an ellipse and not the perfect circle was of course
+a triumph for the new science over the scholastics and Aristotelians.
+But they had yet to learn what held the planets in their courses.
+
+[Footnote 167: Bertrand: p. 870-1.]
+
+[Footnote 168: The two laws first appeared in 1609 in his _Physica
+Coelestis tradita commentarius de motu stellae martis_. (Frisch:
+VIII, 964.) The third he enunciated in his _Harmonia Mundi_, 1619.
+(Ibid: VIII, 1013-1017.)]
+
+From Kepler's student days under Maestlin when as the subject of his
+disputation he upheld the Copernican theory, to his death in 1630, he
+was a staunch supporter of the new teaching.[169] In his _Epitome
+Astronomiae Copernicanae_ (1616) he answered objections to it at
+length.[170] He took infinite pains to convert his friends to the new
+system. It was in vain that Tycho on his deathbed had urged Kepler to
+carry on their work not on the Copernican but on the Tychonic
+scheme.[171]
+
+[Footnote 169: "Cor et animam meam": Kepler's expression in regard to
+the Copernician theory. Ibid: VIII, 957.]
+
+[Footnote 170: Ibid: VIII, 838.]
+
+[Footnote 171: Ibid: VIII, 742.]
+
+Kepler had reasoned out according to physics the laws by which the
+planets moved.[172] In Italy at this same time Galileo with his optic
+tube (invented 1609) was demonstrating that Venus had phases even as
+Copernicus had declared, that Jupiter had satellites, and that the
+moon was scarred and roughened--ocular proof that the old system with
+its heavenly perfection in number (7 planets) and in appearance must
+be cast aside. Within a year after Galileo's death Newton was
+born[173] (January 4, 1643). His demonstration of the universal
+application of the law of gravitation (1687) was perhaps the climax in
+the development of the Copernican system. Complete and final proof
+was adding in the succeeding years by Roemer's (1644-1710) discovery
+of the velocity of light, by Bradley's (1693-1762) study of its
+aberration,[174] by Bessel's discovery of stellar parallax in
+1838,[175] and by Foucault's experimental demonstration of the earth's
+axial motion with a pendulum in 1851.[176]
+
+[Footnote 172: Kepler: _Op. Om._, I, 106: _Praefatio ad Lectorem_.]
+
+[Footnote 173: Berry: 210.]
+
+[Footnote 174: Berry: 265.]
+
+[Footnote 175: Ibid: 359.]
+
+[Footnote 176: Jacoby: 89.]
+
+
+
+
+PART TWO
+
+THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+OPINIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
+
+
+During the lifetime of Copernicus, Roman Catholic churchmen had been
+interested in his work: Cardinal Schoenberg wrote for full information,
+Widmanstadt reported on it to Pope Clement VII and Copernicus had
+dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.[177] But after his death, the
+Church authorities apparently paid little heed to his theory until
+some fifty years later when Giordano Bruno forced it upon their
+attention in his philosophical teachings. Osiander's preface had
+probably blinded their eyes to its implications.
+
+[Footnote 177: See before, p. 30.]
+
+The Protestant leaders were not quite so urbane in their attitude.
+While Copernicus was still alive, Luther is reported[178] to have
+referred to this "new astrologer" who sought to prove that the earth
+and not the firmament swung around, saying: "The fool will overturn
+the whole science of astronomy. But as the Holy Scriptures state,
+Joshua bade the sun stand still and not the earth." Melancthon was
+more interested in this new idea, perhaps because of the influence of
+Rheticus, his colleague in the University of Wittenberg and
+Copernicus's great friend and supporter; but he too preferred not to
+dissent from the accepted opinion of the ages.[179] Informally in a
+letter to a friend he implies the absurdity of the new teaching,[180]
+and in his _Initia Doctrinae Physicae_ he goes to some pains to disprove
+the new assumption not merely by mathematics but by the Bible, though
+with a kind of apology to other physicists for quoting the Divine
+Witness.[181] He refers to the phrase in Psalm XIX likening the sun in
+its course "to a strong man about to run a race," proving that the sun
+moves. Another Psalm states that the earth was founded not to be moved
+for eternity, and a similar phrase occurs in the first chapter of
+Ecclesiastes. Then there was the miracle when Joshua bade the sun
+stand still. While this is a sufficient witness to the truths there
+are other proofs: First, in the turning of a circumference, the center
+remains motionless. Next, changes in the length of the day and of the
+seasons would ensue, were the position of the earth in the universe
+not central, and it would not be equidistant from the two poles. (He
+has previously disposed of infinity by stating that the heavens
+revolve around the pole, which could not happen if a line drawn from
+the center of the universe were infinitely projected).[182]
+Furthermore, the earth must be at the center for its shadow to fall
+upon the moon in an eclipse. He refers next to the Aristotelian
+statement that to a simple body belongs one motion: the earth is a
+simple body; therefore it can have but one motion. What is true of the
+parts applies to the whole; all the parts of the earth are borne
+toward the earth and there rest; therefore the whole earth is at rest.
+Quiet is essential to growth. Lastly, if the earth moved as fast as it
+must if it moves at all, everything would fly to pieces.[183]
+
+[Footnote 178: Luther: _Tischreden_, IV, 575; "Der Narr will die ganze
+Kunst Astronomiae umkehren. Aber wie die heilige Schrift anzeigt, so
+heiss Josua die Sonne still stehen, und nicht das Erdreich."]
+
+[Footnote 179: "Non est autem hominis bene instituti dissentire a
+consensu tot saeculorum." Praefatio Philippi Melanthonis, 1531, in
+Sacro-Busto: _Libellus de Sphaera_ (no date).]
+
+[Footnote 180: "Vidi dialogum et fui dissuassor editionis. Fabula per
+sese paulatim consilescet; sed quidam putant esse egregiam
+_katorthoma_ rem tam absurdam ornare, sicut ille Sarmaticus Astronomis
+qui movet terram et figet solem. Profecto sapientes gubernatores
+deberent ingeniorum petulantia cohercere." _Epistola B. Mithobio_, 16
+Oct. 1541. P. Melancthon: _Opera_: IV, 679.]
+
+[Footnote 181: "Quamquam autem rident aliqui Physicum testimonia
+divina citantem, tamen nos honestum esse censemus, Philosophiam
+conferre ad coelestia dicta, et in tanta caligine humanae mentis
+autoritatem divinam consulere ubicunque possumus." Melancthon: _Initia
+Doctrinae Physicae_: Bk. I, 63.]
+
+[Footnote 182: Ibid: 60.]
+
+[Footnote 183: Ibid: 59-67.]
+
+Melancthon thus sums up the usual arguments from the Scriptures, from
+Aristotle, Ptolemy and the then current physics, in opposition to this
+theory. Not only did he publish his own textbook on physics, but he
+republished Sacrobosco's famous introduction to astronomy, writing for
+it a preface urging diligent study of this little text endorsed by so
+many generations of scholars.
+
+Calvin, the great teacher of the Protestant Revolt, apparently was
+little touched by this new intellectual current.[184] He did write a
+semi-popular tract[185] against the so called "judicial" astrology,
+then widely accepted, which he, like Luther, condemns as a foolish
+superstition, though he values "la vraie science d'astrologie" from
+which men understand not merely the order and place of the stars and
+planets, but the causes of things. In his _Commentaries_, he accepts
+the miracle of the sun's standing still at Joshua's command as proof
+of the faith Christ commended, so strong that it will remove
+mountains; and he makes reference only to the time-honored Ptolemaic
+theory in his discussion of Psalm XIX.[186]
+
+[Footnote 184: Farrar: _Hist. of Interpretation_: Preface, xviii:
+"Who," asks Calvin, "will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
+above that of the Holy Spirit?"]
+
+[Footnote 185: Calvin: _Oeuvres Francois_: _Traite ... contre
+l'Astrologie_, 110-112.]
+
+[Footnote 186: Calvin: _Op. Om._ in _Corpus Reformatorum_: vol. 25,
+499-500; vol. 59, 195-196.]
+
+For the absolute authority of the Pope the Protestant leaders
+substituted the absolute authority of the Bible. It is not strange,
+then, that they ignored or derided a theory as yet unsupported by
+proof and so difficult to harmonize with a literally accepted Bible.
+
+How widespread among the people generally did this theory become in
+the years immediately following the publication of the _De
+Revolutionibus_? M. Flammarion, in his _Vie de Copernic_ (1872),
+refers[187] to the famous clock in the Strasburg Cathedral as having
+been constructed by the University of Strasburg in protest against the
+action taken by the Holy Office against Galileo, (though the clock
+was constructed in 1571 and Galileo was not condemned until 1633).
+This astronomical clock constructed only thirty years after the death
+of Copernicus, he claims represented the Copernican system of the
+universe with the planets revolving around the sun, and explained
+clearly in the sight of the people what was the thought of the makers.
+Lest no one should miscomprehend, he adds, the portrait of Copernicus
+was placed there with this inscription: Nicolai Copernici vera
+effigies, ex ipsius autographo depicta.
+
+[Footnote 187: P. 78-79: "Ce planetaire ... represente le systeme du
+monde tel qu'il a ete explique par Copernic."]
+
+This would be important evidence of the spread of the theory were it
+true. But M. Flammarion must have failed to see a brief description of
+the Strasburg Clock written in 1856 by Charles Schwilgue, son of the
+man who renovated its mechanism in 1838-1842. He describes the clock
+as it was before his father made it over and as it is today.
+Originally constructed in 1352, it was replaced in 1571 by an
+astrolabe based on the Ptolemaic system; six hands with the zodiacal
+signs of the planets gave their daily movements and, together with a
+seventh representing the sun, revolved around a map of the world.[188]
+When M. Schwilgue repaired the clock in 1838, he changed it to
+harmonize with the Copernican system.[189]
+
+[Footnote 188: Schwilgue: p. 15.]
+
+[Footnote 189: Ibid: p. 48.]
+
+But within eighteen years after the publication of the _De
+Revolutionibus_, proof of its influence is to be found in such widely
+separated places as London and the great Spanish University of
+Salamanca. In 1551, Robert Recorde, court physician to Edward and to
+Mary and teacher of mathematics, published in London his _Castle of
+Knowledge_, an introduction to astronomy and the first book printed in
+England describing the Copernican system.[190] He evidently did not
+consider the times quite ripe for a full avowal of his own allegiance
+to the new doctrine, but the remarks of the _Maister_ and the
+_Scholler_ are worth repeating:[191]
+
+     "MAISTER: ... howbeit Copernicus a man of great learning, of
+     much experience, and of wonderfull diligence in observation,
+     hath renewed the opinion of Aristarchus Samius, affirming
+     that the earth, not onely moveth circularly about his owne
+     centre, but also may be, yea and is, continually out of the
+     precise centre of the world eight and thirty hundred
+     thousand miles: but because the understanding of that
+     controversie depends of profounder knowledge than in this
+     Introduction may be uttered conveniently, I wil let it passe
+     til some other time.
+
+     "SCHOLLER: Nay sit, in good faith, I desire not to heare
+     such vaine fantasies, so farre against the common reason,
+     and repugnant to the content of all the learned multitude of
+     Writers, and therefore let it passe for ever and a day
+     longer.
+
+     "MAISTER: You are too yong to be a good judge in so great a
+     matter: it passeth farre your learning, and their's also,
+     that are much better learned than you, to improuve his
+     supposition by good arguments, and therefore you were best
+     condemne nothing that you do not well understand: but an
+     other time, as I saide, I will so declare his supposition,
+     that you shall not onely wonder to heare it, but also
+     peradventure be as earnest then to credite it, as you are
+     now to condemne it: in the meane season let us proceed
+     forward in our former order...."
+
+[Footnote 190: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Recorde."]
+
+[Footnote 191: Quoted (p. 135), from the edition of 1596 in the
+library of Mr. George A. Plimpton. See also Recorde's _Whetstone of
+Witte_ (1557) as cited by Berry, 127.]
+
+This little book, reprinted in 1556 and in 1596, and one of the most
+popular of the mathematical writings in England during that century,
+must have interested the English in the new doctrine even before
+Bruno's emphatic presentation of it to them in the eighties.
+
+Yet the English did not welcome it cordially. One of the most popular
+books of this period was Sylvester's translation (1591) of DuBartas's
+_The Divine Weeks_ which appeared in France in 1578, a book loved
+especially by Milton.[192] DuBartas writes:[193]
+
+    "Those clerks that think--think how absurd a jest!
+    That neither heavens nor stars do turn at all,
+    Nor dance around this great, round earthly ball,
+    But the earth itself, this massy globe of our's,
+    Turns round about once every twice twelve hours!
+    And we resemble land-bred novices
+    New brought aboard to venture on the seas;
+    Who at first launching from the shore suppose
+    The ship stands still and that the firm earth goes."
+
+[Footnote 192: DuBartas: _The Divine Weeks_ (Sylvester's trans. edited
+by Haight): Preface, pp. xx-xxiii and note.]
+
+[Footnote 193: _Op. cit._: 72.]
+
+Quite otherwise was the situation in the sixteenth century at the
+University of Salamanca. A new set of regulations for the University,
+drawn up at the King's order by Bishop Covarrubias, was published in
+1561. It contained the provision in the curriculum that "Mathematics
+and Astrology are to be given in three years, the first, Astrology,
+the second, Euclid, Ptolemy or Copernicus _ad vota audientium_," which
+also indicates, as Vicente de la Fuente points out, that at this
+University "the choice of the subject-matter to be taught lay not with
+the teachers but with the students, a rare situation."[194] One
+wonders what happened there when the professors and students received
+word[195] from the Cardinal Nuncio at Madrid in 1633 that the
+Congregations of the Index had decreed the Copernican doctrine was
+thereafter in no way to be held, taught or defended.
+
+[Footnote 194: La Fuente: _Historia de la Universidades ... de
+Espana_: II, 314.]
+
+[Footnote 195: _Doc. 86_ in Favaro: 130.]
+
+One of the graduates of this University, Father Zuniga,[196] (better
+known as Didacus a Stunica), wrote a commentary on Job that was
+licensed to be printed in 1579, but was not published until 1584 at
+Toledo. Another edition appeared at Rome seven years later. It
+evidently was widely read for it was condemned _donec corrigatur_ by
+the Index in 1616 and the mathematical literature of the next half
+century contains many allusions to his remarks on Job: IX: 6; "Who
+shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."
+After commenting here upon the greater clarity and simplicity of the
+Copernican theory, Didacus a Stunica then states that the theory is
+not contradicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, as that "text signifieth
+no more but this, that although the succession of ages, and
+generations of men on earth be various, yet the earth itself is still
+one and the same, and continueth without any sensible variation" ...
+and "it hath no coherence with its context (as Philosophers show) if
+it be expounded to speak of the earth's immobility. The motion that
+belongs to the earth by way of speech is assigned to the sun even by
+Copernicus himself, and those who are his followers.... To conclude,
+no place can be produced out of Holy Scriptures which so clearly
+speaks the earth's immobility as this doth its mobility. Therefore
+this text of which we have spoken is easily reconciled to this
+opinion. And to set forth the wonderful power and wisdom of God who
+can indue the frame of the whole earth (it being of monstrous weight
+by nature) with motion, this our Divine pen-man added; 'And the
+pillars thereof tremble:' As if he would teach us, from the doctrine
+laid down, that it is moved from its foundations."[197]
+
+[Footnote 196: _Diccionario Enciclopedico Hispano-Americano de
+literatura, ciencias y artes_ (Barcelona, 1898).]
+
+[Footnote 197: Quoted in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: I, 468-470 (1661),
+as a work inaccessible to most readers at that time because of its
+extreme rarity. It remained on the Index until the edition of 1835.]
+
+French thinkers, like the English, did not encourage the new doctrine
+at this time. Montaigne[198] was characteristically indifferent: "What
+shall we reape by it, but only that we neede not care which of the two
+it be? And who knoweth whether a hundred yeares hence a third opinion
+will arise which happily shall overthrow these two praecedent?" The
+famous political theorist, Jean Bodin, (1530-1596), was as thoroughly
+opposed to it as DuBartas had been. In the last year of his life,
+Bodin wrote his _Universae Naturae Theatrum_[199] in which he discussed
+the origin and composition of the universe and of the animal,
+vegetable, mineral and spiritual kingdoms. These five books (or
+divisions) reveal his amazing ideas of geology, physics and astronomy
+while at the same time they show a mind thoroughly at home in Hebrew
+and Arabian literature as well as in the classics. His answer to the
+Copernican doctrine is worth quoting to illustrate the attitude of one
+of the keenest thinkers in a brilliant era:
+
+     "THEORIST: Since the sun's heat is so intense that we read
+     it has sometimes burned crops, houses and cities in
+     Scythia,[200] would it not be more reasonable that the sun
+     is still and the earth indeed revolves?
+
+     "MYSTIC: Such was the old idea of Philolaus, Timaeus,
+     Ecphantes, Seleucus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes and
+     Eudoxus, which Copernicus has renewed in our time. But it
+     can easily be refuted by its shallowness although no one has
+     done it thoroughly.
+
+     "THE.: What arguments do they rely on who hold that the
+     earth is revolved and that the sun forsooth is still?
+
+     "MYS.: Because the comprehension of the human mind cannot
+     grasp the incredible speed of the heavenly spheres and
+     especially of the tenth sphere which must be ten times
+     greater than that of the eighth, for in twenty-four hours it
+     must traverse 469,562,845 miles, so that the earth seems
+     like a dot in the universe. This is the chief argument.
+     Besides this, we get rid entirely of epicycles in
+     representing the motions of the planets and what is taught
+     concerning the motion of trepidation in the eighth sphere
+     vanishes. Also, there is no need for the ninth and tenth
+     spheres. There is one argument which they have omitted but
+     which seems to me more efficacious than any, viz.: rest is
+     nobler than movement, and that celestial and divine things
+     have a stable nature while elemental things have motion,
+     disturbance and unrest; therefore it seems more probable
+     that the latter move rather than the former. But while
+     serious absurdities result from the idea of Eudoxus, far
+     more serious ones result from that of Copernicus.
+
+     "THE.: What are these absurdities?
+
+     "MYS.: Eudoxus knew nothing of trepidation, so his idea
+     seems to be less in error. But Copernicus, in order to
+     uphold his own hypothesis, claims the earth has three
+     motions, its diurnal and annual ones, and trepidation; if we
+     add to these the pull of weight towards the center, we are
+     attributing four natural motions to one and the same body.
+     If this is granted, then the very foundations of physics
+     must fall into ruins; for all are agreed upon this that each
+     natural body has but one motion of its own, and that all
+     others are said to be either violent or voluntary.
+     Therefore, since he claims the earth is agitated by four
+     motions, one only can be its own, the others must be
+     confessedly violent; yet nothing violent in nature can
+     endure continuously. Furthermore the earth is not moved by
+     water, much less by the motion of air or fire in the way we
+     have stated the heavens are moved by the revolutions of the
+     enveloping heavens. Copernicus further does not claim that
+     all the heavens are immobile but that some are moved, that
+     is, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. But
+     why such diversity? No one in his senses, or imbued with the
+     slightest knowledge of physics, will ever think that the
+     earth, heavy and unwieldy from its own weight and mass,
+     staggers up and down around its own center and that of the
+     sun; for at the slightest jar of the earth, we would see
+     cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down. A
+     certain courtier Aulicus, when some astrologer in court was
+     upholding Copernicus's idea before Duke Albert of Prussia,
+     turning to the servant who was pouring the Falernian, said:
+     "Take care that the flagon is not spilled."[201] For if the
+     earth were to be moved, neither an arrow shot straight up,
+     nor a stone dropped from the top of a tower would fall
+     perpendicularly, but either ahead or behind. With this
+     argument Ptolemy refuted Eudoxus. But if we search into the
+     secrets of the Hebrews and penetrate their sacred
+     sanctuaries, all these arguments can easily be confirmed;
+     for when the Lord of Wisdom said the sun swept in its swift
+     course from the eastern shore to the west, he added this:
+     Terra vero stat aeternam. Lastly, all things on finding
+     places suitable to their natures, remain there, as Aristotle
+     writes. Since therefore the earth has been alloted a place
+     fitting its nature, it cannot be whirled around by other
+     motion than its own.
+
+     "THE.: I certainly agree to all the rest with you, but
+     Aristotle's law I think involves a paralogism, for by this
+     argument the heavens should be immobile since they are in a
+     place fitting their nature.
+
+     "MYS.: You argue subtly indeed, but in truth this argument
+     does not seem necessary to me; for what Aristotle admitted,
+     that, while forsooth all the parts of the firmament changed
+     their places, the firmament as a whole did not, is
+     exceedingly absurd. For either the whole heaven is at rest
+     or the whole heaven is moved. The senses themselves disprove
+     that it is at rest; therefore it is moved. For it does not
+     follow that if a body is not moved away from its place, it
+     is not moved in that place. Furthermore, since we have the
+     most certain proof of the movement of trepidation, not only
+     all the parts of the firmament, but also the eight spheres,
+     must necessarily leave their places and move up and down,
+     forward and back."[202]
+
+[Footnote 198: Montaigne: _Essays_: Bk. II, c. 2: _An Apologie of
+Raymonde Sebonde_ (II, 352).]
+
+[Footnote 199: This book, published at Frankfort in 1597, was
+translated into French by M. Fougerolles and printed in Lyons that
+same year. It has become extremely rare since its "atheistic
+atmosphere" (Peignot: _Dictionnaire_) caused the Roman Church to place
+it upon the Index by decree of 1628, where it has remained to this
+day.]
+
+[Footnote 200: Cromer in History of Poland.]
+
+[Footnote 201: Cromer in History of Poland.[A]]
+
+[Footnote A: I could not find this reference in either of Martin
+Kromer's books; _De Origine et Rebus Gestis Polonorum, ad 1511_, or in
+his _Res Publicae sive Status Regni Poloniae_.]
+
+[Footnote 202: Bodin: _Univ. Nat. Theatrum_: Bk. V, sec. 2 (end).]
+
+This was the opinion of a profound thinker and experienced man of
+affairs living when Tycho Brahe and Bruno were still alive and Kepler
+and Galileo were beginning their astronomical investigations. But he
+was not alone in his views, as we shall see; for at the close of the
+sixteenth century, the Copernican doctrine had few avowed supporters.
+The Roman Church was still indifferent; the Protestants clinging to
+the literal interpretation of the Bible were openly antagonistic; the
+professors as a whole were too Aristotelian to accept or pay much
+attention to this novelty, except Kepler and his teacher Maestlin
+(though the latter refused to uphold it in his textbook);[203] while
+astronomers and mathematicians who realized the insuperable objections
+to the Ptolemaic conception, welcomed the Tychonic system as a _via
+media_; and the common folk, if they heard of it at all, must have
+ridiculed it because it was so plainly opposed to what they saw in the
+heavens every day. In the same way their intellectual superiors
+exclaimed at the "delirium" of those supporting such a notion.[204]
+One thinker, however was to see far more in the doctrine than
+Copernicus himself had conceived, and by Giordano Bruno the Roman
+Church was to be aroused.
+
+[Footnote 203: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 663.]
+
+[Footnote 204: Justus-Lipsius: _Physiologiae Stoicorum_: Bk. II,
+dissert. 19 (Dedication 1604, Louvain), (IV, 947); "Vides deliria,
+quomodo aliter appellent?"]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+BRUNO AND GALILEO.
+
+
+When the Roman Catholic authorities awoke to the dangers of the new
+teaching, they struck with force. The first to suffer was the famous
+monk-philosopher, Giordano Bruno, whose trial by the Holy Office was
+premonitory of trouble to come for Galileo.[205]
+
+[Footnote 205: Berti: 285.]
+
+After an elementary education at Naples near his birth-place,
+Nola,[206] Filippo Bruno[207] entered the Dominican monastery in 1562
+or 1563 when about fourteen years old, assuming the name Giordano at
+that time. Before 1572, when he entered the priesthood, he had fully
+accepted the Copernican theory which later became the basis of all his
+philosophical thought. Bruno soon showed he was not made for the
+monastic life. Various processes were started against him, and fleeing
+to Rome he abandoned his monk's garments and entered upon the sixteen
+years of wandering over Europe, a peripatetic teacher of the
+philosophy of an infinite universe as deduced from the Copernican
+doctrine and thus in a way its herald.[208] He reached Geneva in 1579
+(where he did not accept Calvinism as was formerly thought),[209] but
+decided before many months had passed that it was wise to depart
+elsewhere because of the unpleasant position in which he found himself
+there. He had been brought before the Council for printing invectives
+against one of the professors, pointing out some twenty of his
+errors. The Council sent him to the Consistory, the governing body of
+the church, where a formal sentence of excommunication was passed
+against him. When he apologized it was withdrawn. Probably a certain
+stigma remained, and he left Geneva soon thereafter with a warm
+dislike for Calvinism. After lecturing at the University of Toulouse
+he appeared in Paris in 1581, where he held an extraordinary
+readership. Two years later he was in England, for he lectured at
+Oxford during the spring months and defended the Copernican theory
+before the Polish prince Alasco during the latter's visit there in
+June.[210]
+
+[Footnote 206: McIntyre: 3-15.]
+
+[Footnote 207: Four lives of Bruno have been written within the last
+seventy-five years. The first is _Jordano Bruno_ by Christian
+Bartholmess (2 vol., Paris 1846). The next, _Vita di Giordano Bruno da
+Nola_ by Domenico Berti (1868, Turin), quotes in full the official
+documents of his trial. Frith's _Life of Giordano Bruno_ (London,
+1887), has been rendered out of date by J.L. McIntyre's _Giordano
+Bruno_ (London, 1903), which includes a critical bibliography. In
+addition, W.R. Thayer's _Throne Makers_ (New York, 1899), gives
+translations of Bruno's confessions to the Venetian Inquisition.
+Bruno's Latin works (_Opera Latina Conscripta_), have been republished
+by Fiorentino (3 vol., Naples, 1879), and the _Opere Italiane_ by
+Gentile (3 vol., Naples, 1907).]
+
+[Footnote 208: Bartholmess: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 209: Libri: IV, 144.]
+
+[Footnote 210: McIntyre: 16-40.]
+
+To Bruno belongs the glory of the first public proclamation in England
+of the new doctrine,[211] though only Gilbert[212] and possibly Wright
+seem to have accepted it at the time. Upon Bruno's return to London,
+he entered the home of the French ambassador as a kind of secretary,
+and there spent the happiest years of his life till the ambassador's
+recall in October, 1585. It was during this period that he wrote some
+of his most famous books. In _La Cena de la Ceneri_ he defended the
+Copernican theory, incidentally criticising the Oxford dons most
+severely,[213] for which he apologized in _De la Causa, Principio et
+Uno_. He developed his philosophy of an infinite universe in _De
+l'Infinito e Mondi_, and in the _Spaccio de la Bestia Trionphante_
+"attacked all religions of mere credulity as opposed to religions of
+truth and deeds."[214] This last book was at once thought to be a
+biting attack upon the Roman Church and later became one of the
+grounds of the Inquisition's charges against him. During this time in
+London also, he came to know Sir Philip Sydney intimately, and Fulk
+Greville as well as others of that brilliant period. He may have known
+Bacon;[215] but it is highly improbable that he and Shakespeare
+met,[216] or that Shakespeare ever was influenced by the other's
+philosophy.[217]
+
+[Footnote 211: Bartholmess: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 212: Gilbert: _De Magnete_ (London, 1600).]
+
+[Footnote 213: Berti: 369, Doc. XIII.]
+
+[Footnote 214: McIntyre: 16-40.]
+
+[Footnote 215: Bartholmess: I, 134.]
+
+[Footnote 216: Beyersdorf: _Giordano Bruno und Shakespear_, 8-36.]
+
+[Footnote 217: Such passages as _Troilus and Cressida_: Act I, sc. 3;
+_King John_, Act III, sc. 1; and _Merry Wives_, Act III, sc. 2,
+indicate that Shakespeare accepted fully the Ptolemaic conception of a
+central, immovable earth. See also Beyersdorf: _op. cit._]
+
+Leaving Paris soon after his return thither, Bruno wandered into
+southern Germany. At Marburg he was not permitted to teach, but at
+Wittenberg the Lutherans cordially welcomed him into the university.
+After a stay of a year and a half, he moved on to Prague for a few
+months, then to Helmstadt, Frankfort and Zurich, and back to Frankfort
+again where, in 1591, he received an invitation from a young Venetian
+patrician, Moecenigo, to come to Venice as his tutor. He re-entered
+Italy, therefore, in August, much to the amazement of his
+contemporaries. It is probable that Moecenigo was acting for the
+Inquisition.[218] At any rate, he soon denounced Bruno to that body
+and in May, 1592, surrendered him to it.[219]
+
+[Footnote 218: McIntyre: 68.]
+
+[Footnote 219: Ibid: 47-72.]
+
+In his trial before the Venetian Inquisition,[220] Bruno told the
+story of his life and stated his beliefs in answer to the charges
+against him, based mainly on travesties of his opinions. In this
+statement as well as in _La Cena de le Ceneri_, and in _De Immenso et
+Innumerabilis_,[221] Bruno shows how completely he had not merely
+accepted the Copernican doctrine, but had expanded it far beyond its
+author's conception. The universe according to Copernicus, though
+vastly greater than that conceived by Aristotle and Ptolemy, was still
+finite because enclosed within the sphere of the fixed stars. Bruno
+declared that not only was the earth only a lesser planet, but "this
+world itself was merely one of an infinite number of particular worlds
+similar to this, and that all the planets and other stars are infinite
+worlds without number composing an infinite universe, so that there is
+a double infinitude, that of the greatness of the universe, and that
+of the multitude of worlds."[222] How important this would be to the
+Church authorities may be realized by recalling the patristic doctrine
+that the universe was created for man and that his home is its center.
+Of course their cherished belief must be defended from such an attack,
+and naturally enough, the Copernican doctrine as the starting point of
+Bruno's theory of an infinite universe was thus brought into
+question;[223] for, as M. Berti has said,[224] Bruno's doctrine was
+equally an astro-theology or a theological astronomy.
+
+[Footnote 220: See official documents in Berti: 327-395.]
+
+[Footnote 221: Bruno: _De Immenso et Innumerabilis_: Lib. III, cap. 9
+(vol. 1, pt. 1, 380-386).]
+
+[Footnote 222: Thayer: 268.]
+
+[Footnote 223: Berti: 285.]
+
+[Footnote 224: Ibid: 282.]
+
+The Roman Inquisition was not content to let the Venetian court deal
+with this arch heretic, but wrote in September, 1592, demanding his
+extradition. The Venetian body referred its consent to the state for
+ratification which the Doge and Council refused to grant. Finally,
+when the Papal Nuncio had represented that Bruno was not a Venetian
+but a Neapolitan, and that cases against him were still outstanding
+both in Naples and in Rome, the state consented, and in February of
+the next year, Bruno entered Rome, a prisoner of the Inquisition.
+Nothing further is known about him until the Congregations took up his
+case on February 4th, 1599. Perhaps Pope Clement had hoped to win back
+to the true faith this prince of heretics.[225] However Bruno stood
+firm, and early in the following year he was degraded, sentenced and
+handed over to the secular authorities, who burned him at the stake in
+the Campo di Fiori, February 17, 1600.[226] All his books were put on
+the Index by decree of February 8, 1600, (where they remain to this
+day), and as a consequence they became extremely rare. It is well to
+remember Bruno's fate, when considering Galileo's case, for
+Galileo[227] was at that time professor of mathematics in the
+university of Padua and fully cognizant of the event.
+
+[Footnote 225: Fahie: 82-89.]
+
+[Footnote 226: Thayer: 299.]
+
+[Footnote 227: The publication of A. Favaro's _Galileo e
+l'Inquisizione: Documenti del Processo Galileiano ... per la prima
+volta integralmente pubblicati_, (Firenze, 1907), together with that
+of the National Edition (in 20 vols.) of Galileo's works, edited by
+Favaro (Firenze, completed 1909), renders somewhat obsolete all
+earlier lives of Galileo. The more valuable, however, of these books
+are: Martin's _Galilee_ (Paris, 1868), a scholarly Catholic study
+containing valuable bibliographical notes; Anon. (Mrs. Olney):
+_Private Life of Galileo_, based largely on his correspondence with
+his daughter from which many extracts are given; and von Gebler's
+_Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia_ (trans. by Mrs. Sturge, London,
+1879), which includes in the appendix the various decrees in the
+original. Fahie's _Life of Galileo_ (London, 1903), is based on
+Favaro's researches and is reliable. The documents of the trial have
+been published in part by de l'Epinois, von Gebler and Berti, but
+Favaro's is the complete and authoritative edition.]
+
+Galileo's father, though himself a skilled mathematician, had
+intended that his son (born at Pisa, February 15, 1564), should be a
+cloth-dealer, but at length permitted him to study medicine instead at
+the university of Pisa, after an elementary education at the monastery
+of Vallombrosa near Florence. At the Tuscan Court in Pisa, Galileo
+received his first lesson in mathematics, which thereupon became his
+absorbing interest. After nearly four years he withdrew from the
+university to Florence and devoted himself to that science and to
+physics. His services as a professor at this time were refused by five
+of the Italian universities; finally, in 1589, he obtained the
+appointment to the chair of physics at Pisa. He became so unpopular
+there, however, through his attacks on the Aristotelian physics of the
+day, that after three years he resigned and accepted a similar
+position at Padua.[228] He remained here nearly eighteen years till
+his longing for leisure in which to pursue his researches, and the
+patronage of his good friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, brought him a
+professorship at the university of Pisa again, this time without
+obligation of residence nor of lecturing. He took up his residence in
+Florence in 1610; and later (1626), purchased a villa at Arcetri
+outside the city, in order to be near the convent where his favorite
+daughter "Suor Maria Celeste" was a religious.[229]
+
+[Footnote 228: Fahie: 20-40.]
+
+[Footnote 229: Ibid: 121.]
+
+During the greater part of his lectureship at Padua, Galileo taught
+according to the Ptolemaic cosmogony out of compliance with popular
+feeling, though himself a Copernican. In a letter to Kepler (August 4,
+1597)[230] he speaks of his entire acceptance of the new system for
+some years; but not until after the appearance of the New Star in the
+heavens in 1604 and 1605, and the controversy that its appearance
+aroused over the Aristotelian notion of the perfect and unchangeable
+heavens, did he publicly repudiate the old scheme and teach the new.
+The only information we have as to how he came to adopt the Copernican
+scheme for himself is the account given by "_Sagredo_," Galileo's
+spokesman in the famous _Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems_
+(1632):
+
+     "Being very young and having scarcely finished my course of
+     Philosophy which I left off, as being set upon other
+     employments, there chanced to come into these parts a
+     certain foreigner of Rostock, whose name as I remember, was
+     Christianus Vurstitius, a follower of Copernicus, who in an
+     Academy made two or three lectures upon this point, to whom
+     many flock't as auditors; but I thinking they went more for
+     the novelty of the subject than otherwise, did not go to
+     hear him; for I had concluded with myself that that opinion
+     could be no other than a solemn madnesse. And questioning
+     some of those who had been there, I perceived they all made
+     a jest thereof, except one, who told me that the business
+     was not altogether to be laugh't at, and because this man
+     was reputed by me to be very intelligent and wary, I
+     repented that I was not there, and began from that time
+     forward as oft as I met with anyone of the Copernican
+     persuasion, to demand of them, if they had always been of
+     the same judgment; and of as many as I examined, I found not
+     so much as one, who told me not that he had been a long time
+     of the contrary opinion, but to have changed it for this, as
+     convinced by the reasons proving the same: and afterwards
+     questioning them, one by one, to see whether they were well
+     possest of the reasons of the other side, I found them all
+     to be very ready and perfect in them; so that I could not
+     truly say that they had took up this opinion out of
+     ignorance, vanity, or to show the acuteness of their wits.
+     On the contrary, of as many of the Peripateticks and
+     Ptolemeans as I have asked (and out of curiosity I have
+     talked with many) what pains they had taken in the Book of
+     Copernicus, I found very few that had so much as
+     superficially perused it: but of those whom, I thought, had
+     understood the same, not one; and moreover, I have enquired
+     amongst the followers of the Peripatetick Doctrine, if ever
+     any of them had held the contrary opinion, and likewise
+     found that none had. Whereupon considering that there was no
+     man who followed the opinion of Copernicus that had not been
+     first on the contrary side, and that was not very well
+     acquainted with the reasons of Aristotle and Ptolemy; and on
+     the contrary, that there is not one of the followers of
+     Ptolemy that had ever been of the judgment of Copernicus,
+     and that had left that to embrace this of Aristotle,
+     considering, I say, these things, I began to think that one,
+     who leaveth an opinion imbued with his milk, and followed by
+     very many, to take up another owned by very few, and denied
+     by all the Schools, and that really seems a very great
+     Parodox, must needs have been moved, not to say forced, by
+     more powerful reasons. For this cause I am become very
+     curious to dive, as they say, into the bottom of this
+     business ... and bring myself to a certainty in this
+     subject."[231]
+
+[Footnote 230: Galileo: _Opere_, X, 68.]
+
+[Footnote 231: 'The Second Day' in Salusbury: _Math. Coll._ I,
+110-111.]
+
+Galileo's brilliant work in mechanics and his great popularity--for
+his lectures were thronged--combined with his skilled and witty
+attacks upon the accepted scientific ideas of the age, embittered and
+antagonized many who were both conservative and jealous.[232] The
+Jesuits particularly resented his influence and power, for they
+claimed the leadership in the educational world and were jealous of
+intruders. Furthermore, they were bound by the decree of the fiftieth
+General Congregation of their society in 1593 to defend Aristotle, a
+decree strictly enforced.[233] While a few of the Jesuits were
+friendly disposed to Galileo at first, the controversies in which he
+and they became involved and their bitter attacks upon him made him
+feel by 1633 that they were among his chief enemies.[234]
+
+[Footnote 232: Fahie: 265.]
+
+[Footnote 233: Conway: 46-47.]
+
+[Footnote 234: Conway: 46-47.]
+
+Early in 1609, Galileo heard a rumor of a spy-glass having been made
+in Flanders, and proceeded to work one out for himself according to
+the laws of perspective. The fifth telescope that he made magnified
+thirty diameters, and it was with such instruments of his own
+manufacture that he made in the next three years his famous
+discoveries: Jupiter's four satellites (which he named the Medicean
+Planets), Saturn's "tripartite" character (the rings were not
+recognized as such for several decades thereafter), the stars of the
+Milky Way, the crescent form of Venus, the mountains of the moon, many
+more fixed stars, and the spots on the sun. Popular interest waxed
+with each new discovery and from all sides came requests for
+telescopes; yet there were those who absolutely refused even to look
+through a telescope lest they be compelled to admit Aristotle was
+mistaken, and others claimed that Jupiter's moons were merely defects
+in the instrument. The formal announcement of the first of these
+discoveries was made in the _Sidereus Nuncius_ (1610), a book that
+aroused no little opposition. Kepler, however, had it reprinted at
+once in Prague with a long appreciative preface of his own.[235]
+
+[Footnote 235: Fahie: 77-126.]
+
+The following March Galileo went to Rome to show his discoveries and
+was received with the utmost distinction by princes and church
+dignitaries alike. A commission of four scientific members of the
+Roman College had previously examined his claims at Cardinal
+Bellarmin's suggestion, and had admitted their truth. Now Pope Paul V
+gave him long audiences; the Academia dei Lincei elected him a member,
+and everywhere he was acclaimed. Nevertheless his name appears on the
+secret books of the Holy Office as early as May of that year
+(1611).[236] Already he was a suspect.
+
+[Footnote 236: Doc. in Favaro: 13.]
+
+His _Delle Macchie Solari_ (1611) brought on a sharp contest over the
+question of priority of discovery between him and the Jesuit father,
+Christopher Scheiner of Ingolstadt, from which Galileo emerged
+victorious and more disliked than before by that order. Opposition was
+becoming active; Father Castelli, for instance, the professor of
+mathematics at Pisa and Galileo's intimate friend, was forbidden to
+discuss in his lectures the double motion of the earth or even to hint
+at its probability. This same father wrote to his friend early in
+December, 1613, to tell him of a dinner-table conversation on this
+matter at the Tuscan Court, then wintering at Pisa. Castelli told how
+the Dowager Grand Duchess Cristina had had her religious scruples
+aroused by a remark that the earth's motion must be wrong because it
+contradicted the Scriptures, a statement that he had tried to
+refute.[237] Galileo wrote in reply (December 21, 1613), the
+letter[238] that was to cause him endless trouble, in which he marked
+out the boundaries between science and religion and declared it a
+mistake to take the literal interpretation of passages in Scripture
+that were obviously written according to the understanding of the
+common people. He pointed out in addition how futile the miracle of
+the sun's standing still was as an argument against the Copernican
+doctrine for, even according to the Ptolemaic system, not the sun but
+the _primum mobile_ must be stayed for the day to be lengthened.
+
+[Footnote 237: Fahie: 149.]
+
+[Footnote 238: Galileo: _Opere_, V, 281-288.]
+
+Father Castelli allowed others to read and to copy this supposedly
+private letter; copies went from hand to hand in Florence and
+discussion ran high. On the fourth Sunday in December, 1614, Father
+Caccini of the Dominicans preached a sermon in the church of S.M.
+Novella on Joshua's miracle, in which he sharply denounced the
+Copernican doctrine taught by Galileo as heretical, so he
+believed.[239] The Copernicans found a Neapolitan Jesuit who replied
+to Caccini the following Sunday from the pulpit of the Duomo.[240]
+
+[Footnote 239: Doc. in Favaro: 48-49.]
+
+[Footnote 240: Doc. in Favaro: 49.]
+
+In February (1615), came the formal denunciation of Galileo to the
+Holy Office at Rome by Father Lorini, a Dominican associate of
+Caccini's at the Convent San Marco. The father sent with his "friendly
+warning," a copy of the letter to Castelli charging that it contained
+"many propositions which were either suspect or temerarious," and, he
+added, "though the _Galileisti_ were good Christians they were rather
+stubborn and obstinate in their opinions."[241] The machinery of the
+Inquisition began secretly to turn. The authorities failed to get the
+original of the letter, for Castelli had returned that to Galileo at
+the latter's request.[242] Pope Paul sent word to Father Caccini to
+appear before the Holy Office in Rome to depose on this matter of
+Galileo's errors "pro exoneratione suae conscientiae."[243] This he did
+"freely" in March and was of course sworn to secrecy. He named a
+certain nobleman, a Copernican, as the source of his information about
+Galileo, for he did not know the latter even by sight. This nobleman
+was by order of the Pope examined in November after some delay by the
+Inquisitor at Florence. His testimony was to the effect that he
+considered Galileo the best of Catholics.[244]
+
+[Footnote 241: Ibid: 38: "amorevole avviso."]
+
+[Footnote 242: Ibid: 46, 47, 51.]
+
+[Footnote 243: Ibid: 47.]
+
+[Footnote 244: Ibid: 49.]
+
+Meanwhile the Consultors of the Holy Office had examined Lorini's copy
+of the letter and reported the finding of only three objectionable
+places all of which, they stated, could be amended by changing certain
+doubtful phrases; otherwise it did not deviate from the true faith. It
+is interesting to note that the copy they had differed in many minor
+respects from the original letter, and in one place heightened a
+passage with which the Examiners found fault as imputing falsehood to
+the Scriptures although they are infallible.[245] Galileo's own
+statement ran that there were many passages in the Scriptures which
+according to the literal meaning of the words, "hanno aspetto diverso
+dal vero...." The copy read, "molte propositioni falso quanto al nudo
+senso delle parole."
+
+[Footnote 245: Ibid: 43-45, see original in Galileo: _Opere_, V,
+281-285.]
+
+Rumors of trouble reached Galileo and, urged on by his friends, in
+1615 he wrote a long formal elaboration of the earlier letter,
+addressing this one to the Dowager Grand Duchess, but he had only
+added fuel to the fire. At the end of the year he voluntarily went to
+Rome, regardless of any possible danger to himself, to see if he could
+not prevent a condemnation of the doctrine.[246] It came as a decided
+surprise to him to receive an order to appear before Cardinal
+Bellarmin on February 26, 1616,[2] and there to learn that the Holy
+Office had already condemned it two days before. He was told that the
+Holy Office had declared: first, "that the proposition that the sun is
+the center of the universe and is immobile is foolish and absurd in
+philosophy and formally heretical since it contradicts the express
+words of the Scriptures in many places, according to the meaning of
+the words and the common interpretation and sense of the Fathers and
+the doctors of theology; and, secondly, that the proposition that the
+earth is not the center of the universe nor immobile receives the same
+censure in philosophy and in regard to its theological truth, it at
+least is erroneous in Faith."[247]
+
+[Footnote 246: Doc. in Favaro: 78.]
+
+[Footnote 247: Ibid: 61.]
+
+Exactly what was said at that meeting between the two men became the
+crucial point in Galileo's trial sixteen years later, hence a somewhat
+detailed study is important. At the meeting of the Congregation on
+February 25th, the Pope ordered Cardinal Bellarmin to summon Galileo
+and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove
+recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way
+to abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it; if he did not
+acquiesce, he was to be imprisoned.[248] The Secret Archives of the
+Vatican contain a minute reporting this interview (dated February 26,
+1616), in which the Cardinal is said to have ordered Galileo to
+relinquish this condemned proposition, "nec eam de caetero, quovis
+modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis," and that
+Galileo promised to obey.[249] Rumors evidently were rife in Rome at
+the time as to what had happened at this secret interview, for Galileo
+wrote to the Cardinal in May asking for a statement of what actually
+had occurred so that he might silence his enemies. The Cardinal
+replied:
+
+     "We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmin, having heard that Signor
+     Galileo was calumniated and charged with having abjured in
+     our hand, and also of being punished by salutary penance,
+     and being requested to give the truth, state that the
+     aforesaid Signor Galileo has not abjured in our hand nor in
+     the hand of any other person in Rome, still less in any
+     other place, so far as we know, any of his opinions and
+     teachings, nor has he received salutary penance nor any
+     other kind; but only was he informed of the declaration made
+     by his Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of
+     the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine
+     attributed to Copernicus,--that the earth moves around the
+     sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world
+     without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the
+     Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held
+     (non si possa difendere ne tenere). And in witness of this
+     we have written and signed these presents with our own hand,
+     this 26th day of May, 1616.
+
+     ROBERT CARDINAL BELLARMIN."[250]
+
+[Footnote 248: Ibid: 61.]
+
+[Footnote 249: Doc. in Favaro: 61-62.]
+
+[Footnote 250: Ibid: 88.]
+
+Galileo's defense sixteen years later[251] was that he had obeyed the
+order as given him by the Cardinal and that he had not "defended nor
+held" the doctrine in his _Dialoghi_ but had refuted it. The
+Congregation answered that he had been ordered not only not to hold
+nor defend, but also not to treat in any way (quovis modo) this
+condemned subject. When Galileo disclaimed all recollection of that
+phrase and produced the Cardinal's statement in support of his
+position, he was told that this document, far from lightening his
+guilt, greatly aggravated it since he had dared to deal with a subject
+that he had been informed was contrary to the Holy Scriptures.[252]
+
+[Footnote 251: Ibid: 80-86.]
+
+[Footnote 252: Ibid: 145.]
+
+To return to 1616. On the third of March the Cardinal reported to the
+Congregation in the presence of the Pope that he had warned Galileo
+and that Galileo had acquiesced.[253] The Congregation then reported
+its decree suspending "until corrected" "Nicolai Copernici De
+Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, et Didaci Astunica in Job," and
+prohibiting "Epistola Fratris Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitae,"
+together with all other books dealing with this condemned and
+prohibited doctrine. The Pope ordered this decree to be published by
+the Master of the Sacred Palace, which was done two days later.[254]
+But this prohibition could not have been widely known for two or three
+years; the next year Mulier published his edition of the _De
+Revolutionibus_ at Amsterdam without a word of reference to it; in
+1618 Thomas Feyens, professor at Louvain, heard vague rumors of the
+condemnation and wondered if it could be true;[255] and the following
+spring Fromundus, also at Louvain and later a noted antagonist of the
+new doctrine, wrote to Feyens asking:
+
+     "What did I hear lately from you about the Copernicans? That
+     they have been condemned a year or two ago by our Holy
+     Father, Pope Paul V? Until now I have known nothing about
+     it; no more have this crowd of German and Italian scholars,
+     very learned and, as I think, very Catholic, who admit with
+     Copernicus that the earth is turned. Is it possible that
+     after a lapse of time as considerable as this, we have
+     nothing more than a rumor of such an event? I find it hard
+     to believe, since nothing more definite has come from Italy.
+     Definitions of this sort ought above all to be published in
+     the universities where the learned men are to whom the
+     danger of such an opinion is very great."[256]
+
+[Footnote 253: Ibid: 16.]
+
+[Footnote 254: Doc. in Favaro: 16.]
+
+[Footnote 255: Monchamp: 46.]
+
+[Footnote 256: Fromundus: _De Cometa Anni_ 1618: chap. VII, p. 68.
+(From the private library of Dr. E.E. Slosson. A rare book which Lecky
+could not find. _History of Rationalism in Europe_, I, 280, note.)]
+
+Galileo meanwhile had retired to Florence and devoted himself to
+mechanical science, (of which his work is the foundation) though
+constantly harassed by much ill health and many family perplexities.
+At the advice of his friends, he allowed the attacks on the Copernican
+doctrine to go unanswered,[257] till with the accession to the
+papacy in 1623 of Cardinal Barberini, as Urban VIII, a warm admirer
+and supporter of his, he thought relief was in sight. He was further
+cheered by a conversation Cardinal di Zollern reported having had with
+Pope Urban, in which his Holiness had reminded the Cardinal how he
+(the Pope) had defended Copernicus in the time of Paul V, and asserted
+that out of just respect owed to the memory of Copernicus, if he had
+been pope then, he would not have permitted his opinion to be declared
+heretical.[258] Feeling that he now had friends in power, Galileo
+began his great work, _Dialogo sopra i Due Sistemi Massimi del Mondo_,
+a dialogue in four "days" in which three interlocutors discuss the
+arguments for and against the Copernican theory, though coming to no
+definite conclusion. Sagredo was an avowed Copernican and Galileo's
+spokesman, Salviati was openminded, and the peripatetic was Simplicio,
+appropriately named for the famous Sicilian sixth century commentator
+on Aristotle.[259]
+
+[Footnote 257: In 1620 the Congregation issued the changes it required
+to have made in the _De Revolutionibus_. They are nine in all, and
+consist mainly in changing assertion of the earth's movement to
+hypothetical statement and in striking out a reference to the earth as
+a planet. Doc. in Favaro: 140-141. See illustration, p. 61.]
+
+[Footnote 258: Doc. in Favaro: 149.]
+
+[Footnote 259: Galileo: _Dialogo_: To the Reader.]
+
+[Illustration: A "CORRECTED" PAGE FROM THE _De Revolutionibus_.
+
+A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a page from Mulier's edition
+(1617) of the _De Revolutionibus_ as "corrected" according to the
+_Monitum_ of the Congregations in 1620. The first writer underlined
+the passages to be deleted or altered with marginal notes indicating
+the changes ordered; the second writer scratched out these passages,
+and wrote out in full the changes the other had given in abbreviated
+form. The _Notae_ are Mulier's own, and so were not affected by the
+order. The effect of the page is therefore somewhat contradictory!]
+
+In 1630 he brought the completed manuscript to Riccardi, Master of the
+Sacred Palace, for permission to print it in Rome. After much reading
+and re-reading of it both by Riccardi and his associate, Father
+Visconti, permission was at length granted on condition that he insert
+a preface and a conclusion practically dictated by Riccardi,
+emphasizing its hypothetical character.[260] The Pope's own argument
+was to be used: "God is all-powerful; all things are therefore
+possible to Him; ergo, the tides cannot be adduced as a necessary
+proof of the double motion of the earth without limiting God's
+omnipotence--which is absurd."[261] Galileo returned to Florence in
+June with the permission to print his book in Rome. Meanwhile the
+plague broke out. He decided to print it in Florence instead, and on
+writing to Riccardi for that permission, the latter asked for the book
+to review it again. The times were too troublesome to risk sending it,
+so a compromise was finally effected: Galileo was to send the preface
+and conclusion to Rome and Riccardi agreed to instruct the Inquisitor
+at Florence as to his requirements and to authorize him to license the
+book.[262] The parts were not returned from Rome till July, 1631, and
+the book did not appear till February of the following year, when it
+was published at Florence with all these licenses, both the Roman and
+the Florentine ones.
+
+[Footnote 260: Doc. in Favaro: 70.]
+
+[Footnote 261: Fahie: 230.]
+
+[Footnote 262: Ibid: 240.]
+
+The _Dialogo_ was in Italian so that all could read it. It begins with
+an outline of the Aristotelian system, then points out the
+resemblances between the earth and the planets. The second "day"
+demonstrates the daily rotation of the earth on its axis. The next
+claims that the necessary stellar parallax is too minute to be
+observed and discusses the earth's annual rotation. The last seeks to
+prove this rotation by the ebb and flow of the tides. It is a
+brilliant book and received a great reception.
+
+The authorities of the Inquisition at once examined it and denounced
+Galileo (April 17, 1633) because in it he not merely taught and
+defended the "condemned doctrine but was gravely suspected of firm
+adherence to this opinion."[263] Other charges made against him were
+that he had printed the Roman licenses without the permission of the
+Congregation, that he had printed the preface in different type so
+alienating it from the body of the book, and had put the required
+conclusion into the mouth of a fool (Simplicio), that in many places
+he had abandoned the hypothetical treatment and asserted the forbidden
+doctrine, and that he had dealt indecisively with the matter though
+the Congregation had specifically condemned the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the express words of the Scripture.[264]
+
+[Footnote 263: Doc. in Favaro: 88-89. [Transcriber's Note: Missing
+footnote reference in original text has been added above in a logical
+place.]]
+
+[Footnote 264: Ibid: 66.]
+
+The Pope became convinced that Galileo had ridiculed him in the
+character of Simplicio to whom Galileo had naturally enough assigned
+the Pope's syllogistic argument. On the 23rd of September, he ordered
+the Inquisitor of Florence to notify Galileo (in the presence of
+concealed notary and witnesses in case he were "recusant") to come to
+Rome and appear before the Sacred Congregation before the end of the
+next month;[265] the publication and sale of the _Dialogo_ meanwhile
+being stopped at great financial loss to the printer.[266] Galileo
+promised to obey; but he was nearly seventy years old and so much
+broken in health that a long difficult journey in the approaching
+winter seemed a great and unnecessary hardship, especially as he was
+loath to believe that the Church authorities were really hostile to
+him. Delays were granted him till the Pope in December finally ordered
+him to be in Rome within a month.[267] The Florentine Inquisitor
+replied that Galileo was in bed so sick that three doctors had
+certified that he could not travel except at serious risk to his life.
+This certificate declared that he suffered from an intermittent pulse,
+from enfeebled vital faculties, from frequent dizziness, from
+melancholia, weakness of the stomach, insomnia, shooting pains and
+serious hernia.[268] The answer the Pope made to this was to order the
+Inquisitor to send at Galileo's expense a commissary and a doctor out
+to his villa to see if he were feigning illness; if he were, he was to
+be sent bound and in chains to Rome at once; if [Transcriber's Note:
+'he' missing] were really too ill to travel, then he was to be sent in
+chains as soon as he was convalescent and could travel safely.[269]
+Galileo did not delay after that any longer than he could help, and
+set out for Rome in January in a litter supplied by the Tuscan Grand
+Duke.[270] The journey was prolonged by quarantine, but upon his
+arrival (February 13, 1633), he was welcomed into the palace of
+Niccolini, the warm-hearted ambassador of the Grand Duke.
+
+[Footnote 265: Ibid: 17-18.]
+
+[Footnote 266: Galileo: _Opere_, XV, 26.]
+
+[Footnote 267: Doc. in Favaro: 74.]
+
+[Footnote 268: Ibid: 75.]
+
+[Footnote 269: Ibid: 76.]
+
+[Footnote 270: Ibid: 80-81.]
+
+Four times was the old man summoned into the presence of the Holy
+Office, though never when the Pope was presiding. In his first
+examination held on the 12th of April, he told how he thought he had
+obeyed the decree of 1616 as his _Dialogo_ did not defend the
+Copernican doctrine but rather confuted it, and that in his desire to
+do the right, he had personally submitted the book while in manuscript
+to the censorship of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and had accepted
+all the changes he and the Florentine Inquisitor had required. He had
+not mentioned the affair of 1616 because he thought that order did not
+apply to this book in which he proved the lack of validity and of
+conclusiveness of the Copernican arguments.[271] With remarkable, in
+fact unique, consideration, the Holy Office then assigned Galileo to a
+suite of rooms within the prisons of the Holy Office, allowed him to
+have his servant with him and to have his meals sent in by the
+ambassador. On the 30th after his examination, they even assigned as
+his prison, the Ambassador's palace, out of consideration for his age
+and ill-health.
+
+[Footnote 271: Ibid: 80-81.]
+
+In his second appearance (April 30), Galileo declared he had been
+thinking matters over after re-reading his book (which he had not read
+for three years), and freely confessed that there were several
+passages which would mislead a reader unaware of his real intentions,
+into believing the worse arguments were the better, and he blamed
+these slips upon his vain ambition and delight in his own skill in
+debate.[272] He thereupon offered to write another "day" or two more
+for the _Dialogo_ in which he would completely refute the two "strong"
+Copernican arguments based on the sun's spots and on the tides.[273]
+Ten days later, at his third appearance, he presented a written
+statement of his defence in which he claimed that the phrase _vel
+quovis modo docere_ was wholly new to him, and that he had obeyed the
+order given him by Cardinal Bellarmin over the latter's own signature.
+However he would make what amends he could and begged the Cardinals to
+"consider his miserable bodily health and his incessant mental trouble
+for the past ten months, the discomforts of a long hard journey at the
+worst season, when 70 years old, together with the loss of the greater
+part of the year, and that therefore such suffering might be adequate
+punishment for his faults which they might condone to failing old age.
+Also he commended to them his honor and reputation against the
+calumnies of his ill-wishers who seek to detract from his good
+name."[274] To such a plight was the great man brought! But the end
+was not yet.
+
+[Footnote 272: Doc. in Favaro: 83.]
+
+[Footnote 273: Ibid: 84.]
+
+[Footnote 274: Ibid: 85-87.]
+
+Nearly a month later (June 16), by order of the Pope, Galileo was once
+again interrogated, this time under threat of torture.[275] Once again
+he declared the opinion of Ptolemy true and indubitable and said he
+did not hold and had not held this doctrine of Copernicus after he had
+been informed of the order to abandon it. "As for the rest," he added,
+"I am in your hands, do with me as you please." "I am here to
+obey."[276] Then by the order of the Pope, ensued Galileo's complete
+abjuration on his knees in the presence of the full Congregation,
+coupled with his promise to denounce other heretics (i.e.,
+Copernicans).[277] In addition, because he was guilty of the heresy of
+having held and believed a doctrine declared and defined as contrary
+to the Scriptures, he was sentenced to "formal imprisonment" at the
+will of the Congregation, and to repeat the seven penitential Psalms
+every week for three years.[278]
+
+[Footnote 275: Ibid: 101.]
+
+[Footnote 276: Doc. in Favaro: 101.]
+
+[Footnote 277: Doc. in Favaro: 146.]
+
+[Footnote 278: Ibid: 145.]
+
+At Galileo's earnest request, his sentence was commuted almost at
+once, to imprisonment first in the archiepiscopal palace in Siena
+(from June 30-December 1), then in his own villa at Arcetri, outside
+Florence, though under strict orders not to receive visitors but to
+live in solitude.[279] In the spring his increasing illness occasioned
+another request for greater liberty in order to have the necessary
+visits from the doctor; but on March 23, 1634, this was denied him
+with a stern command from the Pope to refrain from further petitions
+lest the Sacred Congregation be compelled to recall him to their
+prisons in Rome.[280]
+
+[Footnote 279: Ibid: 103, 129.]
+
+[Footnote 280: Ibid: 134.]
+
+The rule forbidding visitors seems not to have been rigidly enforced
+all the time, for Milton visited him, "a prisoner of the Inquisition"
+in 1638;[281] yet Father Castelli had to write to Rome for permission
+to visit him to learn his newly invented method of finding longitude
+at sea.[282] When in Florence on a very brief stay to see his doctor,
+Galileo had to have the especial consent of the Inquisitor in order to
+attend mass at Easter. He won approval from the Holy Congregation,
+however, by refusing to receive some gifts and letters brought him by
+some German merchants from the Low Countries.[283] He was then totally
+blind, but he dragged out his existence until January 8, 1642 (the
+year of Newton's birth), when he died. As the Pope objected to a
+public funeral for a man sentenced by the Holy Office, he was buried
+without even an epitaph.[284] The first inscription was made 31 years
+later, and in 1737, his remains were removed to Santa Croce after the
+Congregation had first been asked if such action would be
+unobjectionable.[285]
+
+[Footnote 281: Milton: _Areopagitica_: 35.]
+
+[Footnote 282: Doc. in Favaro: 135.]
+
+[Footnote 283: Ibid: 137.]
+
+[Footnote 284: Fahie: 402.]
+
+[Footnote 285: Doc. in Favaro: 138; and Fahie: 402.]
+
+Pope Urban had no intention of concealing Galileo's abjuration and
+sentence. Instead, he ordered copies of both to be sent to all
+inquisitors and papal nuncios that they might notify all their clergy
+and especially all the professors of mathematics and philosophy within
+their districts, particularly those at Florence, Padua and Pisa.[286]
+This was done during the summer and fall of 1633. From Wilna in
+Poland, Cologne, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, as well as from all
+Italy, came the replies of the papal officials stating that the order
+had been obeyed.[287] He evidently intended to leave no ground for a
+remark like that of Fromundus about the earlier condemnation.
+
+[Footnote 286: Doc. in Favaro: 101, 103.]
+
+[Footnote 287: Ibid: 104-132.]
+
+Galileo was thus brought so low that the famous remark, "Eppur si
+muove," legend reports him to have made as he rose to his feet after
+his abjuration, is incredible in itself, even if it had appeared in
+history earlier than its first publication in 1761.[288] But his
+discoveries and his fight in defence of the system did much both to
+strengthen the doctrine itself and to win adherents to it. The
+appearance of the moon as seen through a telescope destroyed the
+Aristotelian notion of the perfection of heavenly bodies. Jupiter's
+satellites gave proof by analogy of the solar system, though on a
+smaller scale. The discovery of the phases of Venus refuted a hitherto
+strong objection to the Copernican system; and the discovery of the
+spots on the sun led to his later discovery of the sun's axial
+rotation, another proof by analogy of the axial rotation of the earth.
+Yet he swore the Ptolemaic conception was the true one.
+
+[Footnote 288: Fahie: 325, note.]
+
+The abjuration of Galileo makes a pitiful page in the history of
+thought and has been a fruitful source of controversy[289] for nearly
+three centuries. He was unquestionably a sincere and loyal Catholic,
+and accordingly submitted to the punishment decreed by the
+authorities. But in his abjuration he plainly perjured himself,
+however fully he may be pardoned for it because of the extenuating
+circumstances. Had he not submitted and been straitly imprisoned, if
+not burned, the world would indeed have been the poorer by the loss
+of his greatest work, the _Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze_, which he did
+not publish until 1636.[290]
+
+[Footnote 289: For full statement, see Martin: 133-207.]
+
+[Footnote 290: Gebler: 263.]
+
+Even more hotly debated has been the action of the Congregations in
+condemning the Copernican doctrine, and sentencing Galileo as a
+heretic for upholding it.[291] Though both Paul V and Urban VIII
+spurred on these actions, neither signed either the decree or the
+sentence, nor was the latter present at Galileo's examinations. Pope
+Urban would prefer not so openly to have changed his position from
+that of tolerance to his present one of active opposition caused
+partly by his piqued self-respect[292] and partly by his belief that
+this heresy was more dangerous even than that of Luther and
+Calvin.[293] It is a much mooted question whether the infallibility of
+the Church was involved or not. Though the issue at stake was not one
+of faith, nor were the decrees issued by the Pope _ex cathedra_, but
+by a group of Cardinals, a fallible body, yet they had the full
+approbation of the Popes, and later were published in the Index
+preceded by a papal bull excommunicating those who did not obey the
+decrees contained therein.[294] It seems to be a matter of the letter
+as opposed to the spirit of the law. De Morgan points out that
+contemporary opinion as represented by Fromundus, an ardent opponent
+of Galileo, did not consider the Decree of the Index or of the
+Inquisition as a declaration of the Church,[295]--a position which
+Galileo himself may have held, thus explaining his practical disregard
+of the decree of 1616 after he was persuaded the authorities were more
+favorably disposed to him. But M. Martin, himself a Catholic,
+thinks[296] that theoretically the Congregations could punish Galileo
+only for disobedience of the secret order,--but even so his book had
+been examined and passed by the official censors.
+
+[Footnote 291: See Gebler: 244-247; White: I, 159-167; also Martin.]
+
+[Footnote 292: Martin: 136; and Salusbury: _Math. Coll._ "To the
+reader."]
+
+[Footnote 293: Galileo: _Opere_, XV, 25.]
+
+[Footnote 294: Putnam: I, 310.]
+
+[Footnote 295: De Morgan: I, 98.]
+
+[Footnote 296: Martin: 140.]
+
+When the Index was revised under Pope Benedict XIV in 1757, largely
+through the influence of the Jesuit astronomer Boscovich, so it is
+said,[297] the phrase prohibiting all books teaching the immobility
+of the sun, and the mobility of the earth was omitted from the
+decrees.[298] But in 1820, the Master of the Sacred Palace refused to
+permit the publication in Rome of a textbook on astronomy by Canon
+Settele, who thereupon appealed to the Congregations. They granted his
+request in August, and two years later, issued a decree approved by
+Pope Pius VII ordering the Master of the Sacred Palace in future "not
+to refuse license for publication of books dealing with the mobility
+of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to the common
+opinion of modern astronomers" on that ground alone.[299] The next
+edition of the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_ (1835) did not contain
+the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, a Stunica and Kepler
+which had appeared in every edition up to that time since their
+condemnation in 1616, (Kepler's in 1619).
+
+[Footnote 297: _Cath. Ency._: "Boscovich."]
+
+[Footnote 298: Doc. in Favaro: 159.]
+
+[Footnote 299: Ibid: 30, 31.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+THE OPPOSITION AND THEIR ARGUMENTS.
+
+
+The Protestant leaders had rejected the Copernican doctrine as
+contrary to the Scriptures. The Roman Congregations had now condemned
+Galileo for upholding this doctrine after they had prohibited it for
+the same reasons. These objections are perhaps best summarized in that
+open letter Foscarini wrote to the general of his order, the
+Carmelites, at Naples in January, 1615,[300]--the letter that was
+absolutely prohibited by the Index in March, 1616. He gave these
+arguments and answered them lest, as he said, "whilst otherwise the
+opinion is favored with much probability, it be found in reality to be
+extremely repugnant (as at first sight it seems) not only to physical
+reasons and common principles received on all hands (which cannot do
+so much harm), but also (which would be of far worse consequence) to
+many authorities of Sacred Scripture. Upon which account many at first
+looking into it explode it as the most fond paradox and monstrous
+_capriccio_ that ever was heard of." "Yet many modern authors," he
+says further on, "are induced to follow it, but with much hesitancy
+and fear, in regard that it seemeth in their opinion so to contradict
+the Holy Scriptures that it cannot possibly be reconciled to them."
+Consequently Foscarini argued that the theory is either true or false;
+if false, it ought not to be divulged; if true, the authority of the
+Sacred Scriptures will not oppose it; neither does one truth
+contradict another. So he turned to the Bible.
+
+[Footnote 300: In Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: I, 471-503.]
+
+He found that six groups of authorities seemed to oppose this
+doctrine. (1) Those stating that the earth stands fast, as Eccles.
+1:4. (2) Those stating that the sun moves and revolves; as Psalm XIX,
+Isaiah XXXVIII, and the miracle in Josh. X:12-14. (3) Those speaking
+of the heaven above and the earth beneath, as in Joel II. Also Christ
+came _down_ from Heaven. (4) Those authorities who place Hell at the
+center of the world, a "common opinion of divines," because it ought
+to be in the lowest part of the world, that is, at the center of the
+sphere. Then by the Copernican hypothesis, Hell must either be in the
+sun; or, if in the earth, if the earth should move about the sun, then
+Hell within the earth would be in Heaven, and nothing could be more
+absurd. (5) Those authorities opposing Heaven to earth and earth to
+Heaven, as in Gen. I, Mat. VI, etc. Since the two are always mutually
+opposed to each other, and Heaven undoubtedly refers to the
+circumference, earth must necessarily be at the center. (6) Those
+authorities ("rather of fathers and divines than of the Sacred
+Scriptures") who declare that after the Day of Judgment, the sun shall
+stand immovable in the east and the moon in west.
+
+Foscarini then lays down in answer six maxims, the first of which is
+that things attributed to God must be expounded metaphorically
+according to our manner of understanding and of common speech. The
+other maxims are more metaphysical, as that everything in the
+universe, whether corruptible or incorruptible, obeys a fixed law of
+its nature; so, for example, Fortune is _always_ fickle. In concluding
+his defense, he claims among other things, that the Copernician is a
+more admirable hypothesis than the Ptolemaic, and that it is an easy
+way into astronomy and philosophy. Then he adds that there may be an
+analogy between the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Testament
+and the seven planets around the sun, and possibly the arrangement of
+the seeds in the "Indian Figg," in the pomegranate and in grapes is
+all divine evidence of the solar system. With such an amusing
+reversion to mediaeval analogy his spirited letter ends.
+
+Some or all of these scriptural arguments appear in most of the
+attacks on the doctrine even before its condemnation by the Index in
+1616 was widely known. Besides these objections, Aristotle's and
+Ptolemy's statements were endlessly repeated with implicit faith in
+their accuracy. Even Sir Francis Bacon (1567-1631) with all his
+modernity of thought, failed in this instance to recognize the value
+of the new idea and, despite his interest in Galileo's discoveries,
+harked back to the time-honored objections. At first mild in his
+opposition, he later became emphatically opposed to it. In the
+_Advancement of Learning_[301] (1604), he speaks of it as a possible
+explanation of the celestial phenomena according to astronomy but as
+contrary to natural philosophy. Some fifteen years later in the _Novum
+Organon_,[302] he asserts that the assumption of the earth's movement
+cannot be allowed; for, as he says in his _Thema Coeli_,[303] at
+that time he considered the opinion that the earth is stationary the
+truer one. Finally, in his _De Augmentis Scientiarum_[304] (1622-1623)
+he speaks of the old notions of the solidity of the heavens, etc., and
+adds, "It is the absurdity of these opinions that has driven men to
+the diurnal motion; which I am convinced is most false." He gives his
+reasons in the _Descriptio Globi Intellectualis_[305] (ch. 5-6): "In
+favor of the earth [as the center of the world] we have the evidence
+of our sight, and an inveterate opinion; and most of all this, that as
+dense bodies are contracted into a narrow compass, and rare bodies are
+widely diffused (and the area of every circle is contracted to the
+center) it seems to follow almost of necessity that the narrow space
+about the middle of the world be set down as the proper and peculiar
+place for dense bodies." The sun's claims to such a situation are
+satisfied through having two satellites of its own, Venus and Mercury.
+Copernicus's scheme is inconvenient; it overloads the earth with a
+triple motion; it creates a difficulty by separating the sun from the
+number of the planets with which it has much in common; and the
+"introduction of so much immobility into nature ... and making the
+moon revolve around the earth in an epicycle, and some other
+assumptions of his are the speculations of one who cares not what
+fictions he introduces into nature, provided his calculations answer."
+The total absence of all reference to the Scriptures is the unique and
+refreshing part of Bacon's thought.
+
+[Footnote 301: Bk. II: sec. 8, Sec.1.]
+
+[Footnote 302: Bk. II, ch. 46.]
+
+[Footnote 303: _Phil. Works_: 705.]
+
+[Footnote 304: Bk. III.]
+
+[Footnote 305: _Phil. Works_: 684-685.]
+
+All the more common arguments against the diurnal rotation of the
+earth are well stated in an interesting little letter (1619) by
+Thomas Feyens, or Fienus, a professor at the school of medicine in the
+University of Louvain.[306] Thus Catholic, Protestant, and unbeliever,
+Feyens, Melancthon, Bacon and Bodin, all had recourse to the same
+arguments to oppose this seemingly absurd doctrine.
+
+[Footnote 306: Translated in Appendix C. For criticism, see Monchamp:
+58-64.]
+
+Froidmont, or Fromundus, the good friend and colleague of Feyens at
+Louvain, was also much interested in these matters, so much so that
+some thought he had formerly accepted the Copernican doctrine and
+"only fled back into the camp of Aristotle and Ptolemy through terror
+at the decree of the S. Congregation of Cardinals."[307] His indignant
+denial of this imputation of turn-coat in 1634 is somewhat weakened by
+reference to his _Saturnalitae Coenae_[308] (1615) in which he suggests
+that, if the Copernican doctrine is admitted, then Hell may be in the
+sun at the center of the universe rather than in the earth, in order
+to be as far as possible from Paradise. He also refers in his _De
+Cometa_ (1618) to the remark of Justus-Lipsius[309] that this paradox
+was buried with Copernicus, saying "You are mistaken, O noble scholar:
+it lives, and it is full of vigor even now among many,"[310] thus
+apparently not seeing serious objection to it. M. Monchamp summarizes
+Froidmont's point of view as against Aristotle and Ptolemy, half for
+Copernicus and wholly for Tycho Brahe.
+
+[Footnote 307: Fromundus: _Vesta_: Ad Lectorem.]
+
+[Footnote 308: Monchamp: 41.]
+
+[Footnote 309: Justus-Lipsius: IV, 947.]
+
+[Footnote 310: Monchamp: 48.]
+
+Froidmont's best known books are the two he wrote in answer to a
+defense of the Copernican position first by Philip Lansberg, then by
+his son. The _Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis Terrae Immobilis, Liber unicus
+in quo decretum S. Congregationis S.R.E. Cardinal. an. 1616, adversus
+Pythagorico-Copernicanus editum, defenditur_, appeared in 1631 before
+Galileo's condemnation. The Jesuit Cavalieri wrote to Galileo in May
+about it thus:[311] "I have run it through, and verily it states the
+Copernican theory and the arguments in its favor with so much skill
+and efficacy that he seems to have understood it very well indeed. But
+he refutes them with so little force that he seems rather to be of an
+opinion contrary to that expressed in the title of his book. I have
+given it to M. Cesar. If you wish it, I will have it sent to you. The
+arguments he brings against Copernicus are those you have so
+masterfully stated and answered in your _Dialogo_." Nearly a year
+later, Galileo wrote to Gassendi and Diodati that he had received this
+book a month before and, although he had been unable to read much of
+it on account of his eye trouble, it seemed to him that of all the
+opponents of Copernicus whom he had seen, Fromundus was the most
+sensible and efficient.[312] Again he wrote in January, 1633,
+regretting that he had not seen it till six months after he had
+published his dialogues, for he would have both praised it and
+commented upon certain points. "As for Fromundus (who however shows
+himself to be a man of great talent) I wish he had not fallen into
+what seems to me a truly serious error, although a rather common one,
+in order to refute the Copernican opinion, of beginning by poking
+scorn and ridicule at those who consider it true, and then (what seems
+to me still less becoming) of basing his attack chiefly on the
+authority of the Scriptures, and finally of deducing from this that in
+this respect it is an opinion little short of heretical. To argue in
+this way is clearly not praiseworthy;" for as Galileo goes on to show,
+if the Scriptures are the word of God, the heavens themselves are his
+handiwork. Why is the one less noble than the other?[313]
+
+[Footnote 311: Ibid: 94.]
+
+[Footnote 312: Galileo: _Opere_: XV, 25.]
+
+[Footnote 313: Ibid: XIV, 340-341.]
+
+Froidmont replied in 1633 to Lansberg's reply with his second attack,
+_Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi Vindex_, in which he laid even more
+emphasis upon the theological and scriptural objections. Yet, in
+ignorance of Galileo's condemnation, he considers the charge of heresy
+too strong. "The partisans of this system do not after all disdain the
+authority of the Scriptures, although they appear to interpret it in a
+way rather in their favor." He also, and rightly, denies the existence
+at that time of any conclusive proof.[314]
+
+[Footnote 314: Monchamp: 107-108.]
+
+In spite of Froidmont's position, the University of Louvain was not
+cordial in its response to the papal nuncio's announcement in
+September, 1633, of Galileo's abjuration and sentence, in marked
+contrast to the reply sent by the neighboring university of Douay. The
+latter body, in a letter signed by Matthaeus Kellison (Sept. 7, 1633),
+declared the condemned theory "should be discarded and hissed from the
+schools; and that in the English College there in Douay, this paradox
+never had been approved and never would be, but had always been
+opposed and always would be."[315]
+
+[Footnote 315: Doc. in Favaro: 120-121, 132, 133.]
+
+This opposition in the universities in Belgium continued throughout
+the century to be based not so much on scientific grounds as upon the
+Bible. This may be seen in the manuscript reports of lectures in
+physics and astronomy given at Liege in 1662, and at Louvain between
+1650-1660, though one of these does not mention the decree of
+1616.[316] The general congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1650
+drew up a list of the propositions proscribed in their teaching,
+though, according to M. Monchamp (himself a Catholic) not thereby
+implying a denial of any probability they might have. The 35th
+proposition ran: "Terra movetur motu diurno; planetae, tanquam
+viventia, moventur ab intrinseco. Firmamentum stat."[317] The Jesuit
+astronomer Tacquet in his textbook (Antwerp, 1669) respected this
+decision, acknowledging that no scientific reason kept him from
+defending the theory, but solely his respect for the Christian
+faith.[318]
+
+[Footnote 316: Monchamp: 125, 143.]
+
+[Footnote 317: Ibid: 148-149.]
+
+[Footnote 318: Ibid: 152-153.]
+
+One of the pupils of the Jesuits revolted however. Martin van Welden,
+appointed professor of mathematics at Louvain in 1683, debated a
+series of theses in January, 1691. The second read: "Indubitum est
+systhema Copernici de planetarum motu circa sole; inter quos merito
+terra censetur." His refusal to alter the wording except to change
+_indubitum_ to _certum_ brought on a stormy controversy within the
+faculty which eventually reached the Council of Brabant and the papal
+nuncio at Brussels.[319] The professor finally submitted, though he
+was not forbidden to teach the Copernician system, nor did the faculty
+affirm its falsity, merely that it was contrary to the Roman decree.
+The professor re-opened the matter with a similar thesis in July,
+thereby arousing a second controversy that this time reached even the
+Privy Council. Once more he submitted, but solely with an apology for
+having caused a disagreement. His new theses in 1695 contained no
+explicit mention of the Copernician system; at least he had learned
+tact.[320]
+
+[Footnote 319: Ibid: 182-234.]
+
+[Footnote 320: Monchamp: 321.]
+
+The absorption of the German states in the Thirty Years War may
+account for the apparent absence there of Copernican discussion until
+after the Peace of Westphalia. A certain Georgius Ludovicus Agricola
+gave a syllogistic refutation of the doctrine as his disputation at
+the university of Wittenberg in 1665. While he acknowledged its
+ingenuity, he preferred to it "the noblest, truest, and divinely
+inspired system" of Tycho Brahe. The four requirements of an
+acceptable astronomical hypothesis according to this student are: (1)
+That it suit all the observations of all the ages; (2) That as far as
+possible, it be simple and clear; (3) That it be not contrary to the
+principles of physics and optics; (4) That it be not contrary to the
+Holy Scriptures. As the Copernican theory does not meet all these
+tests, it is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he considers it "ridiculous
+to include the earth among the planets, because then we would be
+living in Heaven, forsooth, since we would be in a star." He decides
+finally "that the decree of March, 1616, condemning the Copernican
+opinion was not unjust, nor was Galileo unfairly treated."[321]
+
+[Footnote 321: Agricola: _Disputatio_.]
+
+Two years later appeared a textbook at Nuernberg, by a Jesuit father,
+based on the twelfth century Sacrobosco treatise and without a single
+reference so far as I could find, to Copernicus![322] Another
+publication of the same year was a good deal more up to date. This was
+a kind of catechism in German by Johann-Henrich Voight[323] explaining
+for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in
+a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish
+astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his
+reader free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of
+which he carefully explained.[324] He made an interesting summary in
+parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion
+which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common
+people were taught:
+
+
+Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless:
+
+1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be
+moved.
+
+2. Joshua bade the sun stand still--which would not be notable were it
+not already at rest.
+
+3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at
+rest.
+
+4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why
+should not the whole earth itself be at rest?
+
+5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a
+great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and
+especially if it declined to the north and south....
+
+6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if
+the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its
+starting point.
+
+7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps.
+
+8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the
+swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of
+dizziness.
+
+
+Reasons for the belief that the earth is moved:
+
+1. The sun, the most excellent, the greatest and the midmost star,
+rightly stands still like a king while all the other stars with the
+earth swing round it.
+
+2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular
+deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving shore.
+
+3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in
+accordance with the popular misconception.
+
+4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so
+the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.
+
+5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle
+of the human body.
+
+6. Since the earth has in itself its especial _centrum_, a stone or an
+arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own _centrum_ as do all
+earthly things.
+
+7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun
+can go forty miles in the same time.
+
+And similarly on both sides.[325]
+
+[Footnote 322: Schotto: _Organum Mathematicum_ (1667).]
+
+[Footnote 323: Voight: _Der Kunstguenstigen Einfalt Mathematischer
+Raritaeten Erstes Hundert_. (Hamburg, 1667).]
+
+[Footnote 324: Voight: _op. cit._: 28.]
+
+[Footnote 325: Ibid: 30-31.]
+
+Another writer preferring the Tychonic scheme was Longomontanus, whose
+_Astronomica Danica_ (Amsterdam, 1640) upheld this theory because it
+"obviates the absurdities of the Copernican hypothesis and most aptly
+corresponds to celestial appearances," and also because it is "midway
+between that and the Ptolemaic one."[326] Even though he speaks of the
+"apparent motion of the sun," he attributed diurnal motion to the
+heavens, and believed the earth was at the center of the universe
+because (1), from the account of the Creation, the heaven and the
+earth were first created, and what could be more likely than that the
+heavens should fill the space between the center (the earth) and the
+circumference? (2) and because of the incredibly enormous interval
+between the sphere of the fixed stars and the earth necessitated by
+Copernican doctrine.[327]
+
+[Footnote 326: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 162.]
+
+[Footnote 327: Longomontanus: _Op. cit._: 158.]
+
+The high-water mark of opposition after Galileo's condemnation was
+reached in the _Almagestum Novum_ (Bologna, 1651) by Father Riccioli
+of the Society of Jesus. It was the authoritative answer of that
+order, the leaders of the Church in matters of education, to the
+challenges of the literary world for a justification of the
+condemnation of the Copernican doctrine and of Galileo for upholding
+it. Father Riccioli had been professor of philosophy and of
+mathematics for six years and of theology for ten when by order of his
+superiors, he was released from his lectureship to prepare a book
+containing all the material he could gather together on this great
+controversy of the age.[328] He wrote it as he himself said, as "an
+_apologia_ for the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals who officially
+pronounced these condemnations, not so much because I thought such
+great height and eminence needed this at my hands but especially in
+behalf of Catholics; also out of the love of truth to which every
+non-Catholic, even, should be persuaded and from a certain notable
+zeal and eagerness for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures
+intact and unimpaired; and lastly because of that reverence and
+devotion which I owe from my particular position toward the Holy,
+Catholic and Apostolic Church."[329]
+
+[Footnote 328: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: Praefatio, I, xviii.]
+
+[Footnote 329: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 496.]
+
+This monumental work, the most important literary production of the
+Society in the 17th century,[330] is abundant witness to Riccioli's
+remarkable erudition and industry. Nearly one-fifth of the total bulk
+of the two huge volumes is devoted to a statement of the Copernican
+controversy. This is prefaced by a brief account of his own theory of
+the universe--the invention of which is another proof of the ability
+of the man--for his scientific training prevented his acceptance of
+the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory in the light of Galileo's
+discoveries; his position as a Jesuit and a faithful son of the Church
+precluded him from adopting the system condemned by its
+representatives; and Tycho Brahe's scheme was not wholly to his
+liking. Therefor he proposed an adaptation of the last-named, more in
+accordance, as he thought, with the facts.[331] Where Tycho had all
+the planets except the earth and the moon encircle the sun, and that
+in turn, together with the moon and the sphere of the fixed stars,
+sweep around the earth as the center of the universe, Riccioli made
+only Mars, Mercury and Venus encircle the sun,--Mars with an orbit the
+radius of which included the earth within its sweep, the other two
+planets with orbital radii shorter than that of the sun, and so
+excluding the earth. This he did, (1) because both Jupiter and Saturn
+have their own kingdoms in the heavens, and Mars, Mercury and Venus
+are but satellites of the sun; (2) because there are greater varieties
+of eccentricity among these three than the other two; (3) because
+Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the
+fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of
+their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the
+planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and
+with Mercury and Venus also.[332]
+
+[Footnote 330: _Cath. Ency._: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic
+Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)]
+
+[Footnote 331: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
+
+[Footnote 332: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]
+
+Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre
+summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments against it,[333] and
+Riccioli himself claims[334] to have stated "40 new arguments in
+behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat
+familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for
+instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or,
+the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is
+smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of
+God's power; for to God all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.[335]
+Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so,
+according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it,
+Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars
+revolve around him. The sun may be nobler than the earth, but man is
+nobler than the sun.[336] If the earth's movement were admitted,
+Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the
+epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans
+appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,[337] but he calls to his
+aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his
+defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.[338] There are many
+more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more
+or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or
+novelty.
+
+[Footnote 333: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 674-680.]
+
+[Footnote 334: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 2.]
+
+[Footnote 335: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 313, 315.]
+
+[Footnote 336: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 330-351.]
+
+[Footnote 337: Ibid: II, 339-340.]
+
+[Footnote 338: Delambre: _Op. cit._: I, 677.]
+
+To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the
+heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite
+view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern
+reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it,
+for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure
+men.[339]
+
+[Footnote 339: Ibid: I, 673.]
+
+
+In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].[340]
+
+  Copernicus
+  Rheticus
+  Maestlin
+  Kepler
+  Rothman
+  Galileo
+  Gilbert (diurnal motion)
+  Foscarini
+  Didacus Stunica (_sic_)
+  Ismael Bullialdus
+  Jacob Lansberg
+  Peter Herigonus
+  Gassendi,--"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees."
+  Descartes "inclines to this belief."
+  A.L. Politianus
+  Bruno
+
+
+Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement.
+
+  Aristotle
+  Ptolemy
+  Theon the Alexandrine
+  Regiomontanus
+  Alfraganus
+  Macrobius
+  Cleomedes
+  Petrus Aliacensis
+  George Buchanan
+  Maurolycus
+  Clavius
+  Barocius
+  Michael Neander
+  Telesius
+  Martinengus
+  Justus-Lipsius
+  Scheiner
+  Tycho
+  Tasso
+  Scipio Claramontius
+  Michael Incofer
+  Fromundus
+  Jacob Ascarisius
+  Julius Caesar La Galla
+  Tanner
+  Bartholomaeus Amicus
+  Antonio Rocce
+  Marinus Mersennius
+  Polacco
+  Kircher
+  Spinella
+  Pineda
+  Lorinis
+  Mastrius
+  Bellutris
+  Poncius
+  Delphinus
+  Elephantutius
+
+[Footnote 340: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 290.]
+
+Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy.
+After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted
+the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one
+digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one
+unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never
+been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,--that man who
+accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even
+to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a triple
+motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before
+so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to
+carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his
+hypothesis!"[341]
+
+[Footnote 341: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 304, 309.]
+
+His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit
+restrained him from being a Copernican himself.[342] "I. If the
+celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well
+explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The
+physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of
+percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or
+west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently
+between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures,
+which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other
+motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But
+with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under
+Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the
+sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile
+in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a
+diurnal and an annual motion."[343]
+
+[Footnote 342: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 680.]
+
+[Footnote 343: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 478 (condensed), 500.]
+
+Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the
+action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the
+doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of
+the Church. The full title of his _Apologia_ runs: "An Apologia in
+behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican
+system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex
+motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his
+_Almagestum Novum_ had received the approbation of professors of
+mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and
+he quotes the conclusion from _Nicetas Orthodoxus_ ("a diatribe by
+Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and
+Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual
+motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly
+believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons, but
+solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures,
+and the nod of approval (_nutu_) of the Roman See, whose rules laid
+down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits
+everyone, uphold as law."[344]
+
+[Footnote 344: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 4.]
+
+Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that
+"the Church did not decide _ex cathedra_ that the Scripture concerning
+movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by
+qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not
+merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the
+contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the
+primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical
+and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was
+absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any
+objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but
+only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to
+philosophy."[345] These answers are indicative of the type of
+criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.[346]
+
+[Footnote 345: Ibid: 103.]
+
+[Footnote 346: One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his
+work has come down to us. A canon at Liege, Rene-Francois Sluse, wrote
+asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English
+mathematician, as to his opinion of the _Almagestum Novum_, and of
+this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies.
+Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all
+value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as
+intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a
+matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this."
+Monchamp: 165-166.
+
+For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican
+system between 1631-1688, see Martin: _Galilee_: 386-388.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.
+
+
+Just as Tycho Brahe's system proved to be for some a good half-way
+station between the improbable Ptolemaic and the heretical Copernican
+system;[347] so the Cartesian philosophy helped others to reconcile
+their scientific knowledge with their reverence for the Scriptures,
+until Newton's work had more fully demonstrated the scientific truth.
+
+[Footnote 347: See Moxon: _Advice, A Tutor to Astronomy and Geography_
+(1670): 269.]
+
+Its originator, Rene Descartes[348] (1596-1650) was in Holland when
+word of Galileo's condemnation reached him in 1633, as he was seeking
+in the bookshops of Amsterdam and Leyden for a copy of the
+_Dialogo_.[349] He at once became alarmed lest he too be accused of
+trying to establish the movement of the earth, a doctrine which he had
+understood was then publicly taught even in Rome, and which he had
+made the basis of his own philosophy. If this doctrine were condemned
+as false, then his philosophy must be also; and, true to his training
+by the Jesuits, rather than go against the Church he would not publish
+his books. He set aside his _Cosmos_, and delayed the publication of
+the _Methode_ for some years in consequence, even starting to
+translate it into Latin as a safeguard.[350] His conception of the
+universe, the Copernican one modified to meet the requirements of a
+literally interpreted Bible, was not printed until 1644, when it
+appeared in his _Principes_.[351]
+
+[Footnote 348: Haldane's _Descartes_ (1905) is the most recent and
+authoritative account based upon Descartes's works as published in the
+Adams-Tannery edition (Paris, 1896. foll.). This edition supersedes
+that of Cousin. [Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote reference in
+original text has been added above in a logical place.]]
+
+[Footnote 349: Haldane: 153.]
+
+[Footnote 350: Ibid: 158.]
+
+[Footnote 351: Descartes: _Principes_, Pt. III, chap. 13.]
+
+According to this statement which he made only as a possible
+explanation of the phenomena and not as an absolute truth, while there
+was little to choose between the Tychonic and the Copernican
+conceptions, he inclined slightly toward the former. He conceived of
+the earth and the other planets as each borne along in its enveloping
+heaven like a ship by the tide, or like a man asleep on a ship that
+was sailing from Calais to Dover. The earth itself does not move, but
+it is transported so that its position is changed in relation to the
+other planets but not visibly so in relation to the fixed stars
+because of the vast intervening spaces. The laws of the universe
+affect even the most minute particle, and all alike are swept along in
+a series of vortices, or whirlpools, of greater or less size. Thus the
+whole planetary system sweeps around the sun in one great vortex, as
+the satellites sweep around their respective planets in lesser ones.
+In this way Descartes worked out a mechanical explanation of the
+universe of considerable importance because it was a rational one
+which anyone could understand. Its defects were many, to be sure, as
+for example, that it did not allow for the elliptical orbits of the
+planets;[352] and one critic has claimed that this theory of a
+motionless earth borne along by an enveloping heaven was comparable to
+a worm in a Dutch cheese sent from Amsterdam to Batavia,--the worm has
+travelled about 6000 leagues but without changing its place![353] But
+this theory fulfilled Descartes's aim: to show that the universe was
+governed by mechanical laws of which we can be absolutely certain and
+that Galileo's discoveries simply indicated this.[354]
+
+[Footnote 352: Haldane: 291.]
+
+[Footnote 353: Monchamp: 185, note.]
+
+[Footnote 354: Haldane: 292.]
+
+This exposition of the Copernican doctrine strongly appealed to the
+literary world of the 17th and 18th centuries in western Europe,
+especially in the Netherlands, in the Paris salons and in the
+universities.[355] M. Monchamp cites a number of contemporary comments
+upon its spread, in one of which it is claimed that in 1691, the
+university of Louvain had for the preceding forty years been
+practically composed of Cartesians.[356] For the time being, this
+theory was a more or less satisfactory explanation of the universe
+according to known laws; it answered to Galileo's observations; it was
+in harmony with the Scriptures, and its vortices paved the way for the
+popular acceptance of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
+
+[Footnote 355: Ibid: 193, 279.]
+
+[Footnote 356: Monchamp: 177-181.]
+
+Protestant England was of course little disturbed by the decree
+against the Copernican doctrine, a fact that makes it possible,
+perhaps, to see there more clearly the change in people's attitude
+from antagonism to acceptance, than in Catholic Europe where fear of
+the Church's power, and respect for its decisions inhibited honest
+public expression of thought and conviction. While in England also the
+literal interpretation of the Scriptures continued to be with the
+common people a strong objection against the doctrine, the rationalist
+movement of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries along with
+Newton's great work, helped win acceptance for it among the better
+educated classes.
+
+Bruno had failed to win over his English hearers, and in 1600 when the
+_De Magnete_ was published, William Gilbert, (1540-1603) was
+apparently the only supporter of the earth's movement then in
+England,[357] and he advocated the diurnal motion only.[358] Not many,
+however, were as outspoken as Bacon in denunciation of the system;
+they were simply somewhat ironically indifferent. An exception to this
+was Dean Wren of Windsor (father of the famous architect). He could
+not speak strongly enough against it in his marginal notes on Browne's
+_Pseudodoxia Epidemica_. As Dr. Johnson wrote,[359] Sir Thomas Browne
+(1605-1682) himself in his zeal for the old errors, did not easily
+admit new positions, for he never mentioned the motion of the earth
+but with contempt and ridicule. This was not enough for the Dean, who
+wrote in the margin of Browne's book, at such a passage,[360] that
+there were "eighty-odd expresse places in the Bible affirming in
+plaine and overt terms the naturall and perpetuall motion of sun and
+moon" and that "a man should be affrighted to follow that audacious
+and pernicious suggestion which Satan used, and thereby undid us all
+in our first parents, that God hath a double meaning in his commands,
+in effect condemning God of amphibologye. And all this boldness and
+overweaning having no other ground but a seeming argument of some
+phenomena forsooth, which notwithstanding we know the learned Tycho,
+prince of astronomers, who lived fifty-two years since Copernicus,
+hath by admirable and matchlesse instruments and many yeares exact
+observations proved to bee noe better than a dreame."
+
+[Footnote 357: Berry quotes (p. 92) a passage from Thomas Digges (d.
+1595) with the date 1590: "But in this our age, one rare witte (seeing
+the continuall errors that from time to time more and more continually
+have been discovered, besides the infinite absurdities in their
+Theoricks, which they have been forced to admit that would not confess
+any mobility in the ball of the Earth) hath by long studye, paynfull
+practise, and rare invention delivered a new Theorick or Model of the
+World, shewing that the Earth resteth not in the Center of the whole
+world or globe of elements, which encircled or enclosed in the Moone's
+orbit, and together with the whole globe of mortality is carried round
+about the Sunne, which like a king in the middst of all, rayneth and
+giveth laws of motion to all the rest, sphaerically dispersing his
+glorious beames of light through all this sacred celestiall Temple."
+Browne also refers to Digges (I, 383).]
+
+[Footnote 358: Gilbert: _De Magnete_, Bk. VI, c. 3-5 (214-228).]
+
+[Footnote 359: Johnson: _Life_, in Browne: I, xvii.]
+
+[Footnote 360: Browne: I, 35.]
+
+Richard [Transcriber's Note: Robert] Burton (1576-1639) in
+_The Anatomy of Melancholy_ speaks of the doctrine as a "prodigious
+tenent, or paradox," lately revived by "Copernicus, Brunus and some
+others," and calls Copernicus in consequence the successor of
+Atlas.[361] The vast extent of the heavens that this supposition
+requires, he considers "quite opposite to reason, to natural
+philosophy, and all out as absurd as disproportional, (so some will)
+as prodigious, as that of the sun's swift motion of the heavens." If
+the earth is a planet, then other planets may be inhabited (as
+Christian Huygens argued later on); and this involves a possible
+plurality of worlds. Burton laughs at those who, to avoid the Church
+attitude and yet explain the celestial phenomena, invent new
+hypotheses and new systems of the world, "correcting others, doing
+worse themselves, reforming some and marring all," as he says of
+Roeslin's endeavors. "In the meantime the world is tossed in a blanket
+amongst them; they hoyse the earth up and down like a ball, make it
+stand and goe at their pleasure."[362] He himself was indifferent.
+
+[Footnote 361: Burton: _Anatomy of Melancholy_, I, 1; I, 66. First
+edition, 1621; reprinted 1624, 1628, 1632, 1638, 1651-2, 1660, 1676.]
+
+[Footnote 362: Ibid: I, 385, 389.]
+
+Others more sensitive to the implications of this system, might
+exclaim with George Herbert (1593-1633):[363]
+
+    "Although there were some fourtie heav'ns, or more,
+      Sometimes I peere above them all;
+    Sometimes I hardly reach a score,
+      Sometimes to hell I fall.
+
+    "O rack me not to such a vast extent,
+      Those distances belong to thee.
+    The world's too little for thy tent,
+      A grave too big for me."
+
+[Footnote 363: Herbert: II, 315.]
+
+Or they might waver, undecided, like Milton who had the archangel
+answer Adam's questions thus:[364]
+
+    "But whether thus these things, or whether not,
+    Whether the Sun predominant in Heaven
+    Rise on the Earth, or Earth rise on the Sun,
+    Hee from the East his flaming robe begin,
+    Or Shee from West her silent course advance
+    With inoffensive pace that spinning sleeps
+    On her soft axle, while she paces ev'n
+    And bears thee soft with the smooth Air along,
+    Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid,
+    Leave them to God above, him serve and feare;
+    Of other Creatures, as him pleases best,
+    Wherever plac't, let him dispose; joy thou
+    In what he gives to thee, this Paradise
+    And the fair Eve: Heaven is for thee too high
+    To know what passes there: be lowlie wise." (1667)
+
+[Footnote 364: Milton: _Paradise Lost_, Bk. VIII, lines 159 _et seq._
+
+The great Puritan divine, John Owen (1616-1683), accepts the miracle
+of the sun's standing still without a word of reference to the new
+astronomy. (_Works_: II, 160.) Farrar states that Owen declared
+Newton's discoveries were against the evident testimonies of Scripture
+(Farrar: _History of Interpretation_: xviii.), but I have been unable
+to verify this statement. Owen died before the _Principia_ was
+published in 1687.]
+
+Whewell thinks[365] that at this time the diffusion of the Copernican
+system was due more to the writings of Bishop Wilkins than to those of
+any one else, for their very extravagances drew stronger attention to
+it. The first, "The Discovery of a New World: or a Discourse tending
+to prove that there may be another habitable world in the moon,"
+appeared in 1638; and a third edition was issued only two years later
+together with the second book; "Discourse concerning a New
+Planet--that 'tis probable our Earth is one of the planets." In this
+latter, the Bishop stated certain propositions as indubitable; among
+these were, that the scriptural passages intimating diurnal motion of
+the sun or of the heavens are fairly capable of another
+interpretation; that there is no sufficient reason to prove the earth
+incapable of those motions which Copernicus ascribes to it; that it is
+more probable the earth does move than the heavens, and that this
+hypothesis is exactly agreeable to common appearances.[366] And these
+books appeared when political and constitutional matters, and not
+astronomical ones, were the burning questions of the day in England.
+
+[Footnote 365: Whewell: I, 410.]
+
+[Footnote 366: Wilkins: _Discourse Concerning a New Planet_.]
+
+The spread of the doctrine was also helped by Thomas Salusbury's
+translations of the books and passages condemned by the Index in 1616
+and 1619. This collection, "intended for gentlemen," he published by
+popular subscription immediately after the Restoration,[367] a fact
+that indicates that not merely mathematicians (whom Whewell
+claims[368] were by that time all decided Copernicans) but the general
+public were interested and awake.[369]
+
+[Footnote 367: Salusbury: _Math. Coll._: To the Reader.]
+
+[Footnote 368: Whewell: I, 411.]
+
+[Footnote 369: One London bookseller in 1670 advertised for sale
+"spheres according to the Ptolmean, Tychonean and Copernican systems
+with books for their use." (Moxon: 272.) In 1683 in London appeared
+the third edition of Gassendi's _Institutio_, the textbook of
+astronomy in the universities during this period of uncertainty. It
+too wavers between the Tychonic and the Copernican systems.]
+
+The appearance of Newton's _Principia_ in 1687 with his statement of
+the universal application of the law of gravitation, soon ended
+hesitancy for most people. Twelve years later, John Keill,
+(1671-1721), the Scotch mathematician and astronomer at Oxford,
+refuted Descartes's theory of vortices and opened the first course of
+lectures delivered at Oxford on the new Newtonian philosophy.[370] Not
+only were his lectures thronged, but his books advocating the
+Copernican system in full[371] went through several editions in
+relatively few years.
+
+[Footnote 370: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Keill."]
+
+[Footnote 371: Keill: _Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam_.]
+
+In the Colonies, Yale University which had hitherto been using
+Gassendi's textbook, adopted the Newtonian ideas a few years later,
+partly through the gift to the university of some books by Sir Isaac
+himself, and partly through the enthusiasm of two young instructors
+there, Johnson and Brown, who in 1714-1722 widened the mathematical
+course by including the new theories.[372] The text they used was by
+Rohault, a Cartesian, edited by Samuel Clarke with critical notes
+exposing the fallacies of Cartesianism. This "disguised Newtonian
+treatise" was used at Yale till 1744. The University of Pennsylvania
+used this same text book even later.[373]
+
+[Footnote 372: Cajori: 29-30.]
+
+[Footnote 373: Cajori: 37.]
+
+In 1710 Pope (1688-1744) refers to "our Copernican system,"[374] and
+Addison (1671-1719) in the _Spectator_ (July 2, 1711) writes this very
+modern passage:
+
+     "But among this set of writers, there are none who more
+     gratify and enlarge the imagination, than the authors of the
+     new philosophy, whether we consider their theories of the
+     earth or heavens, the discoveries they have made by glasses,
+     or any other of their contemplations on nature.... But when
+     we survey the whole earth at once, and the several planets
+     that lie within its neighborhood, we are filled with a
+     pleasing astonishment, to see so many worlds hanging one
+     above another, and sliding around their axles in such an
+     amazing pomp and solemnity. If, after this, we contemplate
+     those wide fields of aether, that reach in height as far as
+     from Saturn to the fixed stars, and run abroad almost to an
+     infinitude, our imagination finds its capacity filled with
+     so immense a prospect, as puts it upon the stretch to
+     comprehend it. But if we yet rise higher, and consider the
+     fixed stars as so many vast oceans of flame, that are each
+     of them attended with a different set of planets, and still
+     discover new firmaments and new lights, that are sunk
+     farther in those unfathomable depths of aether, so as not to
+     be seen by the strongest of our telescopes, we are lost in
+     such a labyrinth of suns and worlds, and confounded with the
+     immensity and magnificence of nature.
+
+     "Nothing is more pleasant to the fancy, than to enlarge
+     itself by degrees, in its contemplation of the various
+     proportions which its several objects bear to each other,
+     when it compares the body of man to the bulk of the whole
+     earth, the earth to the circle it describes round the sun,
+     that circle to the sphere of the fixed stars, the sphere of
+     the fixed stars to the circuit of the whole creation, the
+     whole creation itself to the infinite space that is
+     everywhere diffused around it; ... But if, after all this,
+     we take the least particle of these animal spirits, and
+     consider its capacity wrought into a world, that shall
+     contain within those narrow dimensions a heaven and earth,
+     stars and planets, and every different species of living
+     creatures, in the same analogy and proportion they bear to
+     each other in our own universe; such a speculation, by
+     reason of its nicety, appears ridiculous to those who have
+     not turned their thoughts that way, though, at the same
+     time, it is founded on no less than the evidence of a
+     demonstration."[375]
+
+[Footnote 374: Pope: _Works_, VI, 110.]
+
+[Footnote 375: Addison: _Spectator_, No. 420, (IV, 372-373). An
+interesting contrast to this passage and a good illustration of how
+the traditional phraseology continued in poetry is found in Addison's
+famous hymn, written a year later:
+
+    "Whilst all the stars that round her [earth] burn
+    And all the planets in their turn,
+    Confirm the tidings as they roll,
+    And spread the truth from pole to pole.
+
+    "What though in solemn silence all
+    Move round this dark terrestrial ball;
+    What though no real voice nor sound
+    Amidst their radiant orbs be found;
+
+    "In reason's ear they all rejoice,
+    And utter forth a glorious voice;
+    Forever singing, as they shine,
+    'The hand that made us is divine'."]
+
+A little later, Cotton Mather declared (1721) that the "Copernican
+hypothesis is now generally preferred," and "that there is no
+objection against the motion of the earth but what has had a full
+solution."[376] Soon the semi-popular scientific books took up the
+Newtonian astronomy. One such was described as "useful for all
+sea-faring Men, as well as Gentlemen, and Others."[377]
+"Newtonianisme pour les Dames" was advertised in France in the
+forties.[378] By 1738 when Pope wrote the _Universal Prayer_:
+
+    "Yet not to earth's contracted span
+      Thy goodness let me bound
+    Or think thee Lord alone of man,
+      When thousand worlds are round,"
+
+the Copernican-Newtonian astronomy had become a commonplace to most
+well-educated people in England. To be sure, the great John Wesley
+(1770) considered the systems of the universe merely "ingenious
+conjectures," but then, he doubted whether "more than Probabilities we
+shall ever attain in regard to things at so great a distance from
+us."[379]
+
+[Footnote 376: Mather: _Christian Philosopher_, 75, 76.]
+
+[Footnote 377: Leadbetter: _Astronomy_ (1729).]
+
+[Footnote 378: In de Maupertius: _Ouvrages Divers_, (at the back).]
+
+[Footnote 379: Wesley: _Compendium of Natural Philosophy_, I, 14,
+139.]
+
+The old phraseology, however, did recur occasionally, especially in
+poetry and in hymns. For instance, a hymnal (preface dated 1806)
+contains such choice selections as:
+
+    "Before the pondr'ous earthly globe
+      In fluid air was stay'd,
+    Before the ocean's mighty springs
+      Their liquid stores display'd"--
+
+and:
+
+    "Who led his blest unerring hand
+      Or lent his needful aid
+    When on its strong unshaken base
+      The pondr'ous earth was laid?"[380]
+
+[Footnote 380: Dobell: _Hymns_, No. 5, No. 10.]
+
+But too much importance should not be attributed to such passages;
+though poetry and astronomy need not conflict, as Keble
+illustrated:[381]
+
+    "Ye Stars that round the Sun of Righteousness
+      In glorious order roll...."
+
+[Footnote 381: Keble: _Christian Year_, 279.]
+
+By the middle of the 18th century in England, one could say with Horne
+"that the Newtonian System had been in possession of the chair for
+some years;"[382] but it had not yet convinced the common people, for
+as Pike wrote in 1753, "Many Common Christians to this day firmly
+believe that the earth really stands still and that the sun moves all
+round the earth once a day: neither can they be easily persuaded out
+of this opinion, because they look upon themselves bound to believe
+what the Scripture asserts."[383]
+
+[Footnote 382: Horne: _Fair, Candid, Impartial Statement ..._, 4.]
+
+[Footnote 383: Pike: _Philosophia Sacra_, 43.]
+
+There was, however, just at this time a little group of thinkers who
+objected to Newton's scheme, "because of the endless uninterrupted
+flux of matter from the sun in light, an expense which should destroy
+that orb."[384] These Hutchinsonians conceived of light as pure ether
+in motion springing forth from the sun, growing more dense the further
+it goes till it becomes air, and, striking the circumference of the
+universe (which is perhaps an immovable solid), is thrown back toward
+the sun and melted into light again. Its force as its tides of motion
+strike the earth and the other planets produces their constant
+gyrations.[385] Men like Duncan Forbes, Lord President of the Court of
+Sessions, and George Horne, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, as
+a weapon against rationalism, favored this notion that had been
+expounded by John Hutchinson (1674-1737) in his _Moses's Principia_
+(1724).[386] They were also strongly attracted by the scriptural
+symbolism with which the book abounds. Leslie Stephen summarizes their
+doctrines as (1) extreme dislike for rationalism, (2) a fanatical
+respect for the letter of the Bible, and (3) an attempt to enlist the
+rising powers of scientific enquiry upon the side of orthodoxy.[387]
+This "little eddy of thought"[388] was not of much influence even at
+that time, but it has a certain interest as indicating the positions
+men have taken when on the defensive against new ideas.
+
+[Footnote 384: Forbes: _Letter_, (1755).]
+
+[Footnote 385: See Wesley: I, 136-7.]
+
+[Footnote 386: _Dict. of Nat. Biog._: "Hutchinson."]
+
+[Footnote 387: Stephen: _Hist. of Eng. Thought_: I, 390.]
+
+[Footnote 388: Ibid: 391.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The gradual acceptance of the
+Copernican theory of the universe, by Dorothy Stimson
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 35744.txt or 35744.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/7/4/35744/
+
+Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Linda Cantoni, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries,
+http://www.archive.org/details/gradualacceptan00stim)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/35744.zip b/35744.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c22a700
--- /dev/null
+++ b/35744.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2eafc00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #35744 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35744)