■,V ^r- >0g>^ ^^. -^'- ..-^^ ■ 0' x\' - ^•0^ o^-r .^'"v -<.. ,,^' 0..- .V^ ■?A ^^ K\ ^-c. ^ <*<; "■^Z, .<^ ^'K ' V-- ,^/<'7'S;V_ ,A^ '^.K- % ,^ .^'^ '''/>. V .. .•0 . !« .^ , *r. o ^,;^P^y ^x^ .■.V -5. ,vX^' •^. ^m^-.". -^^ ,^ o^^'o -£^^ '''-.^. \^> ]^^'-^' .>^^- cV- ,0 o_ ,^\ UB <^y':^: -".^^^^ :^^^^ ,,^~^ 'H % c- ^' -. ,6). Tlutarch: Op. cit., Lib. HL c 2 (V, 303-4). lO of the members of his school, Eudoxus (409P-356? B. C), had visited Egypt, according to Diogenes Laertius,' and had in all probability been much interested in and influenced -by the astro- nomical 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. There was some discussion in Diogenes' time as to the author of the theory of the earth's motion of axial rotation. Diogenes^' gives the honor to Philolaus (5th cent. B. C.) one of the Pytha- goreans, though he adds that others attribute it to Icetas of Syracuse (6th or 5th cent. B. C). Cicero, however, states" the position of Hicetas of Syracuse as a belief in the absolute fixed- ness 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. 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.*) In Arenarms, a curious study on the possibility of expressing infinite sums by numerical denomi- nations as in counting the sands of the universe, i\rchimedes writes r" "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 'Diogenes Laertius : De Vitis, Lib. VIII, c. 1, et 8 (205, 225), ^Diogenes: Op. cit., Lib. VIII, c. 7, (225). 'Cicero: Academica, Lib. II, c. 39 (322). ^Plutarch: Op. cif., Lib. II (V. 299-300). ^Archimedes : Arenarius, c. 1. Delambre : Astr. Anc, I, 102. II Samos]^ 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." 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, andj Cicero with other thinkers recognized the insignifi- cance 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. - 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 '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 Vorlanfer des Copernicus im Alter- thum, 75. See also Heath: Op. cit.) ^'Plutarch: Op. cit.; Bk. HI, c. 2 (V, 317-318). 12 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 sur- veyors, perhaps, but such disturbing theories should not be pro- pounded by philosophers. Cleanthes/ according to Plutarch,' "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. 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 impossi- bility where the existence of slaves made manual labor degrad- ing and shameful. Men might reason indefinitely; but few, if any, were willing to try to improve the instruments of observa- tion 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.'^ 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 ^The Stoic contemporary of Aristarchus, author of the famous Stoic hymn. See Diogenes Laertius : De Vitis. ^Plutarch: De Facie in Orbe Luncc, (V, 410). ^Young: 109. 13 around a center that did not coincide with that of the observer on the earth. That would explain why the sun appeared some- times nearer the earth and sometimes farther away. The epi- cycle represented the heavenly body as moving along the cir- cumference 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 Mid- dle Ages the universe became a " Sphere With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er, Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb" — ^ 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.- This same notion recurs in Martianus Capella's book^ in the fifth century A. D. and again, somewhat modified, in the 16th century in Tycho Brahe's conception of the universe. Ptolemy devotes a column or two of his Almagesf^ (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 'Milton: Paradise Lost, Bk. VIII, 11. 82-85. 'Vitruvius: De Architectura, Lib. IX, c. 4 (220). 'Martianus Capella : De Nuptiis, Lib. VIII, (668). *Ptolemy: Almagest, Lib. I, c. 7, (1, 21-25). Translated in Appendix B. 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. 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 deter- mine 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,^ 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.^ Alba- tegnius^ (c. 850-829 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.* 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^ to have summoned fifty learned men from Toledo, Cordova and Paris to translate into ^Whewell: I, 239. 'Whewell: I, 294. ^Berry: 79. *His book D^ Motu Stellarum, translated into Latin by Plato Tibur- tinus (fl.lll6) was published at Nuremberg (1557) by Melancthon with annotations by Regiomontanus. Ency. Brit. 11th. Edit. 'Vaughan: I, 281. IS 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 univer- sities of Europe^ — a center for students from all over Europe and the headquarters for new thought, where Columbus was sheltered,^ and later the Copernican system was accepted and publicly taught at a time when Galileo's views were suppressed.^ Popular interest in astronomy was evidently aroused, for Sacrobosco (to give John Holy wood* his better known Latin name) a Scotch professor at the Sorbonne in Paris in the 13th century, published a small treatise De Sphccri Miindo that was immensely popular for centuries,-^ though is was practically only an abstract of the Almagest. WhewelP tells of a French poem of the time of Edward I entitled Ymage dii 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 per- forations 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."^ Apparently, however, such advanced views were of no influence, and the Ptolemaic theory remained unshaken down to the close of the 15th century. Aside from the adequacy of this explanation of the universe for the times, the attitude of the Church Fathers on the matter 'Graux : 318 ^Graux: 319. 'Rashdall: II, pt. I, 77. *Dict. of Nat. Biog. ^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. Diet, of Nat. Biog. "Whewell : I, 277. 'Blavatski: II, 29, note. i6 was to a large degree responsible for this acquiescence. Early in the first century A. D., Philo Judaeus^ emphasized the minor importance of visible objects compared with intellectual mat- ters, — a foundation stone in the Church's theory of an homo- centric universe. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 A. D.) calls the heavens solid since what is solid is capable of being per- ceived by the senses." 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.^ 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 mat- ters cannot be found out by inquiry."* The existence of the an- tipodes and the rotundity of the earth are "marvelous fictions," and philosophers are "defending one absurd opinion by another"^ when in explanation why bodies would not fall ofif a spherical earth, they claim these are borne to the center. How clearly even this brief review illustrates what Henry Osborn Taylor calls*"' the fundamental principles of patristic faith: that the will of God is the one cause of all things (volun- tate Dei immobilis manet et stat in sseculum terra.'' Ambrose : Hexcemeron.) 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.^ He indifferently remarks elsewhere :^ "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 ^Philo Judaeus: Quis Rerum Dwinarum Hcsres. (IV, 7). 'Clement of Alexandria: Stromatum, Lib. V, c. 14, (III, 67). 'Origen: De Principiis, Lib. I, c. 7, (XI, 171). *Lactantius: Dwinarum Institutionum, Lib. Ill, c. 3 (VI, 355). ^Ibid: Lib. Ill, c. 24, (VI, 425-428). ^Taylor: Medicsval Mind, I, 74. ^By the will of God the earth remains motionless and stands through- out the age. 'Augustine: De Civitate Dei, Lib. XVI, c. 9, (41, p. 437). 'Augustine: De Genesi, II, c. 9, (v. 34, p. 270). (White's translation). 17 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/ Philastrius (d. before 397 A. D.) dealing with various here- sies, 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.^ It would take a brave man to face such attitudes of scornful indiflFerence 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 ceiltral position in the universe for man's abiding place. In the pseudo-Dionysius^ is an elaborately worked out hierarchy of the beings in the uni- verse 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^ Isidore of Seville taught that the universe was created to serve man's purposes,® and Peter Lombard (12th cent.) sums up the situation in the definite statement that man was placed at the center of the uni- verse to be served by that universe and in turn himself to serve God.^ Supported by the mighty Thomas Aquinas^ this became a fundamental Church doctrine. 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 firma- ment. In view of the phrases used in the Bible about the heav- ^Augustine: Civitate Dei, Lib. V, c. 5, (v. 41, p. 145). ^Philastrius: De Hceresibus, c. 133, (v. 12, p. 1264). ^Pseudo-Dionysius : De Coelesti lerarchia, (v. 122, p. 10354) , *Milman: VIII, p. 228-9. See the Paradiso. ^Isidore of Seville: De Ordine Creaturarum, c. 5, sec. 3, (v. 83, p. 923). 'Lombard: Sententia, Bk. II, Dist. I, sec. 8, (v. 192, p. 655). ^Aquinas: Summa Theologica, pt. I, qu. 70, art. 2. {Op. Om. Caietani, V, 179). i8 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. 19 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."^ 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.- Even the rustic, he added, can observe the phases of the moon occurring a week ahead of the date set by the calen- dar.^ 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) ;* 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 f and the modern scientific calendar was not adopted until 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII . What was the state of astronomy in the century of Coper- nicus's birth? Regiomontanus — to use Johann Miiller's Latin name — his teacher Purbach, and the great cardinal Nicolas of Cues were the leading astronomers of this fifteenth century. ^Roger Bacon: Op^^s Tertium, 295, 30-31. ^Ibid: 289. nhid: 282. *Delambre: Moyen Age, 365. 'Prowe: II, 67-70. 20 Piirbach^ (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) Piirbach 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 :- "These walls might aid the under- standing, 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 plan- etary 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 har- monious explanation. Regiomontanus" (1436-1476) after Piirbach's death, con- tinued 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^ 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^ and certainly his renown was approached only by that of the great Cardinal. ^Delambre: Moyen Age, 262-272. ^Delambre: Moyen Age, 272. ^It has been claimed that Regimontanus 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 Schoner's Opusculum Geographicum (1553) which states only that he believed in the earth's axial rotation. Ziegler : 62. *Ibid: 62. ^Delambre: Op. cit.; 365. 21 Both Janssen/ the Cathohc historian, and Father Hagen- of the Vatican Observatory, together with many other Cathohc writers, claim that a hundred years before Copernicus, Cardi- nal Nicolas Cusanus^ (c. 1400-1464) had the courage and inde- pendence to uphold the theory of the earth's motion and its rotation on its axis. As Father Hagen remarked : "Had Coper- nicus 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 'Taradox" (in the edition of 1565).* And unfor- tunately for these writers, the Jesuit father, Riccioli, the official spokesman of that order in the 17th century after Galileo's con- demnation, 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."^ The passage he referred to is as follows : "Prayer is more powerful than all created things. ^Janssen : Hist, of Ger., I, 5. 'Cath. Ency. : "Cusanus." ^From Cues near Treves. *Cusanus : Dc 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 circumf erentia sunt Deus : et cum hie 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, pro- pinquior polo centrali, tamen movetur, et non describit minimum circu- lum 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). 'Riccioli: Aim. Nov., II, 292. 22 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. "^ This may explain why Copernicus apparently disregarded the Cardinal's par- adox, for he made no reference to it in his book; and the statement itself, to judge by the absence of contemporary com- ment, 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,- to show that Galileo's con- demnation was due chiefly to his "contumacy and disobedience." Copernicus" himself was born in Thorn on February 19, 1473,* 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. ^ His father," Niklas Kopper- nigk, 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 ^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." 'Di Bruno. 284, 286a; Walsh: An Early Allusion, 2-3. ^Nicolaus Coppernicus (Berlin, 1883-4; 3 vol.; Ft. I, Biography, Ft. II, Sources), by Dr. Leopold Fro we 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 sub- ject. (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie.) The manuscript authority Dr. Frowe cites (Frowe: I, 19-27 and foot-notes), 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. Trowe: I, 85. 'Ency. Brit.: "Thorn." Trowe: I, 47-53. 23 for nineteen years until his death in 1483/ Thereupon his mother's brother, Lucas Watzelrode, later bishop of Ermeland, became his guardian, benefactor and close friend. - After the elementary training in the Thorn school,-^ the lad entered the university at Cracow, his father's former home, where he studied under the faculty of arts from 1491-1494.^ Nowhere else north of the Alps at this time were mathematics and astronomy in better standing than at this university.'' Six- teen teachers taught these subjects there during the years of Copernicus's stay, but no record exists of his work under any of them.^ That he must have studied these two sciences there, however, is proved by Rheticus's remark in the Narratio Priina^ that Copernicus, after leaving Cracow, went to Bologna to work with Dominicus Maria di Novara "non tam discipulus quam adjutor." He left Cracow without receiving a degree,^ returned to Thorn in 1494 when he and his family decided he should enter the Church after fiirst studying in Italy."* Consequently he crossed the Alps in 1496 and was that winter matriculated at Bologna in the ''German nation."^" 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.^\ He remained in Italy, however, about ten years altogether, studying civil law at Bologna, and canon law and medicine at Padua,^- yet receiving his degree as doctor of canon law from the university of Ferrara in 1503.'"' He was also in Rome for several months during the Jubilee year, 1500. ^These facts would seem to justify the Poles today in claiming Coper- nicus as their fellow-countryman by right of his father's nationality and that of his native city. Dr. Prowe, however, claims him as a "Prus- sian" 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.) 'Prowe: I, 73-82. 'Ibid: I, 111. 'Ibid: I, 124-129. 'Ibid: I, 137. "Ibid: I, 141-143. 'Rheticus : Narratio Prima, 448 (Thorn edit). Trowe: 1, 154. 'Ibid: I, 169. '"Ibid: I, 174. "Ibid: I, 175. This insured him an annual income which amounted to a sum equalling about $2250 today. Later he received a sinecure appoint- ment besides at Breslau. (Holden in Pop. Sci., 111.) '"Prowe : I, 224. 'Tbid : I, 308. 24 At this period the professor of astronomy at Bologna was the famous teacher Dominicus Maria di Novara (1454-1504), a man "ingenio et animo Hber" who dared to attack the immuta- bihty of the Ptolemiac system, since his own observations, espe- cially of the Pole Star, differed by a degree and more from the traditional ones.^ He dared to criticise the long accepted system and to emphasize the Pythagorean notion of the underlying har- mony and simplicity in nature^ ; 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^ of encouraging him in his own theorizing by ac- quainting him with the ancients who had thought along similar lines. In the spring of the year (1501) following his visit to Rome,* Copernicus returned to the Chapter at Frauenburg to get further leave of absence to study medicine at the University of Padua. ^ Whether he received a degree at Padua or not and how long he stayed there are uncertain points.^ He was back in Erme- land early in 1506. 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.^ 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.^ He went on various diplomatic and other missions to the King of Poland,^ to Duke Albrecht of the Teutonic Order,^" and to the councils of the German states. ^^ He wrote a paper of considera- ^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. "Gierke in Ency. Brit., "Novara." *Prowe: I, 249. *Prowe: I, 279. ^Ibid, 294. ^bid: I, 319. 'Prowe: I, 335-380. Ibid: II, 75-110, 116, 124. *Ibid: II, 204-8. ^bid: II, 110. "Ibid: II, 144. as ble weight upon the much needed reform of the Prussian cur- rency.^ His skill as a physician was in demand not only in his immediate circle- but in adjoining countries, Duke Albrecht once summoning him to Konigsberg to attend one of his courtiers.^ He was a humanist as well as a Catholic Church- man, and though he did not approve of the Protestant Revolt, he favored reform and toleration.* Gassendi claims that he was also a painter, at least in his student days, and that he painted portraits well received by his contemporaries." 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.** 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 com- parative 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 Hghtening his duties. In his masterwork De Revo- hitionibus'^ 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^ where Copernicus was free from his chapter duties, for as he himself says^ in the Dedi- cation to the Pope (dated 1543) his work had been formulated ^Ibid: II, 146. ^Ibid: II, 293-319. 'Ibid: II, 464-472. nbid: II, 170-187. 'Holden in Pop. Sci., 109. Trowe: II, 67-70. "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. nbid : II, 490-1. ^Copernicus: Dedication, 4. (Thorn edit.) 26 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, alter- ing and correcting the tables and verifying his statements.^ Copernicus was a philosopher.- He thought out a new expla- nation of the world machine with relatively little practical work of his own,^ though we know he controlled his results by the ac- cumulated observations of the ages.^ His instruments were in- adequate, inaccurate and out of date even in his time, for much better. ones were then being made at Nurnberg' ; 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 handi- caps, 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,*^ 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 oth- ers had been of the same opinion." He quoted the Greek refer- ring to Philolaus the Pythagorean, Heraclides of Pontus, and Ecphantes the Pythagorean.'^ As a result he began to consider the mobility of the earth and found that such an explanation 'Prowe: II, 503-508. 'Ibid: II, 64. 'Ibid: II, 58-9. *Rheticus : Narratio Prima. •^Prowe : II, 56. ''Copernicus : Dedication, 5-6. See Appendix B. "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. Set. 68:325. 27 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,^ however, the immobile heaven of the fixed stars (though vastly farther off in order to account for the non-observance of any stellar parallax-), the J "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.^ He accepted the false notion of trepidation enunciated by the Arabs in the 9th century and later overthrown by Tycho Brahe.^ His calculations were weak.^ But his great book is a sane and modern work in an age of as- trology and superstition.*' 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. Copernicus was extremely reluctant to publish his book be- cause of the misunderstandings and malicious attacks it would vmquestionably arouse." Possibly, too, he was thinking of the hostility already existing between himself and his Bishop, Dan- tiscus,* whim he did not wish to antagonize further. But his ^Delambre : Astr. Mod. pp. xi-xii. '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 dis- tance 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) ob- served stellar parallax from Konigsberg. Berr)^: 123-24. ^Commentariolus in Prowe : III, 202. *Holden in Pop. Set., 117. 'Delambre: Astr. Mod., p. xi. ^Snyder: 165. 'Copernicus : Dedication, 3. Trowe: II, 362-7. 28 devoted pupil and friend, Rheticus, aided by Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm and a lifelong friend, at length (1542) per- suaded him.^ So he entrusted the matter to Giese who passed it on to Rheticus, then connected with the University at Witten- berg as professor of mathematics.- Rheticus, securing leave of absence from Melancthon his superior, went to Niirnberg to supervise the printing.^ This was done by Petrejus. Upon his return to Wittenberg, Rheticus left in charge Johann Schoner, a famous mathematician and astronomer, and Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran preacher interested in astronomy. The printed book^ was placed in Copernicus's hands at Frauenburg on May 24th, 1543, as he lay dying of paralysis.'"' Copernicus passed away that day in ignorance that his Ufe's work appeared before the world not as a truth but as an hypoth- esis ; for there had been inserted an anonymous preface "ad lec- torem de hypothesibus huius opera" stating this was but another hypothesis for the greater convenience of astronomers.*^ ''Neque enim necesse est eas hypotheses esse veras, imo ne verisimiles quidem, sed sufificit hoc unum, si calculum observationibus con- gruentem exhibeant."^ — For years Copernicus was thought to have written this preface to disarm criticism. Kepler sixty years later (1601) called attention to this error,^ and quoted Osiander's letters to Copernicus and to Rheticus of May, 1541, suggesting that the system be called an hypothesis to avert at- tacks by theologians and Aristotelians. He claimed that Osian- der had written the preface; but Kepler's article never was ^Ibid: II, 406. ^Ibid: II, 501. ^bid: II, 517-20. *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. 'Prowe: II, 553-4. "Copernicus : De Revolutionihus , I. "To the reader on the hypotheses of this book." '"For it is not necessary that these hypotheses be true, nor even prob- able, but this alone is sufficient, if they show reasoning fitting the obser- vations." *Kepler : Apologia Tychonis contra JJrsum in Op. Om. : I, 244-246. 29 finished and remained unpublished till 1858/ Giese and Rhe- ticus 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 '"prsefatiunculus" purging the book of this falsehood.- 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 chal- lenge. It remains to ask whether people other than Copernicus's inti- mates had known of his theory before 1543. Peucer, Melanc- thon's nephew, declared Copernicus was famous by 1525," and the invitation from the Lateran Council committee indicates his renown as early as 1514. In Vienna in 1873^ there was found a Commentariohis, or summary of his great work,^ 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.*^ 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. In 1536, the Cardinal Bishop of Capua, Nicolas con Schon- berg, apparently with the intent to pave the way for the theory at Rome, wrote for a report of it." 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. Trowe: II, 251, note. 'Ibid: II, 537-9. ^Ibid : II, 273. *Ibid : II, 286-7. ^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. •Ibid: II, 273-4. 'Prowe: II, 274, note. 30 The most widely circulated account at this time, however, was the Narratio Prima, a letter from Georg Joachim of Rhaetia (better known as Rheticusj, written in October, 1539, from Frauenburg to Johann Schoner at Niirnberg.^ Rheticus,'" at twenty-five years of age professor of mathematics at Witten- berg, 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 condemna- tion 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 Witten- berg as an avowed believer in the system and its first teacher and promulgator. Not only did he write the Nurratio Prima and an Encomium Borussce, both extolling Copernicus, but what is more important, he succeeded in persuading him to allow the publication of the De Revolutionihus. 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. His colleague, Erasmus Reinhold, continued to teach astron- omy there, though he, too, accepted the Copernican system.^ He published a series of tables (Tabulce Prutenicce, 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 'Prowe: II, 426-440. 'Ibid: II, 387-405. 'Ibid: II, 391. 31 bring the new system into general recognition and gradual acceptance than did the theoretical works/ Opposition to the theory had not yet gathered serious head- way. There is record^ 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 oppo- sition 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 slovv^ to consider it. 'Holden in Pop. Set., 119. ^Prowe: 11, 233-244. 33 CHAPTER III. The Later Development and Scientific Defense of the CoPERNicAN System. COPERNICUS accomplished much, but even his genius couUl not far outrun the times in which he Hved. When one real- izes 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 loga- rithms or by pendulum clocks for accurate measurement of time,^ one marvels not at their errors, but at the greatness of their genius in rising above such difficulties. This lack of mate- rial aids makes the work of Tycho Brahe,- accounted one of the greatest observers that has ever lived,^ as notable in its way per- haps as that of Copernicus. His life^ was a somewhat romantic one. Born of noble family on December 14th, 1546, at Knudstrup in Denmark, Tyge Brahe, the second of ten children,^ 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.® When he was sent to Leipsic with a tutor in 1562 to study law, he devoted his time 'Burckhardt: 8. ^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 Frank- fort in 1648. The Danish Royal Scientific Society has issued a reprint (1901) of the rare 1573 edition of the De Nova Stella. 'Bridges: 206. *Dreyer: 11-84. 'Gassendi: 2. 'Dreyer: 13. 33 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 their 's. 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)^ 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 Cassiopsea (November, 1572) recalled him to what became his Hfe work.^ 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.^ 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,* after two years of w^andering he accepted the invi- tation 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 Rudol- phine Tables of 1627. This "Phoenix among Astronomers" — as Kepler calls him,^ — was the father of modern practical astronomy.® He also pro-, pounded a third system of the universe, a compromise between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican. In this the Tychonic sys- tem,^ 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 'Gassendi: 9-10. ^Dreyer: 38-44. ^bid : 84. *Ibid: 234-5. 'Kepler: TabulcE Rudolphincr. Title page. ^Dreyer: 317-363. 'As stated in his Book on the Comet of 1577 (pub. 1588). 34 sun is the center of the orbits of the five planets/ Mercury and Venus move in orbits w^ith radii shorter than the sun's radius, and the other three planets include the earth within their cir- cuits. 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.- To Tycho Brahe, the Ptolemaic system was too complex,^ 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,^ and because Tycho's observations did not show any trace of the stellar parallax that must exist if the earth moves. ^ Though Tycho thus rejected the Copernican theory, his own proved to be the stepping stone toward the one he rejected,*^ for by it and by his study of comets he completely destroyed the ideas of solid crystalline spheres to the discredit of the scholas- tics ; and his promulgation of a third theory of the universe helped to diminish men's confidence in authority and to stimu- late independent thinking. 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, con- tributed 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^ earned for himself the proud title of *'law- maker for the universe" in defiance of his handicaps of ill- health, family troubles, and straitened finances. Born in Weil, Wurtemberg, (December 27, 1571) of noble but indigent par- 'Dreyer: 168-9. ^Schiaparelli in Snyder : 165. 'Brahe : Op. Om., pt. I, p. 337. *Ibid : 409-410. 'The Tychonic system has supporters to this day. See chap. viii. "Dreyer: 181. ^The authoritative biography is the Vita by Frisch in vol. VIII, pp. 668-1028 of Op. Om. Kep. "Frisch: VIII, 718. 35 ents, he was a sickly child unable for years to attend school regularly. He finally left the monastary school in Mulifontane in 1586 and entered the university at Tubingen to stay for four and a half years. There he studied philosophy, mathematics, and theology (he was a Lutheran) receiving the degree of Mas- ter of Arts in 1591. While at the university he studied under Msestlin, professor of mathematics and astronomy, and a believer in the Copernican theory. Because of Maestlin's teach- ing Kepler developed into a confirmed and enthusiastic adherent to the new doctrine. In 1594 he reluctantly abandoned his favorite study, philoso- phy, and accepted a professorship in mathematics at Graetz in Styria. Two years later he published his first work : Prodromes Dissertationum continens mysterium cosmographicum etc. (1596) in which he sought to prove that the Creator in arrang- ing the universe had thought of the five regular bodies which can be inscribed in a sphere according to which He had regu- lated the order, the number and the proportions of the heavens and their movements.^ The book is important not only because of its novelty, but because it gave the Copernican doctrine public explanation and defense.- Kepler himself valued it enough to reprint it with his Harmon'ia Miindi twenty-five years later. And it won for him appreciative letters from various scientists, notably from Tycho Brahe and Galileo.-^ As Kepler, a Lutheran, was having difficulties in Graetz, a Catholic city, he finally accepted Tycho's urgent invitation to come to Prague.^ He came early in 1600, and after some adjustments had been made between the two,-^ 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 there-" after.® With the researches of Tycho's lifetime placed at his disposal, Kepler worked out two of his three great planetary laws from 'Delambre: Astr. Mod. 314-315. ^^Frisch: VIII, 999. 'Ibid: VIII, 696. *Ibid : VIII. 699-715. ^Dreyer: 290-309. •'Frisch : VIII, 715. 36 Tycho's observations of the planet Mars. Yet, as M. Bertrand remarks/ it was well for Kepler that his material was not too ac- curate or its variations (due to the then unmeasured force of at- traction) 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.' 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. From Kepler's student days under Msestlin when as the sub- ject of his disputation he upheld the Copernican theory, to his death in 1630, he was a staunch supporter of the new teaching. "* In his Epitome Astronomic^ Copernicance (1616) he answered objections to it at length.* 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.^ Kepler had reasoned out according to physics the laws by which the planets moved.^ 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. With- in a year after Galileo's death Newton was born^ (January 4, 1643). His demonstration of the universal application of the law of gravitation (1687) was perhaps the climax in the devel- 'Bertrand: p. 870-1. ^The two laws first appeared in 1609 in his Physica Coelestis tradita commentarius de motu stellco martis. (Frisch : VIII, 964.) The third he enunciated in his Harmonia Mundi, 1619. (Ibid: VIII, 1013-1017.) ^"Cor et animam meam" : Kepler's expression in regard to the Coper- nician theory. Ibid: VIII, 957. Tbid: VIII, 838. ^Ibid: VIII, 742. ^Kepler: Op. Om.; I, 106: Prcsfatio ad Lectorem. 'Berry: 210. 37 opment of the Copemican 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/ by Bessel's discovery of stellar paral- lax in 1838/ and by Foucault's experimental demonstration of the earth's axial motion with a pendulum in 1851.^ ^Berry: 265. 'Ibid: 359. 'Jacoby: 89. 38. PART TWO THE RECEPTION OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY. CHAPTER I. Opinions and Arguments in the Sixteenth Century. DURING the life-time of Copernicus, Roman Catholic churchmen had been interested in his work: Cardinal Schonberg wrote for full information, Widmanstadt reported on it to Pope Clement VII and Copernicus had dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.^ 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. The Protestant leaders were not quite so urbane in their atti- tude. While Copernicus was still alive, Luther is reported^ 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.^ Informally in a letter to a friend he ^See before, p. 30. 'Luther : Tischreden; IV, 575 ; "Der Narr will die ganze Kunst Astron- omiae umkehren. Aber wie die heilige Schrift anzeigt, so heiss Josua die Sonne still stehen, und nicht das Erdreich." ^"Non est autem hominis bene instituti dissentire a consensu tot sae- culorum." Prsefatio Philippi Melanthonis, 1531, in Sacro-Busto: Libel- Itts de Sphcera (no date). 39 implies the absurdity of the new teaching/ and in his Initia DoctrincB Physicce 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.- 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 truth, 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).'^ Furthermore, the earth must be at the center for its shadow to fall upon the moon in an eclipse. He refers next to the Aris- totelian 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, every- thing would fly to pieces.^ "'Vidi dialogum et fui dissuassor editionis. Fabula per sese paulatim consilescet; sed quidam putant esse egregiam katorthoma rem tarn ab- surdam ornare, sicut ille Sarmaticus Astronomis qui movet terram et figet solem. Profecto sapientes gubernatores debereiit ingeniorum pet- ulantia cohercere." Epistola B. Mithohio, 16 Oct. 1541. P. Melancthon : Opera : IV, 679. '"Quamquam autem rideiit aliqui Physicum testimonia divina citantem, tamen nos honestum esse censemus, Philosophiam conferre ad coelestia dicta, et in tanta caligine humanae mentis autoritatem divinam con- sulere ubicunque possumus." Melancthon: Initia Doctrince Physicce: Bk. I, 63. Tbid: 60. *Ibid: 59-67. 40 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 text-book on physics, but he republished Sacrobosco's famous introduction to astronomy, writing for it a preface urg- ing diligent study of this little text endorsed by so many genera- tions of scholars. Calvin, the great teacher of the Protestant Revolt, apparently was little touched by this new intellectual current.^ He did write a semi-popular tract- against the so called ''judicial" astro- logy, then widely accepted, which he, like Luther, condemns as a foolish superstition, though he values "la vraie science d'astro- logie" 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.^ 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 Revohitionibtisf M. Flammarion, in his Vie de Copernic (1872), refers* 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 ^Farrar: Hist, of Interpretation: Preface; xviii : "Who," asks Calvin, "will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" ^Calvin: Oeuvres Frangois: Traite . . . contre I'Astrologie ; 110-112. ^Calvin: Oy>. Om. in Corpus Reformatorum: vol. 25; 499-500; vol. 59; 195-196. *P. 78-79: "Ce planetaire . . . represente le ^ysteme du monde tel qu'il a ete explique par Copernic." Galileo, (though the clock was constructed in 1571 and Galileo was not condemned until 1633). This astronomical clock con- structed 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 :n 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. 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 mechan- ism 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. ^ When M. Schwilgue repaired the clock in 1838, he changed it to harmonize with the Copernican system. - 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 Uni- versity 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 astro- nomy and the first book printed in England describing the Copernican system.^ 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:* ^Schwilgue : p. 15. ^Ibid : p. 48. ^Dict. of Nat. Biog: "Recorde." ^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. 42 "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 be- cause the understanding of that controversie depends of pro- founder 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 supposi- tion by good arguments, and therefore you were best condemne nothing that you do not well understand: but an other time, as 1 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 ..." 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 doc- trine 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.^ DuBartas writes •} "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." ^DuBartas: The Divine Weeks (Sylvester's trans, edited by Haight) Preface, pp. xx-xxiii and note. ^Op. cit: 72. 43 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 Covar- rubias, 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 audientkim" 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."^ One wonders what happened there when the professors and students received word- from the Cardinal Nuncio at Madrid in 1633 that the Congregations of the Index had decreed the Copernican doc- trine was thereafter in no way to be held, taught or defended. One of the graduates of this University, Father Zuiiiga,^ (better known as Didacus a Stunica), wrote a commentary on Job that was Hcensed to be printed in 1579, but was not pub- lished until 1584 at Toledo. Another edition appeared at Rome seven years later. It evidently was widely read for it was con- demned donee eorrigatur by the Index in 1616 and the mathema- tical 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 con- tradicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, as that "text signifieth no more but this, that although the succession of ages, and genera- tions 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 ^La Fuente ; Historia de la Universidades . . . de Espana : II, 314. 'Doc. 86 in Favaro; 130. ^Diccionario Encichpedico Hispano-Americano Ic literatura, ciencias y artes (Barcelona, 1898). 44 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."^ French thinkers, like the English, did not encourage the new- doctrine at this time. Montaigne" was characteristically indif- ferent : "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 prascedent?" 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 Universcc Naturcu Theatrum'^ 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 quot- ing to illustrate the attitude of one of the keenest thinkers in a brilHant era : ''Theorist: Since the sun's heat is so intense that we read it has sometimes burned crops, houses and cities in Scythia,'' would it not be more reasonable that the sun is still and the earth indeed revolves? ^Quoted in Salusbury: Math. Coll.: I; 468-470 (1661), as a work inac- cessible to most readers at that time because of its extreme rarity. It remained on the Index until the edition of 1835. "Montaigne : £jja3'.y : Bk: II, c. 2: An Apologie of Raymonde Sebondc (II, 352). ^This book, published at Frankfort in 1597, was translated into French by M. FougeroUes 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 daj^ "Cromer in History of Poland. 45 "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 tra- verse 469,562,845 miles, so that the earth seems lika a dot in the universe. This is the chief argument. Besides this, we get rid entirely of epicycles in representing the motions of the piaiictr 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 foimdations 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 con- tinuously. 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 46 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 dow^n. 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 Faler- nian, said: 'Take care that the flagon is not spilled. '"* 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 per- pendicularly, 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 Wis- dom said the sun swept in its swift course from the eastern shore to the west, he added this : Terra vero stat setemam. 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 Aris- totle'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 ; there- fore 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. Fur- thermore, 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."^ This was the opinion of a profound thinker and experienced man of aflFairs living when Tycho Brahe and Bruno v^ere still alive and Kepler and Galileo were beginning their astronomical investigations. But he was not alone in his views, as we shall ^Cromer in History of Poland.* *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 Publico sive Status Regni Polom(B. ^Bodin; Univ. Nat. Theatrum: Bk. V, sec. 2 (end). 47 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 interpre- tation 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 Msestlin (though the latter refused to uphold it in his text-book) ;^ while astron- omers and mathematicians who realized the insuperable objec- tions to the Ptolemaic conception, welcomed the Tychonic sys- tem 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 of those supporting such a notion.- One thinker, however w^as to see far more in the doctrine than Copernicus himself had conceived, and by Giordano Bruno the Roman Church was to be aroused. 'Delambre; Astr. Mod.: I, 663. "Justus-Lipsius ; Physiologies Stoicorum; Bk. II; dissert. 19; (Dedica- tion 1604, Louvain), (IV> 947) ; "Vides deliria, quomodo aliter appel- lent?" 48 CHAPTER ir. Bruno and Galileo. WHEN the Roman Catholic authorities awoke to the dan- gers 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.^ After an elementary education at Naples near his birth-place, Nola," Filippo Bruno^ 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 priest- hood, 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 pro- cesses were started against him, and fleeing to Rome he aban- doned his monk's garments and entered upon the sixteen years of wandering over Europe, a peripatetic teacher of the philos- ophy of an infinite universe as deduced from the Copernican doctrine and thus in a way its herald.* He reached Geneva in 1579 (where he did not accept Calvinism as was formerly thought),^ 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. 'Berti:285. 'Mclntyre : 3-15. '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 dt Giordano Bruno da Nola by Domenico Berti (1868, Turin), quotes in full the ofificial documents of his trial. Frith's Life of Giordano Bruno (London, 1887), has been rendered out of date by J. L. Mclntyre'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). ^Bartholmess : I, 134. "'Libri : IV, 144. 49 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 defend- ed the Copernican theory before the Polish prince Alasco during the latter's visit there in June.^ To Bruno belongs the glory of the first public proclamation in England of the new doctrine,^ though only Gilbert^ and pos- sibly 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 Cetm de la Ceneri he defended the Copernican theory, incidentally criticising the Oxford dons most severely,* for which he apologized in De la Causa, Principio et Uno. He developed his philosophy of an infinite universe in De VInfinito e Mondi, and in the Spaccio de la Bestia Trionphante "attacked all religions of mere credulity as opposed to religions of truth and deeds. "^ 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 inti- mately, and Fulk Greville as well as others of that brilliant period. He may have known Bacon ;^ but it is highly improb- able that he and Shakespeare met,® or that Shakespeare ever was influenced by the other's philosophy.^ 'Mclntyre : 16-40. ^Bartholmess : I, 134. 'Gilbert: De Magnet e (London, 1600). *Berti: 369, Doc. XIII. *Beyersdorf : Giordano Bruno und Shakespear, 8-36. ®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 Beyer sdorf : op. cit. 5© 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, Moecen- igo, to come to Venice as his tutor. He re-entered Italy, there- fore, in August, much to the amazement of his contemporaries. It is probable that Moecenigo was acting for the Inquisition.^ At any rate, he soon denounced Bruno to that body and in May, 1592, surrendered him to it.- In his trial before the Venetian Inquisition," 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 Cend de le Ceneri, and in Dc Immen- so et Innumerahilis,^ 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 Aris- totle 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 ^ 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."^ 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 'Mclntyre: 68. 'Ibid: 47-72. ""See official documents in Berti : 327-395. *Bruno : De hnmenso et Innumerabilis ; Lib. Ill, cap. 9 (vol. 1, pt. 1, 380-386). 'Thayer: 268. 51 an infinite universe was thus brought into question ;^ for, as M. Berti has said,- Bruno's doctrine was equally an astro-theology or a theological astronomy. 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 con- sent to the state for ratification which the Doge and Council refused to grant. Finally, when the Papal Nuncio had repre- sented 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.^ 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.* 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 remem- ber Bruno's fate, when considering Galileo's case, for Galileo'* was at that time professor of mathematics in the university of Padua and fully cognizant of the event. Galileo's father, though himself a skilled mathematician, had 'Berti: 285. =^Ibid : 282. ^Fahie: 82-89. *Thayer: 299. ^The publication of A. Favaro's Galileo e I'lnquisisione : Documenti del Processo GalUeiano . . . 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, how- ever, 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 I'Epinois, von Gebler and Berti. but Favaro's is the complete and authoritative edition. 52 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 Itahan uni- versities ; finally, in 1589, he obtained the appointment to the chair of physics at Pisa. He became so unpopular there, how- ever, through his attacks on the Aristotelian physics of the day, that after three years he resigned and accepted a similar posi- tion at Padua. ^ 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), pur- chased a villa at Arcetri outside the city, in order to be near the convent where his favorite daughter "Suor Maria Celeste" was a religious. - 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)^ he speaks of his entire acceptance of the new system for some years ; but not until after the appear- ance 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 informa- tion we have as to how he came to adopt the Copernican scheme for himself is the account given by ''Sagredo," Galileo's spokes- man in the famous Dialogue on the Ti^'o Principal Systeins (1632): 'Fahie: 20-40. ^Ibid: 121. 'Galileo: Opere, X, 68. 53 ''Being very young and having scarcely finished my course of Philosophy which I left ofif, as being set upon other employ- ments, there chanced to come into these parts a certain foreigner of Rostock, whose name as I remember, was Christianus Vur- stitius, a follower of Copernicus, who in an Academy made two or three lectures upon this point, to whom many fiock't as audi- tors ; but I thinking they went more for the novelty of the sub- ject 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 persua- sion, 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, w^ho told me not that he had been a long time of the con- trary 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 Coperni- cus, 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 con- trary 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 fol- lowers of Ptolemy that had ever been of the judgment of Coper- nicus, and that had left that to embrace this of Aristotle, con- sidering, I say, these things, I began to think that one, who leaveth an opinion imbued Avith 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 54 they say, into the bottom of this business . . and bring myself to a certainty in this subject."^ GaHleo's briUiant work in mechanics and his great popular- ity — 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.^ 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.^ 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."^ Early in 1609, Galileo heard a rumor of a spy-glass having been made in Flanders, and proceeded to work one out for him- self according to the laws ofj 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 tele- scopes ; 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, how- ever, had it reprinted at once in Prague with a long apprecia- tive preface of his own.* "The Second Day' in Salusbury: Math. Coll. I, 110-111. ^Fahie: 265. 'Conway: 46-47. *Fahie : 77-126. 55 The following March Galileo went to Rome to show his dis- coveries 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 Of¥ice as early as May of that year (1611).^ Already he was a suspect. 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 inti- mate 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 con- tradicted the Scriptures, a statement that he had tried to refute.- Galileo wrote in reply (December 21, 1613), the letter^ that was to cause him endless trouble, in which he marked out the boun- daries 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 com- mon people. He pointed out in addition how futile the miracle of the sun's standing still was as an argument against the Coper- nican doctrine for, even according to the Ptolemaic system, not the sun but the primum mobile must be stayed for the day to be lengthened. Father Castelli allowed others to read and to copy this sup- posedly private letter ; copies went from hand to hand in Flor- ^Doc. in Favaro : 13. 'Fahie : 149 'Galileo: Opere, V, 281-288. 56 ence and discussion ran high. On the fourth Sunday in Decem- ber, 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/ The Copernicans found a Neapolitan Jesuit who replied to Caccini the following Sunday from the pulpit of the Duomo.^ In February (1615), came the formal denunciation of Galileo to the Holy Office at Rome by Father Lorini, a Dominican asso- ciate 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."^ The machinery of the Inquisition began se- cretly to turn. The authorities failed to get the original of the letter, for Castelli had returned that to Galileo at the latter's re- quest.^ 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 conscientise."' This he did "freely" in March and was of course sworn to secrecy. He named a cer- tain 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.'' 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 'Doc. in Favaro: 48-49. ^Doc. in Favaro : 49. ^Ibid : 38 : "amorevole avviso." "Ibid: 46, 47, 51. 'Ibid: 47. 'Ibid: 49. 57 although they are infalHble/ Gahleo'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 proposition! falso quanto al nudo senso delle parole." 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.- It came as a decided surprise to him to' receive an order to appear before Cardinal Bellarmin on February 26, 1616,^ and there to learn that the Holy Office had already con- demned it two days before. He was told that the Holy Office had declared : first, "that the proposition that the sun is the cen- ter of the universe and is immobile is foolish and absurd in phil- osophy and formally heretical since it contradicts the express words of the Scriptures in many places, according to the mean- ing 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. "^ 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 Cardi- nal Bellarmin to summon Galileo and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove recusant, warn him to aban- don 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. "^ 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, "nee eam de csetero, ' Ibid : 43-45, see original in Galileo : Opere, V, 281-285. 'Doc. in Favaro: 78. 'Ibid: 61. 58 quo vis modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis," and that Galileo promised to obey.^ Rumors evidently were rife in Rome at the time as to what had happened at this secret inter- view, 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 pub- lished 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 con- trary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held (non si possa difendere ne tenere). And in witness of this w-e have written and signed these presents with our own hand, this 26th day of May, 1616. Robert Cardinal Bellarmin. "- Galileo's defense sixteen years later^ 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 wav (quo vis modo) this condemned subject. When Galileo dis- claimed all recollection of that phrase and produced the Cardi- nal'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.^ 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.' The Con- 'Doc. in Favaro : 61-62. Tbid: 88. 'Ibid: 80-86. ^Ibid : 145. 'Ibid: 16. 59 gregation then reported its decree suspending "until corrected" "Nicolai Copernici De Revolutionibus Orbium Cselestium, et Didaci Astunica in Job," and prohibiting "Epistola Fratris PauH Antonii Foscarini CarmeHtae," 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.^ But this prohibition could not have been widely known for two or three years ; the next year Mulier pubHshed 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 f 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."^ Galileo meanwhile had retired to Florence and devoted him- self> to mechanical science, (of which his work is the founda- tion) 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,* till ^Doc. in Favaro : 16. ^Monchamp : 46. ^Fromundus: De Cometa Anni 1618: chap. VII, p. 68. (From the pri- vate library of Dr. E. E. Slosson. A rare book which Lecky could not find. History of Rationalism in Europe, I, 280, note.) *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. 6o ,^ NICOLA! COPERNICI motrjm, qui circa medium eft, gencnil-ius accipere , a c fatis efTe, dum unufqui/quc motusfuiipfiiis medio incLimbac. YiiisL.££S g o ' Solvuntur htc capte difficuCtates 4 PtoUntJco adverfm tnotum t(rr£ frpduiiit , (jr qui Jem tngeniofe magu quam foUde, excogttata nemfe novt hjfothefi de motu aert's quam PtoUmxtu ignoraft vtdetur. ytteres ttm glsbum ex ditabuf fArtibui confittut dixtrunt y ex terra f^ tquts ; Coper niCM hifcetartibus addii terttam , nempe aertm ltrr~ occidunt. t [ Cum a:gro animal ] /'ro agro reponendur» t(} cc^uo. Sementu hjtc ep : Quemddmodum gojHi contiuettir m qtialibet fpecie , ut aruntdtn equo, uovc,porco . itaw quolibet motu contimittr circaUrfs.Fenti ferun- ttir in qiumlibet mundi pLi^am rr.otn citdtiffimo -^ ijdetn tarnen una. cum reiiqiiii ma^nt iflitts globt p^irtibiis agii/itur 7n gyrum ab occ^ifinn or- tum.ita lapts e turriffafitgto dimid'ta duplici motujertttr , reclo Cr circu. Uri . Sententix bii^m Veritas dependct ex hypothif; Coperniciana C A P V T IX. iAn terra plures pojfnf attnbm motus, Cr de centro mundt. Vm igitur iii l iii l |iiiil uIjjam'j i ., i l i niULL i .iuui i i ii l i i l iin bu ai . ..^^....^^^^^-^^^ ^.„,, „.„„. ^ Quod en im omnium i7. "Pope : Works, VI, 110. 91 ''Nothing is more pleasant to the fancy, than to enlarge itself by degrees, in its contemplation of the various proportions wnich 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 hxed 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 con- sider 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 uni- verse; such a speculation, by reason of its nicety, appears ridic- ulous 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 little later. Cotton Mather declared (1721) that the "Co- pernican hypothesis is now generally preferred, ' and "that there is no objection against the motion of the earth but what has had a full solution."- Soon the semi-popular scientific books took up the Newtonian astronomy. One such was de- scribed as "useful for all sea-faring Men, as well as Gentle- 'Addison: Spectator, No. 420, (IV, 372-373). An interesting contrast to this passage and a good illustration of how the traditional phraseol- ogy continued in poetrj'^ 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 tliough 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'." "Mather : Christian Philosopher, 75, 76. 92 men, and Others."^ "Newtonianisme pour les Dames" was advertised in France in the forties.' 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 common- place to most well-educated people in England. To be sure, the great John Wesley (1770) considered the systems of the uni- verse 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."^ The old phraseology, however, did recur occasionally, es- pecially in poetry and in hymns. For instance, a hymnal (pref- ace 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?"* But too much importance should not be attributed to such pas- sages ; though poetry and astronomy need not conflict, as Keble illustrated :^ "Ye Stars that round the Sun of Righteousness In glorious order roll." ... ^Leadbetter: Astronomy (1729). ^In de Maupertius : Ouvrages Divers^ (at the back). ^Wesley: Compendium of Natural Philosophy, I. 14, 139. *Dobell: Hymns, No. 5, No. 10. 'Keble: Christian Year, 279. 93 By the middle of the 18th century in England, one could say with Home ''that the Newtonian System had been in posses- sion of the chair for some years ;"^ but it had not yet convinced the common people, for as Pike wrote in 1753, "Many Com- mon 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. "- 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.'*^ These Hutchinson- ians conceived of light as pure ether in motion springing forth from the sun, growing more dense the further it goes till it be- comes 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.* Men like Duncan Forbes, Lord Presi- dent of the Court of Sessions, and George Home, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, as a weapon against rationalism, favored this notion that had been expounded by John Hutchin- son (1674-1737) in his Moses's Principia (1724).^ 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 ris- ing powers of scientific enquiry upon the side of orthodoxy.^ This "little eddy of thought"^ was not of much influence even at that time, but it has a certain interest as indicating the posi- tions men have taken when on the defensive against new ideas. ^H'orne : Fair, Candid, Impartial Statement . . , 4, ^Pike: Philosophia Sacra, 43. 'Forbes: Letter, (1755). *See Wesley: I, 136-7. ^Dict. of Nat. Biog. "Hutchinson." "Stephen: Hist, of Eng. Thought: I, 390. 'Ibid: 391. 94 CHAPTER V The Church and the New Astronomy : Conclusion ASTRONOMICAL thought on the Contment was more hampered, in the Cathohc countries especiaUy, by the re- strictive opinions of the Church. Yet in 1757, when the de- cree 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 tech- nical matters."^ 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 as- tronomers immediately following him was influential except where the Church's prohibitions still held sway. During this period, the books published in free Holland were more outspoken in their radical acceptance or in their uncer- tainty 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'- 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 pre- ferred the Cartesian explanation as the simplest and most con- venient of all, "though it should be held merely as an hypoth- esis and not as in absolute agreement with the truth." Pierre Bayle"^ also explained the different systems, but appears himself Me Premontval: Le Mechaniste Philosophe, 54, 72. (The Hague, 1750). Me Brisbar : Calendrier Historiquc, (Leyden), 228-233. *Bayle: Systeme Abrege de Philosophie (The Hague, 1731), IV, 394-412. 95 to waver between the Copernican and the Tychonic concep- tions. He used, however, the old word "perigee" (nearness to the earth) rather than the Newtonian "perihehon" (near- ness to the sun). His objections to the Copernican doctrine have a famihar 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 equi- distant from the horizon and the two poles; and lastly it is con- trary 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 Coper- nican system which he favored on the ground of its greater probability.^ Even in 1750, Mme. de Premontval thought it wiser to pub- lish in Holland her little life of her father, Le Mechaniste Phi- losophe. 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 carpen- try 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 Coper- nican sphere was exhibited before Louis XIV at Versailles !n 1706 and was bought by the king and presented to the Acad- emic des Sciences.^ 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.^ M. Piegeon also wrote a book on the Copernican system.^ It seems, however, as though M. Piegeon were slightly in ad- vance of his age, or more daring, perhaps, than his contempo- raries, for there was almost no outspoken support of the Co- pernican system at this time in France. Even Cassini of the French Academic des Sciences did not expHcitly support it, Me Maupertius : Elements de Geographic, xv, 9-14. Me Premontval: 123. nbid: 132. 'Ibid: 157. 96 though he spoke favorably of it and remarked that recent ob- servations had demonstrated the revolutions of each planet around the sun in accordance with that supposition.^ But the great orator, Bossuet, (1627-1703), clung to the Ptolemaic con- ception as alone orthodox, and scriptural.- AJ^be 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 and regularly in spaces where nothing troubles it?"" 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 Vv^ell 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 stu- dents of philosophy and the humanities, also for teachers.* 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 plan- ets 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 re- moval from the Index of the decree against books teaching the Copernican doctrine (at his instigation, it is claimed),^ he added a note to this passage asking the reader to remember the time and the place of its former publication. ''^ 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 ^Cassini: De VOrigine et du Progris . . 35. ^Shields : 59. I have failed to find this reference in Bossuet's works. 'Fenelon: Oeuvres, I, 3 and 7. *Pltiche : Histoire du del : viil, ix, xiii. 'Cath. Ency.: "Boscovitch." 'Opera: III (1785). 97 of so many and divers combustible materials, it would soon burst into flames and be reduced to ashes !^ 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 pro- fessor, 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 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 ter- restrial globe, and it will not be shaken."^ x\nother priest stated in the first chapter of his astronomy that the sun and the planets daily revolve around the earth ; then later on, he ex- plained the Copernican and the Tychonic schemes and the Car- tesian theory of motion with evident sympathy.^ Two others, one a Jesuit in 1682 at Naples,^ the other in 1741 at Verona, frankly preferred the Tychonic system, and the latter called the system found by "Tommaso Copernico" a mere fancy.^ 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. "^ At this time, however, a father was teaching the Copernican sys- tem at Liege without differentiating between thesis and hypoth- esis.^ And a Jesuit, w^hile he denied (1772) universal gravita- tion, 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. Mon- champ, 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 Coper- nican system.® 'Cited in Monchamp : 335 note. 'Ibid: 326. 'Ibid: 330. *Fontana: Institutio, II, 32-35. 'Ferramosca : Positiones . . :19. *Piccoli: La Scienza, 4, 7. ^Spagnio, De Motu, 81. *Monchamp : 331. "Monchamp : 345. g8 The famous French astronomer Lalande, in Rome in 1757 when the Inquisition first modified its position, tried to per- suade the authorities to remove Galileo's book also from the Index; but his efforts were unavailing, because of the sentence declared against its author/ In 1820 Canon Settele was not allowed by the Master of the Sacred Palace to publish his text- book 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 un- veiled 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.- Thus the Roman Catholic Church by reason of its organiza- tion 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 fav- ored 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 inter- pretation. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Turrettin,^ Owen, and Wesley are some of the notable opponents to it. And when the scientific objections had practically disappeared, those who in- terpreted the Scriptures Hterally were still troubled and hesi- tant down to the present day. Not many years ago, people flocked to hear a negro preacher of the South, Brother Jas- per, 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 Encyclo- pedia under "Faith," written by an English Dominican : "If, now, the will moves the intellect to consider some debat- able 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 ^Bailly: II, 132, note. 'Flammarion: 196-198. 'Shields: 60. 99 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 abso- lute 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 consider- ation, e. g., that it is absurd not to hold to what a vast majority of men hold." In astronomical thought as in many another field, science and reason have had a hard struggle in men's minds to defeat tra- dition and the weight of verbal inspiration. Within the Roman Catholic Church opposition to this doctrine was officially weak- ened 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 explain- ing 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,^ 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 spe- cifically for heresy. In their next defense they declared Gali- leo was not .condemned for heresy, but for contumacy and want of respect to the Pope.^ This statement proving untenable, others held that it was the result of a persecution developing out of a quarrel between Aristotelian professors and those pro- fessors 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 hi the decrees themselves and flatly contradicted by Father Riccioli, the spokesman of the Jesuit authorities.^ More recently, Roman Catholics have held that Galileo was no more 'White: I, 159-167. 'See di Bruno: Catholic Belief, 286a. "Riccioli : Apologia, 103. lOO 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 commit- ted 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 com- mitted in these condemnations by what they termed incontro- vertible evidence.^ One present-day Catholic calls the action of the Congrega- tions "a theoretical mistake ;"^ another admits it was a deplora- ble mistake, but practically their only serious one;^ 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."* 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 in- debted for the Copernican system" and that the phrases "heret- ical" and "heresy" in the sentence of 1633 were but the stylus curice, for it was termed heresy only in the technical sense. ^ The majority of Protestants, with the possible exception of the Lutherans, were satisfied with the probable truth of the Co- pernican 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 ref- erence to the Scriptures. DeMorgan 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 mo- tion . . . with an attempt to point out the only true way whereby mankind can receive any real benefit from the study ^White : I, 165. See the answer by Wegg-Prosser : Galileo and his Judges. 'Donat: 183. 'Walsh: Popes and Science, 17. *Conway: 48. ^Anon. : Galileo — the Roman Congregation, 39, 60. lOI of the heavenly bodies, by John Cunningham, London, 1789," DeMorgan adds that "the true way appears to be the treatment of heaven and earth as emblematical of the Trinity."^ 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." 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 en- circled by five planets.- His account of the origin of the Coper- nican 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 ran- sacking the contents of the monastery happened to lay his hands on the MS. and then published it to the world with all its blun- ders and imperfections !"" One might remark that the Anglo- American's own learning was at very low ebb. The Tychonic scheme was revived also some years later by a Dane, Zytphen (1856).^ Three years after, an assembly of Lutheran clergy met together at Berlin to protest against ""sci- ence falsely so-called,"^ but were brought into ridicule by Pas- tor Knap's denunciations of the Copernican theory as abso- lutely incompatible with behef in the Bible. A Carl Schoepfifer had taken up the defense of the Tychonic scheme in Berlin be- fore this (1854) and by 1868 his lecture was in its seventh edi- tion. In it he sought to prove that the earth revolves neither upon its own axis nor yet about the sun. He had seen Fou- cault's pendulum demonstration of the earth's movement, but he held that something else, as yet unexplained, caused the devia- tion of the pendulum, and that the velocity of the heavens 'De Morgan: I, 172. '"Anglo- American" : 5-6. 'Ibid: 11. *De Morgan: II, 335. 'White: I, ISO. 102 would be no more amazing than the ahnost incredible velocity of light or of electricity/ 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.- Both these gentlemen ac- cepted 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 few months later, they published a supplemen- tary pamphlet claiming to prove the possibility of the sun's velocity by the analogy of the velocity of certain comets.* A Professor J. R. Lange of California (a German), attracted by these documents, sent them his own lucubrations on this sub- ject. 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.^ 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,"*^ — but he did not specify why he considered it pernicious. The General was nearly eighty years old when he became interested in these mat- ters, 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, Sin- dico, who bombarded the director of the Paris Observatory in 1878 with many letters protesting against the Copernican sys- tem. '^' 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 men- tioned, one proposed an ingenious scheme in which the sun moves through space followed by the planets as a comet is by ^Schoepffer: The Earth Stands Fast, title-page, 6-7. ■'Ibid: Supplement by Allaben, 21, 74. 'Ibid : Note by J. W. de P., 74. *De Peyster and Allaben: Algol, preface. 'Lange: The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurdity in the His- tory of Human Thought. 'De Peyster and Allaben: Algol, 74. ^Sindico : Refutation du Systeme de Copernic. . . 103 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 modem astronomy, and seventeen of these v/ere in German or printed in Germany.^ In this country at St. Louis was issued an Astronomische Unterrediing (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.2 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. Cath- olic and Protestant alike opposed it on these grounds ; but be- cause 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 Universcc Nviturcc Theatrum, a scholar's account of astronomy at the close of the sixteenth cen- tury.^ Man in his terrestrial habitation occupies the center of ^Tischner: Le Systeme Solaire se Mouvant. (1894) ==White: I, 151. 'See translated sections in Appendix C. 104 a universe created solely to serve him, God presides over all from the Empyrean above, sending forth his messengers the an- gels 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"^ 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 ex- plained the courses of the planets, and Newton's discovery of the universal application of the forces of attraction relieved the an- gels 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 inexpHcably 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 to- day. This dissolution of superstition, especially in regard to comets was notably rapid and complete after the comet of 1680.- 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 pro- vides the newspaper editor with the subject of a passing jest. Yet it was fully one hundred and fifty years after the publica- tion of the De Revolutionihus before its system met with the general approval of scholars as well as of mathematicians ; then nearly a generation more had to elapsq 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- 'Robinson: 107. 'Ibid: 119. 105 Cartesian schemes. But it took fully fifty years and more, be- sides, before these ideas had won general acceptance by the com- mon 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 quiet- ly 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 oth- ers 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 al- most 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 obso- lete 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 old- est 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 enlight- enment. 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 ac- count of the Copernican system: "One who intends to phil- osophize must be free in mind." io6 APPENDIX A. Ptolemy : Syntaxis Mat hematic a (Almagest) "That the earth has no movement of rotation," in Opera Qnce Exstant Omnia, edidit Pleiberg, 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 ar- gue 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 per- ceived that the earth, great as it is, is merely a point in compar- ison 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 exer- cised 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 out- side 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 ro7 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 be- lieve 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 compari- son 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 ridic- ulous if one were only even imagining them. There are those who, while they admit these arguments be- cause there is nothing to oppose them, pretend that nothing prevents the supposition, for instance, that if the sky is motion- less, 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 light- est 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 terres- trial; 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 to- wards 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. 1 08 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 Prcefatio in Copernicus: De Revolution- ibus; pp. 3-S.) 'T can certainly well believe, most holy Father, that, while mayhap a few will accept this my book which 1 have written con- cerning 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.^ But verily they seemed to me not to have done this, as some think, from any dis- 'See Prowe : Nic. Cop. : III ; 128-137. log 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 mat- ters, 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. "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 Schonberg, Cardinal of Capua, celebrated in all fields of scholarship. N.ext 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 concern- ing the motion of the sun and of the moon that they could not no observe and prove the constant length of the great year/ Next, in determining the motions of both these and the five other plan- ets, 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, eccen- trics and epicycles, which on being questioned about, they them- selves 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 correspond- ed to the phenomena. But these who devised eccentrics, even though they seem for the most part to have represented appar- ent m.otions 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. An- other 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 mem- bers, 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 ob- scure may be what I now say, nevertheless in its own place it will be made more clear. "When therefore I had long considered this uncertainty of traditional mathematics, it began to weary me that no more def- inite explanation of the movement of the world machine estab- lished 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 V. e., the 15,000 solar years in which all the heavenly bodies complete their circuits and return to their original positions. Ill the same opinion; and in order that this passage may be avail- able 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 obhque circle, after the same manner of motion that the sun and moon have. Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean assign a mo- tion to the earth, not progressive, but after the man- ner of a wheel being carried on its own axis. Thus the earth, they say, turns itself upon its own center from west to east."^ 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 seem.ed 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 obser- vation, 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 re- maining books, I bring together the motions of the other plan- ets and all the spheres with the mobility of the earth, so that it can thence be inferred to what extent the motions and appear- ances of the other planets and spheres can be solved by attribu- ting motion to the earth. Nor do I doubt that skilled and schol- arly 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 'Plutarch: Moralia: De Placitis PhilosopJwrum, Lib. Ill, c. 13 (V. 326). 112 P R AI }■ A T I O AVTHORIS. rent circihos ad dcmonflrandum phanomicna aflrorum . Exilti- m;iv I milii quoquc facile permitri, nc cxpcnrem, an pofito terra: aJi- quo motu firmiorcs demonftrarioncs, quam illorum client, invcni- ninrLVoIiJCioneorbiumca;lcftjum pollcnt. Atqucitaegopolkismotibus, quos terra; infra in operc tribuo, jmiica 5c longa obfcrvationc tandem rcpcri, quodfi reliquoruin ly- dcrLimer}-anriummocus,ad terra; circulacionem conferancur, & fupputenturpro cujLifqLicf)-dcrisrcvolunone, non modo illorum pha;nomena mdelequancur, fed &fydcrum atqucorbium omnium ordmes,magnitudincs, & caelum ipfum uaconncdiat, ut in nulla fin parte ponittranfponialiquKi, fine rcliquarum partium, ac totius univerfltatis confLiiionc. Proinde quoque & in progrefTu opens hunc fecutus fum ordinem ut in prime libro dcfcribam omncs pofi- tiones orbiura, cum terra:, quos ei tribuo, motibus^ utis libcr con- tineat communcm quaficonftitutionemuniverfi. In reliquis vcro librispofteaconf'cro reliquoruin (yderum atquc omnium orbium motus, cum terra; mobilitatc, ut inde colligi pollit, quatenus reli- quorumfyderum atque orbium motus & apparently falvaripofBnr, fiad terra; motus conferantur. Neque dubito, quiningcnioll atque dodti Matliemarici mihi aftipulaturi lint, fi quod haec pinlofophia la ptim!sexigif,noBO'biter, fed penitus,eaqux ad harum rerum dc- monftrationcm a me inhoLCopere, adferuncur, cognofcereatqtfc cxpenderc voluerint. Vt vcro panter do J^i atque indodi vidercnt, me nullius omnmo fubterfugerc judicium , maUu tua: Saditati, quamcuiquamalteribas.mcas lucubrationes dedicate, propterea quod &:m hoc remotilTangulo tcnx,in quo ego ago,ordinis digni- tate, S< hterarum omnium atque Mathematiccs ctiam aiiiorc, cmi- ncntifs. habeariSjUt facile tua authoritate «?cjudicio calumniancium niorfusreprimcrepofris,ctfi in.proverbioiic, non clle remcdium advcrfiis Sycopliar.ty morfiim. Si fertile crunt uj»7»(oAo^(^ai cum^mniiydi Marh rriint,/ame>n de iUisjudicuHriir ^^jtei^^Tale^luum |MT)pofi LooinflioitLiirn-eprehyic' etianViHoi^ual J u. J i ci uuh t; _errin^T)lcuTiimT-fl:P,jAl:anr 5(1 a plv; mitre urn p.^ur.T ridet ccJy'/qu' tei/1-ani A photographic facsimile (reduced) of a pag^ from MuHer's edition (1617) as "corrected" according to the Monitum of the Congregations ni 1620. The first writer merely underlined the passage with marginal comment that this was to be deleted by ecclesiastical order. The sec- ond writer scratched out the passage and refered to the second volume of Riccioh's Almagcstum 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 Dc Rcz'olutionibiis is now in the Dartmouth College Library. 113 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. If perchance there should be foolish speakers who, together with those ignorant of all mathematics, will take it upon them- selves 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.^ So it ought not to surprise stu- dents 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, Fath- er 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. 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). ^These two sentences the Congregations in 1620 ordered struck out, as part of their "corrections." 1 15 (BoDiN, Jean: UniverscB Naturce Theatrum in quo reriim om- nium effectrices causa et fines contemplantur, et continues se- ries quinque libris discutiuntur. Frankfort, 1597. Book V translated into English by the writer and compared with the French translation by Frangois de Fougerolles, (Lyons, 1597). Section 1: On the definition and the number of the spheres. Mystagogue:. . .Now to prove that the heavens have a na- ture endowed with intelligence I need no other argument than that by which Theophrastus and Alexander prove they are liv- ing, 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,^ 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,"- indicated a power endowed with intelHgence, as did the Master of Wisdom^ also when he said that God created the heavens with intelligence. Theodore. I have learned in the schools that the spheres are not moved of themselves but that they have separate intelli- gences who incite them to movement. Myst. That is the doctrine of Aristotle. But Theophrastus and Alexander,* (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 intelli- gence external to it, its movement would be accidental with the result that it, and the stars with it, would not be moved other- wise, than as a body without soul. But accidental motion is vio- lent. 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. 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 DanieP 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 ^As Rabbi David testified on the 19th Psalm [these footnotes are by Bodin]. 7ob: 38. 'Proverbs. *Metaphysics : II. c. 6, de Coelo. I. c. 6. ^In his last chapter. ii6 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 hab- itation, as the fish the sea, the cattle the fields, and the wild beasts the mountains and forests, even as Origen,^ 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 im ages of cherubim showing that the heavens were indicated by the angelic faces of the stars. While St. Augustine,^ Jerome,^ Thomas Aquinas* and Scotus most fitly called this universe a being, nevertheless Albertus, Damascenus, and Thomas Aquinas deny that the heavenly bodies are animated. But Thomas Aquin- as 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 ab- surd, what follows from it is necessarily absurd also. 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. Calip- pus has put it at thirty, and Aristotle^ at forty-seven, which Alexander Aphrodisiensis® 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 succeedins: ones are carried around by the movement of the trepidation. Thus he held that the moon ^Which is confirmed by Pico of Mirandola : Heptaplus : Bk. V. ^Enchiridion : cap. 43 ; Gen. : 2 and 18. 'On Psalm: Audite coeli. *Summa: pt. 1, art. 3, ques. 70. 'Metaphy. XII. *In his commentaries on Book XII of Metaph. where he gives the opinion of Calippus and Eudoxus. 117 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. 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 de- cision. The Tabernacle which the great Lawgiver Moses or- dered to be made^ 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 inter- preted this passage, "The heavens are the work of Thy fingers" as indicating the number of the ten celestial spheres. The Py- thagoreans 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. 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 be- tween it and the nearest sphere as between the ocean and the starrv heaven. Furthermore it has been said before that the es- ^Ex. XVIII and following. Philo Judseus in the Allegories. ii8 sence 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 per- ceived by observation that the fixed stars were carried back- ward 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 in- ferior ones. Much later an Arabian and a Spanish king, Men- sor and Alphonse, great students of the celestial sciences, in their observations noticed that the eighth sphere with the seven fol- lowing 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^ 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. Theo. What then? Myst. It follows from this that the extremely rapid move- ment 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 stagger- ing, belongs to the eighth sphere with which it afifects the other lesser spheres and makes them stagger in a measure outside of the poles, axes and centres of the greater spheres. ^Aristotle: Metaph. II and XII and de Coelo I. ng Section 10: On the position of the universe according to its divisions. Theo. Does it not also concern Physics to discuss those things that He 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,^ 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 EzekieP called the great crystal and upon which he saw God seated, as he wrote, is as far be- yond the farthermost heaven as our ocean is far from that heav- en, 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 immu- table 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^ and roofed* with clouds or that floods burst forth out of the heaven to inundate the earth. Final- ly we read in the Holy Scriptures that the eternal God is seated upon the flood. 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^ 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,^ God covers the heavens with clouds, and the Scriptures often make mention of the waters be- yond the heavens.'' There are those, however, who teach that the Hebrew word Scamajim may be applied only to a dual num- 'Gen.: 1. ^Chap. 1 and 10. Exod.: 24. •I Kings : 8. Deut. : 28. *Psalm 146. 'According to Maymon: Perplexorum, III. *Psalm 147. 'Psalm 148. Gen. 1 and 7. 120 ber, so that they take it to mean the crystalHne sphere and the starry one. But I think those words in Solomon's speech^ "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. 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^ in Hebrew Helion, the Sun, that is, the Most High, and under His feet the heaven is spread like a crystal,^ 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* 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. 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 be- tween 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. There- fore 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 communi- cate 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. ^Also in Psalm 67 and 123. 'Psalm 92. 'Exod. 24. Ezek. 1, 10. *Isa. 6. 121 Section 12: On guardian angels. Theo. What then in corporeal nature is closest to God? My'st. The two Seraphim, who stand near the eternal Cre- ator/ and who are said to have six wings, two wherewith to fly, the others to cover head and feet. By this is signified the ad- mirable 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 scat- tered in all parts of their bodies to indicate that nothing is hid- den 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. 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,^ but that is absurd since it is distinctly writ- ten: All that God had made was good, or as the Hebrews ex- press it, beautiful, — so evil is nothing else than the absence^ or privation of good. 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 gen- eration, management and guardianship of things God has gath- ered together angels as leaders and directors for all the celes- tial 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 noth- ing without His order, nor inflict any punishment upon wicked men unless the affair has been known fully and so decided. 'Isa. 6. Ezek. 1 and 10. Zach. 4. Exod. 24, 25. *MaIeficium quidam, i. e., some evil-power. Job 5. ^Augustine against Faustus wrote that vanity is not produced from the dust, nor evil from the earth. 122 Thus God is said^ to have made Leviathan, which is the out- flow of Himself, that is, the natural rise and fall of all things. "I have created a killer,"^ 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 :^ 'T 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* to anyone in taking back what is His own. 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 Httle later He adds, 'T 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 con- cerning nature and natural things, so that even if they are but slightly explained, nevertheless we may attain from this dis- quisition 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 7ob 41 and 49. Isa. 54. Ezek. 31. 'Isa. 54. 'Isa. 45. *Job 34. 123 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) (Thomce Fieni Epistolica Qucestio: 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 sta- tionary : First ; by authority ; for besides the fact that this is asserted by Aristotle and Ptolemy whom wellnigh all Philos- ophers and Mathematicians have followed by mianimous con- sent, except for Copernicus, Bernardus Patricius^ and a very few others, the Holy Scriptures plainly attest it in at least two places which I have seen. In Joshua,- are the words : Steteruntque sol et luna donee 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 tarn 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 de- fined; and it indicates that the heavens are moved as well as the primum mobile. Then Ecclesiastes, chapter 1,^ reads: Gen- eratio prseterit, et generatio advenit, terra autem semper stat, oritur sol et occidit, et ad locum suum revertitur. 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 them- selves by turns to different parts of the world. And it is more likely that they would apply themselves by their own move- ment to man and the place in which man lives, than that man should come to them by the movement of his own seat or hab- itation. For they are the servants of man; man is not their "^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 philos- ophy. 'Joshua X: 13-14. 'Ecclesiastes I: 4. 124 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 phi- losophy 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 motion- less. 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 circu- lar motion could not be natural to it. Further, the earth is a simple body; and a simple body can not have two natural mo- tions 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 con- trary 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 dififerent 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. "5 Sixthly; even so it is declared that the earth is moved. Nev- ertheless, 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 retro- grade, 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 mis- taken, 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 some- where 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 ; there- fore it could not by its own nature have the same motion as that other, but of necessity ought to have a different one. 126 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 hke motion move the air. For since the air is different from the earth in essence, in both active and passive quahties, and in kind of substance, it can not receive the impeUing force of the acting body, or that force appHed 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 disturb- ance 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 per- pendicularly below his eye, and allowed a very heavy stone to 127 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 un- equal 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 bv 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 grav- ity 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 ; conse- quently 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 128 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. 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY (of references cited.) I General Works. Addis and Arnold : Catholic Dictionary^ 2nd edit. London, 1884. Bailly: Histoire de r Astronomic Moderne dcpuis la Fondation de VEcolc d'Alcxandrie, jusqu' a VEpoque de 1730. 3 vol. Paris, 1785. Berry, Arthur : Short History of Astronomy. New York, 1912. Cajori, Florian : The Teaching a7i4 History of Mathematics in the United States. Washington, 1890. (Bureau of Educa- tion, No. 3.) Delambre, J. B. J. : Histoire de VAstronomie Ancienne. Paris, 1817. : Histoire de VAstronomie dn Moyen Age. Paris, 1819. : Histoire de VAstronomie 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 Beliefs 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 Cen- tury. 8 vol. New edit. New York, 1892. Libri, C. : Histoire des Sciences Mathematiqnes en Italic 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. 130 Owen, John : The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance. 2nd edit. NJew York, 1893. Peignot, G. : Dictionnaire Critique Litteraire et Bibliographique des Principaux Livres Condamnes an Feu, Sup primes 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 Cen- tury. 2 vol. 3rd edit. New York, 1902. Taylor, Henry Osborne : The Mediceval Mind. 2nd edit. Lon- don, 1914. Walsh, J. J. : Catholic Churchmen in Science. 2nd series. Phil- adelphia, 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. Lon- don, 1847. ,^ ■ White, Andrew D. : History of the Welfare,, of Science with 6v^ 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. AUaben, 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 131 Galileo for his philosophical opinions. Reprinted from the Dublin Review with an introduction by an "American Cath- olic." 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 Acad- emiques, nouvelle serie. Paris, 1902. : Notice sur la Vie at les Travaux de Kepler. (Dec. 1863) in Memoires de V Academic des Sciences, XXXV. Paris, 1866. Betten, Francis S. (S. J.) : The Roman Index of Forbidden Books briefly explained for Catholic Booklovers and Stu- dents. 4th edit, enlarged. St. Louis, 1915. Beyersdorf, Robert: Giordano Bruno iind Shakespeare. Leip- sic, 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 con- temporains. 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. 132 Davidson: see Brinton. De I'Epinois, Henri: Galilee^ son proces, sa condemnation, d'- apres des documents inedits. in Revue des Quest. Hist., Ill, 68-145. Paris, 1867. Desdouits, Theophile : La Legende Tragique de Jordano Bruno. Paris, 1885. Dreyer, J. L. E. : Tycho Brake: 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 De- couverte 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: VUniversite de Salamanque in Notices Biblio- graphiques. Paris, 1884. Haldane, Elizabeth S. : Descartes, his Life and Times. London, 1905. Heath, Thomas L. : Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Coper- nicus. 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. Mclntyre, 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 Tra- vaux. Paris, 1866. Prowe, Leopold : Nicolaus Coppernicus. 3 vol. : I and II, Bio- graphy, 1883 ; III, Sources, 1884. Berlin. R*** : Beitrage sur Beantwortung der Frage nach der Nation- alitat des Nicolaus Copernicus.. Pamphlet. Breslau, 1872. 133 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 ini Alter- thum, trans, by M. Curtze. Leipsic, 1876. : Studj Cosmologici: Opinioni e Ricerche degli Anti- chi suite Distance e suite GrandezBe dei Corpi Celesti. Pamphlet. 1865. Schwilgue, Charles : Description Abregee de VHorloge Astron- omique de la Cathedrale de Strasbourg^ 6me edit. Stras- bourg, 1856. Shields, Charles W. : The Final Philosophy. New York, 1877. Small, Robert: Account of the Astronomical Discoveries of Kepler, — including an historical reviezv 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 Diag- nosis. Pamphlet. 1909. Warren, William F. : The Earliest Cosmologies. New York, 1909. .^^ ^r^. 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. Ill 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. 134 Aristotle; De Mundo, vol. Ill 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 : Patr. Lat. Bacon, Roger : Opus Tertium, vol. I in Opera Qua^dam Hactenus Inedita, ed. by Brewer. London, 1859. Capella, Martianus : De Nuptiis Philologies et Mercurii et de Septem Artibus Liheralihus, 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. Ill 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 Clas- sical Library, London, 1909.) St. Dionysius the Areopagite : De Coelesti lerarchia, 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 Chris- tian Library, Edinburgh, 1871.) Lombard, Peter: Sententice, vol. CXCII in Migne: Patr. Lat. Origen : De Principiis, vol. XI in Migne: Patr. Grcec. (Cf. trans, vol. X in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh, 1869.) St. Philastrius : De Hceresibus, vol. XII in Migne : Patr. Lat. Philo Judseus: De Mundi Creatione (vol. I), and Quis Rerum Divinarum H ceres (vol. IV) in Opera Omnia, Erlang?e, 1820. (Cf. trans, by Yonge, London, 1854.) Plato: Timceus, vol. IV in Opera ed. Burnet, Oxford, [1905.1 (Cf. trans, by Jowett, vol. Ill of Dialogues, 3rd edit, revised, New York, 1892). 135 Plutarch: Moralia, ed. Bernardakis, Teubner, Leipsic, 1893. (Cf. trans, ed. by Goodwin, Boston, 1898.) Ptolemy, Claudius : Syntaxis Mathematica, vol. I in Opera Quce Supersunt Omnia, 3 vol., Teubner, Leipsic, 1898. (Cf. trans, into French by Halma, 2 vol., Paris, 1813.) Sacro Bosco: Lihellus de Sphccra, Venice, 1488; Wittenberg, [1537]; Wittenberg, 1545; Paris, 1564; Venice, 1574; Wit- tenberg, 1578. Scotus, Joannus : Depositiones super lerarchias sancti Dionysii, vol. CXXII in Migne: Pair. Lat. Seneca: Naturalium Qucestionum Libros VIII, ed. Gercke, vol. II in Opera quce supersmit, Teubner, Leipsic, 1907. (Cf. trans, by Clarke, London, 1910.) Vitruvius : De Architectura Libri Decern, 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 : Cosmo qraphia in quatuor libros. Venice, 1585. Bayle, Pierre : Systeme Abrege de Philosophic, vol. Ill in Oeuvres Diver ses. 4 vol. The Hague, 1731. Bodin, Jean : Universes Naturce Theafrum in quo rerum omnium effectrices causa et fines contemplantur et continuce series quinque libris discutiuntur. Frankfort, 1597. : Universcc Naturce Theatrum, trans, into French by Frangois de Fougerolles. Lyons, 1597. Boscovich, Rogerio Josepho (S. J.) : De Determinanda Orbita Planetce ope catoptrics. Rome, 1749. 136 : Opera Pertinentia ad Opticam et Astronomiam. 5 vol. Bassan, 1785. Bottrigaro, Hercole : Trattato della Descrittone della Sfera Celeste in Piano di CI. Tolomeo Tradotto in parlare Italiano. Bolosrna, 1572. Brahe, Tychonis : Opera Omnia, sive Astronomice Instauratce Progymnasmata. Frankfort, 1648. Browne, Thomas : Pseudodoxia Epidemica in Works, ed. by S. Wilkins. 3 vol. London, 1852. Bruno, Giordano : De Immenso et Innumerahilis, in Opera Latina Conscripta, ed. by Fiorentino. Naples, 1884. : La Cena de le Ceneri, in Opere Italiane, ed. by Gen- tile. Bari, 1907. Burnet, Thomas : The Sacred Theory of the Earth. 5th Edit., 2 vol. London, 1722. Burton, Richard: Anatomy of Melancholy. 13th edit, corrected, 2 vol. London, 1827. Calvin, Jean : Commentaria in Opera Omnia in Corpus Reform- atorum, vol. LIX. Brunswick, 1887. : Traite ou Avertissement contre VAstrologie 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, : /' De Ohservationihus Astronomicis. Giovannelli, Andrea, : J Dissertatio hahita in Seminario Ro- Giovannelli, Benedicto : (^ mano.. Rome, 1742. Cassini, G. D. : De VOrigine et du Progres de V Astronomic et de son usage, dans la Geographic et dans la Navigation, in Recueil d' Observations faites en plusieurs voyages par ordre de sa majeste pour perfectionner V Astronomic et la Geogra- . phie, par MM. de V Academic Rovale des Sciences. Paris, 1693. Cavalieri, Bonaventura : Sfera Astronomica, Teftore primario delle Matematiche nello studio di Bologna. . .cavatc da MS. dell 'Autore da Antonio Manari. Rome, 1690. Copernicus, Nicolas: De Revolutionihus Orbium Ccclestium, Libri sex. Niirnberg, 1543. 137 : Astronomia Instaurata, Libris sex comprehefisa, qui De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, inscribuntur. Nunc demum post 75 ab obitii authoris annum integritati suce resti- tuta, notisque illustrata^ opera et studio Nicolai Mulerii. Amsterdam, 1617. : De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium. Libri Sex. Accedit G. J. Rhetici Narratio Prima, cum Copernici nonnul- lis 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. Ill, Sources, of Prowe: Nicolaus Cop- pernicus. Cromer, Martin : De Origine et Rebus Gestibus Polonorum Libri XXX. Tertium ab authore diligenter recogniti. Basel, 1568. : Polonice, in Res Publicce sive Status Regni Polonice, Lituance, Prussice, Livonicc, 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 . . . avee un Traite His- torique 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, mathema- ticien, Membre de la Societe des arts, Auteur des premieres Spheres mouvantes qui ayenf He faites en France, selon rhypothese de Copernic. The Hague, 1750. p J \Kj . f^hol: The ''GhouV or ''Demon" Star, a An K F "^ -^"^^^^^^^^^ fo ''The Earth Stands Fast.'' Allaben,!^.: t Pamphlet. New York, 1900. Descartes, Rene: Les Principes de la Philosophic, vol. Ill in Oeuvres ed. by G)usin. II vol. Paris, 1824. 138 Fienus, Thomas : | Fromundus, Liberti Di Gallo, Marco Antonio Giovanni Gianesimi : Opinione sopra il movimento delta Terra e degli Astri. Pamphlet. Bassano, 1771. Dobeli, John (ed.) : Hymns. No title-page. Preface dated England, 1806. Favaro, Antonio: Galileo e V Inquisizione , Documenti de Pro- cesso Galileiano . . .per la prima volta integralmente pub- hlicati. Florence, 1907. Fenelon, F. de S. de la Mothe: Traite de r existence et des attributs de Dieu, in vol. I, Oeuvres. 3 vol. Paris, 1835. Ferramosca, Aegidius Leognanus : Positiones suas Physioas- tronomicas De Sphcsra Coelesti publice Demonstrandas et Propugnandis in Collegio Neapolitano Soc. Jesu. Naples, 1682. \De Cometa Anni 1618, Dissertationes. I Ejiisdem Thomce Fieni Epistolica qucsstio, An Venim sit Ccehim moveri, et Terram qitiesceref London, 1655. Bound with Fromundus : Meteorologicorum. Fienus, Thomas : Epistolica qucestio. See above. Fontana, Cajetano : Institutio Physico-Astronomica. Mutinae. 1695. Forbes, Duncan : A Letter to a Bishop concerning some impor- tant Discoveries in Philosophy and Theology, in Works. Dub- lin, 1755. Foscarini, Paolo Antonio : An Epistle Concerning the Pythago- rian 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-Terrce Immo- bilis: Liber Unicus in quo decretum S. Congregationis S. R. E. Cardinal, an 1616 adversus Pythagorico-C opernicanos edi- ttim defenditur. Antwerp, 1631. : Meteorologicorum Libri Sex. Cui accessit in hac ultima Editione Thomce Fieni et Lib. Fromondi Dissertationes de Cometa Anni 1618, et Clarorum Virorum Judicia De Plu- via Purpurea Bruxelliensis. London, 1656. 139 ■ : Vesta, sive Ant-Aristarchi vindex adversus lac. Lansbergium . . . in quo Decretum . . . 1616 et altermn anno adversus Copernicanos terrce motores editum, iterum defenditur. Antwerp, 1634. See also Fienus. Gadbury, John and Timothy : George Hart gill'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 Mondo, Tol- emaico, e Copernicano. Florence, 1632. Trans, in Salusbury : Math. Coll., q. v. : Lettera a Madayna Cristina di Lorcna, Grandiichessa di Toscana, in vol. V, Opere; trans, in Salusbury: Math. Coll., q. V. : Sidereus N,uncius . . atque Medicea Sidera, in vol. III, Opere. Accusation, Condemnation and Abjuration of Galileo Galilei be- fore the Holy Inquisition at Rome, 1633. Pamphlet. Lon- don, 1819. See also Favaro. Gassendi, Petro : Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis quam Veterum quam Copernici ac Typhonis. 3rd edit. Hagse- Comitum, 1656. : Institutio Astronomica . . . 5th edit. London, 1675. : Institutio Astronomica juxta Hypothesis Tarn Ve- terum quam Recentiorum Cui accesserunt Galileo Galilei; Nuncius Sidereus, et lohannis Kepleri: Dioptric e. 3rd edit, corrected. London, 1683. : Vita Tychonis Brahei, Equitis'> Dani, Astrononum Coryphcei., 2nd edit, corrected. Hagse-Comitum, 1655. George, Earl of Macclesfield : Speech in the House of Peers, Mar. 18, 1750. Pamphlet. London, 1751. Gilbert, William: Dc Magnete, Magnetis qui corporibus, et de magna magnete tellure Physilogia nova. London, 1600, re- printed Berlin 1892. Trans, by P. F. Mottelay, New York, 1893. 140 Herbert, George: Man, in English Works ed. by G. H. Palmer, Boston, 1905. Home, George : Commentary on Book of Psalms. 2 vol. Ox- ford, 1784. : A Fair, Candid and Impartial State of the Case be- tween Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson. Pamphlet. Oxford, 1753. Hutchinson, John: Moses's Principia. London, 1724. Huygens, Christian : The Celestial Worlds discovered. Trans, from the Latin. London, 1698. : Nouveau Traite de la Pluralite des Mondes . . . traduit du Latin en Prang ois 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 : Physiologies Stoicorum, vol. IV, in Opera Om- nia, 4 vols. Vesaliae, 1674. Keble, John: Christian Year. Ed. by Lock. London, 1895. Keill, John: Introductio ad Veram Astronomiam, seu Lectiones Astronomicce habitce in Schola Astronomica Academico Oxon- iensis. Oxford, 1718. Kepler, Joannis: Opera Omnia, edidit Frisch. 8 vol. Frank- fort a. M. 1858-1871. : Abstract of the "Introduction Upon Mars," trans, in Salusbury: Math. Coll., q. v. : Tabulce Rudolphince . . . a Phoenice illo Astronomo- rum Tychone . . primum concepta . . 1564 . . observatiori- bus siderum . . post annum prcecipne 1572 . . . Traducfa in Germaniam . . 1598. Tabulas ipsas . . jnssn et stipendiis . . Imp. Rtidolphi. Ulm, 1627. 141 Kircher, Athanasius (S. J.) • I^^r Exstaticum C celeste, enlarged by Gaspare Schotto, SJ. Herbipoli, 1671. Kromer, see Cromer. La Galla, Julius Caesar: De Phoenomenis in Orbe Litnw Novi Telescopii usu a Gallileo Gallileo. Physica Disputatio. Ven- ice, 1612. Lambert: Systeme du Monde. 2me edit. Berlin, 1784. ^-iange, J. R. L. : The Copernican System: The Greatest Absurd- ity 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 Nezvton's The- ory of the Earth's Satellites. London, 1729. Longomontanus, Christianus : Astronomica Danica. Amster- dam, 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 Doctrince Physiccc, 2nd edit. Wit- tenberg, 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 Astronomic and Geographic, or an Easie and Speedy Way to know the use of both the Globes, Celestial and Terrestrial. 2nd edit. London, 1670. Mulerius, Nicolaus : Tabulcc Frisccc Litnco-Solares quadruplices e fontibus CI. Ptolemcei, Regis Alfonsi, Nic. Copernici ef Ty- chonis 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 pit) famosi Sistcnii dell' Universo Tot- emaico, Copernicano, Ticonico, e Novissimo. Colla paten te Dimostrazione della quiefa di nostra Terra, c che poco piii, o 142 meno ci apparisce ella oggidi nella sua superfisie tal quale era avanti V Universal Diluvio. Verona, 1741. Pike, Samuel: Philosophica Sacra: or the Principles of Natural Philosophy extracted from Divine Revelation. London, 1753. Pluche : Histoire du del considere selon les idees des Poetes, dcs Philosophes et de Mo'ise. 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 Joan- nem Schonerum Narratio Prima, 1539, in Copernicus : Dc Revolutionihus , Thorn, 1873. Riccioli, Giovanni Baptista (S. J.) : Almagestum Novum, As- tronomiam veterem novamqiie completens Ohservationihiis 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 Refiexo motu Gravium Decidentium. Venice, 1669. Spooner, W. W. : Great Copernican Myth; a Review of Algol by de Peyster and AUaben. 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 AUa- ben. Pamphlet. New York, 1900. Schotto, Gaspar (S. J.) : Organitm Mathematicum. Opus Pos- thumum., Herbipoli, 1668. Simpson, Thomas : Essays on Several Curious and Useful Sub- jects in Speculative and Mix'd Mathematicks. London, 1740. Sindico, Pierre: Refutation du Systeme de Copernic expose en dix-sept lettres qui He adressees a feu M. Le Verrier. Paris, 1878. Spagnio, Andrea : De Motu. Rome, 1774. 143 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 Kiinstgiinstigen Einfnlt Mathe- matischer Raritdten Erstes Hundert: Allen KunstgUnstlgen sum lustigen und nutsbaren Gehrauch mit Fleiss und Miihe 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 Nezv Theory of the Earth. 4th edit. Lon- don, 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. Lon- don, 1640. (Bound with First Book.) *'W. R.": The Nezv Astronomer, or Astronomy made easy by such instruments that readily shezv by Observation the Stars . . . London, 1735. 144 INDEX Addison, J., 91-92. Agricola, G. L., 11 . Albategnius, 15. Allaben, F., 103. Alphonse X of Castile, 15, 119. Ambrose, 16. Arabian astronomers, 15, 16, 20, 119. Archimedes, 11. Aristarchus ot Samos, ll-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, 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, ZZ, 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. Dc 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. 145 Forbes, Duncan, 94. Foscarini, 60, 70, 71-72, 82, 100. Foucault, 38, 102. Froidmont, see Fromundus. Fromundus, 60, 69, 74-75, 82. Galileo, 16, Z7, 52-69, 70, 7Z, 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. Home, 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, SZ, 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, 2>7, 48, 81. Martianus Capella, 74. Mather, Cotton, 92. Melancthon, 31, 39-41, 99. Milton, 43, 67, 89. Mivart, 101. Montaigne, 45. Narraiio Prima, 31, 106. Newton, 2>7, 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, ^. 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. Piirbach, 21. Pythagoras, 10, 11, 102. Pythagoreans, 109, 112. Recorde, R., 42-43. 146 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, 11. Salamanca, Univ. of, 16, 44. SchoepflFer, C, 102. Schwilgue, 42. Settek, 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, 11, 79, 80, 85,* 96, 98, 102, 105. Urban VIII, 63^9. Van Welden, M., 76-77. Vitruvius, 14. Voight, J. H., 77-78. von Schonberg, 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. 147 JUN 5 - 1951 -^/To^A^"^ V^ ^ ^ * , V- <3 Cl * vO^^. ^ •> so ^S&I %^ .^'- .^; 0- ' <= , ^ ^^^' ^- v*^' :V .A* » %.J :A -0" . \#\v---''.-^^ %c,V ^ ', -'c- c?-. ^ A ■/• a\' .^^.■.' ^^' -O'^ c - O"^ " ^v^. ^ = .^ ^cf- ^ <^ ^mm:. ^ -"^^ . r ^ %,^.^^^ .^0^ \.^' . ^ ^ ^' ■^:s-^' V . .. \- ' « -« % % ^"^ ^' ^.'' ,e^^/y?^h-. ^ \^' ,^ '^. ^''SI:/.L# v-^^ \\'' ,x^- .\^::^/. % -Ji_i^^ - ^-^>^ .\.^ J> '<^. ■ 0^ '^^^'•jS^ \ ' ,^ \" ^. c^' s^ ' // C- -^^^ .'£'iv/i; A^' -^P. .^>- o'."./-'c.;--^" v^ .-"' '•-•"-.- W ,,. .■^^- ..^ ,, .■3" ->-, 00^ %'' "^ V^ ^ "%- '*"•€ "^^?KS,f? m ° 003 564 1671