2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving sh.o.r.e.

3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in accordance with the popular misconception.

4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.

5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle of the human body.

6. Since the earth has in itself its especial _centrum_, a stone or an arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own _centrum_ as do all earthly things.

7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun can go forty miles in the same time.

And similarly on both sides.[325]

[Footnote 322: Schotto: _Organum Mathematic.u.m_ (1667).]

[Footnote 323: Voight: _Der Kunstgunstigen Einfalt Mathematischer Raritaten Erstes Hundert_. (Hamburg, 1667).]

[Footnote 324: Voight: _op. cit._: 28.]

[Footnote 325: Ibid: 30-31.]

Another writer preferring the Tychonic scheme was Longomonta.n.u.s, whose _Astronomica Danica_ (Amsterdam, 1640) upheld this theory because it "obviates the absurdities of the Copernican hypothesis and most aptly corresponds to celestial appearances," and also because it is "midway between that and the Ptolemaic one."[326] Even though he speaks of the "apparent motion of the sun," he attributed diurnal motion to the heavens, and believed the earth was at the center of the universe because (1), from the account of the Creation, the heaven and the earth were first created, and what could be more likely than that the heavens should fill the s.p.a.ce between the center (the earth) and the circ.u.mference? (2) and because of the incredibly enormous interval between the sphere of the fixed stars and the earth necessitated by Copernican doctrine.[327]

[Footnote 326: Longomonta.n.u.s: _Op. cit._: 162.]

[Footnote 327: Longomonta.n.u.s: _Op. cit._: 158.]

The high-water mark of opposition after Galileo's condemnation was reached in the _Almagestum Novum_ (Bologna, 1651) by Father Riccioli of the Society of Jesus. It was the authoritative answer of that order, the leaders of the Church in matters of education, to the challenges of the literary world for a justification of the condemnation of the Copernican doctrine and of Galileo for upholding it. Father Riccioli had been professor of philosophy and of mathematics for six years and of theology for ten when by order of his superiors, he was released from his lectureship to prepare a book containing all the material he could gather together on this great controversy of the age.[328] He wrote it as he himself said, as "an _apologia_ for the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals who officially p.r.o.nounced these condemnations, not so much because I thought such great height and eminence needed this at my hands but especially in behalf of Catholics; also out of the love of truth to which every non-Catholic, even, should be persuaded and from a certain notable zeal and eagerness for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures intact and unimpaired; and lastly because of that reverence and devotion which I owe from my particular position toward the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."[329]

[Footnote 328: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: Praefatio, I, xviii.]

[Footnote 329: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 496.]

This monumental work, the most important literary production of the Society in the 17th century,[330] is abundant witness to Riccioli's remarkable erudition and industry. Nearly one-fifth of the total bulk of the two huge volumes is devoted to a statement of the Copernican controversy. This is prefaced by a brief account of his own theory of the universe--the invention of which is another proof of the ability of the man--for his scientific training prevented his acceptance of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory in the light of Galileo's discoveries; his position as a Jesuit and a faithful son of the Church precluded him from adopting the system condemned by its representatives; and Tycho Brahe's scheme was not wholly to his liking. Therefor he proposed an adaptation of the last-named, more in accordance, as he thought, with the facts.[331] Where Tycho had all the planets except the earth and the moon encircle the sun, and that in turn, together with the moon and the sphere of the fixed stars, sweep around the earth as the center of the universe, Riccioli made only Mars, Mercury and Venus encircle the sun,--Mars with an orbit the radius of which included the earth within its sweep, the other two planets with orbital radii shorter than that of the sun, and so excluding the earth. This he did, (1) because both Jupiter and Saturn have their own kingdoms in the heavens, and Mars, Mercury and Venus are but satellites of the sun; (2) because there are greater varieties of eccentricity among these three than the other two; (3) because Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and with Mercury and Venus also.[332]

[Footnote 330: _Cath. Ency._: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)]

[Footnote 331: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]

[Footnote 332: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.]

Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments against it,[333] and Riccioli himself claims[334] to have stated "40 new arguments in behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or, the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of G.o.d's power; for to G.o.d all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.[335]

Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so, according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it, Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars revolve around him. The sun may be n.o.bler than the earth, but man is n.o.bler than the sun.[336] If the earth's movement were admitted, Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,[337] but he calls to his aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.[338] There are many more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or novelty.

[Footnote 333: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 674-680.]

[Footnote 334: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 2.]

[Footnote 335: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 313, 315.]

[Footnote 336: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 330-351.]

[Footnote 337: Ibid: II, 339-340.]

[Footnote 338: Delambre: _Op. cit._: I, 677.]

To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it, for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure men.[339]

[Footnote 339: Ibid: I, 673.]

In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].[340]

Copernicus Rheticus Maestlin Kepler Rothman Galileo Gilbert (diurnal motion) Foscarini Didacus Stunica (_sic_) Ismael Bullialdus Jacob Lansberg Peter Herigonus Ga.s.sendi,--"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees."

Descartes "inclines to this belief."

A.L. Politia.n.u.s Bruno

Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement.

Aristotle Ptolemy Theon the Alexandrine Regiomonta.n.u.s Alfraga.n.u.s Macrobius Cleomedes Petrus Aliacensis George Buchanan Maurolycus Clavius Barocius Michael Neander Telesius Martinengus Justus-Lipsius Scheiner Tycho Ta.s.so Scipio Claramontius Michael Incofer Fromundus Jacob Ascarisius Julius Caesar La Galla Tanner Bartholomaeus Amicus Antonio Rocce Marinus Mersennius Polacco Kircher Spinella Pineda Lorinis Mastrius Bellutris Poncius Delphinus Elephantutius

[Footnote 340: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 290.]

Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy.

After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,--that man who accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a triple motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his hypothesis!"[341]

[Footnote 341: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 304, 309.]

His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit restrained him from being a Copernican himself.[342] "I. If the celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures, which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a diurnal and an annual motion."[343]

[Footnote 342: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 680.]

[Footnote 343: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 478 (condensed), 500.]

Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of the Church. The full t.i.tle of his _Apologia_ runs: "An Apologia in behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his _Almagestum Novum_ had received the approbation of professors of mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and he quotes the conclusion from _Nicetas Orthodoxus_ ("a diatribe by Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons, but solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures, and the nod of approval (_nutu_) of the Roman See, whose rules laid down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits everyone, uphold as law."[344]

[Footnote 344: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 4.]

Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that "the Church did not decide _ex cathedra_ that the Scripture concerning movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to philosophy."[345] These answers are indicative of the type of criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.[346]

[Footnote 345: Ibid: 103.]

[Footnote 346: One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his work has come down to us. A canon at Liege, Rene-Francois Sluse, wrote asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English mathematician, as to his opinion of the _Almagestum Novum_, and of this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies.

Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this."

Monchamp: 165-166.

For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican system between 1631-1688, see Martin: _Galilee_: 386-388.]