380. In the latter, Whewell cites the exact words of De Cusa in the De Docta Ignorantia, and sums up in these words: "This train of thought might be a preparation for the reception of the Copernican system; but it is very different from the doctrine that the sun is the centre of the planetary system." In the previous passage, Whewell says that De Cusa "propounded the doctrine of the motion of the earth, more, however, as a paradox than as a reality. We cannot consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and consistent view of the truth." For Aristotle's views and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas, see the treatise De Cœlo et Mundo. It is curious to see how even such a biographer of St. Thomas as Archbishop Vaughan slurs over the angelic doctor's errors. See Vaughan's Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.
23
For improvement of mathematical processes, see Draper, Intellectual Development of Europe, 513. In looking at this and other admirable summaries, one feels that Prof. Tyndall was not altogether right in lamenting, in his farewell address at New York, that Dr. Draper has devoted so much of his time to historical studies.
24
Kopernik's danger at Rome. The Catholic World for January, 1869, cites a recent speech of the Archbishop of Mechlin before the University of Louvain, to the effect that Copernicus defended his theory, at Rome, in 1500, before two thousand scholars; also, that another professor taught the system in 1528, and was made Apostolic Notary by Clement VIII. All this, even if the doctrines taught were identical with those of Copernicus, as finally developed, which idea Whewell seems utterly to disprove, avails nothing against the overwhelming testimony that Copernicus felt himself in danger—testimony which the after-history of the Copernican theory renders invincible. The very title of Fromundus's book, already cited, published within a few miles of the archbishop's own cathedral, and sanctioned expressly by the theological Faculty of that same University of Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the Church was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as follows:
"Anti-Aristarchus | Sive | Orbis-Terræ | Immobilis | In quo decretum S. Congregationis S. R. E. | Cardinalium | IƆC. XVI adversus Pytha | gorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur | Antwerpiæ MDCXXXI."
L'Epinois, Galilée, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widmanstadt, in 1533, and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV. and Clement VII., but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal policy afterward. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this idea and received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X., at first inclined toward Luther and the others, in their "squabbles with the begging friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface, "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant."
25
For dangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217.
26
Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had endeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying, "Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos contradicturos metuis." See Apologia Tychonis in Kepleri Opera Omnia, Frisch's edition, vol. i., p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that Copernicus may have yielded "in pure condescension toward his disciple." But this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's own dedicatory letter to the pope, which follows the preface. For a good summary of the argument, see Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, pp. 378, 379. See, also, citation from Gassendi's life of Copernicus, in Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as he usually is, in his recent Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, appears to have followed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface.
27
Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, p. 380. Also, Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 190.
28
The "proper authorities" in this case were the "Congregation of the Index," or cardinals having charge of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum." Recent desperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals seem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work is sanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be universally accepted by the Church. Three of four editions of the "Index" in my own possession declare on their title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the period, and each is prefaced by a special papal bull or letter. See, especially, Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII., and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's work was prohibited in the Index "donec corrigatur." Kepler said that it ought to be worded "donec explicetur." See Bertrand, Fondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, p. 57. De Morgan, pp. 57-60, gives the corrections required by the Index of 1620. Their main aim seems to be to reduce Copernicus to the groveling level of Osiander, making of his discovery a mere hypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the whole Copernican doctrine, e. g., "correction" insisted upon for cap. 8, p. 6. For scholarly account of the relation of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes to each other, see Mendham, Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.
29
See Fromundus's book, cited above, passim, but especially the heading of chapter vi., and the argument in chaps, x. and xi. For interesting reference to one of Fromundus's arguments, showing by a mixture of mathematics and theology, that the earth is the centre of the universe, see Quetelet, Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, Bruxelles, 1864, p. 170.
30
See Luther's Tischreden, Irmischer's Ausgabe. Also, Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ. This treatise is cited under a mistaken title by the Catholic World, September, 1870. The correct title is as given above. It will be found in the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider, Halle, 1846. (For the above passage, see vol. xiii., pp. 216, 217.) Also, Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217. Also, Prowe, Ueber die Abhängigkeit des Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4. Also, note, pp. 5 and 6, where text is given in full.
31
For treatment of Copernican ideas by the people, see Catholic World, as above.
32
See title-page of Fromundus's work cited in note at bottom of p. 392; also, Melanchthon, ubi supra.
33
See Bartholmess, Vie de Jordano Bruno, Paris, 1846, vol. i., pp. 121 and 212, et seq. Also Berti, Vita di Giordano Bruno, Firenze, 1868, chapter xvi. Also Whewell, i., 294, 295. That Whewell is somewhat hasty in attributing Bruno's punishment entirely to the Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante will be evident, in spite of Montucla, to any one who reads the account of the persecution in Bartholmess or Berti; and, even if Whewell be right, the Spaccio would never have been written, but for Bruno's indignation at ecclesiastical oppression. See Tiraboschi, vol. xi., p. 435.
34
Delambre, Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, discours préliminaire, p. xiv. Also Laplace, Système du Monde, vol. i., p. 326, and for more careful statement, Kepleri Opera Omnia, edit. Frisch, tom. ii., p. 464.
