392 THE POPULAR SCIEN'CE MONTHLY. 



from the mind of Cardinal de Cusa ; but the chill of dogmatism was 

 still over the earth, and up to the beginning of the sixteenth century- 

 there had come to this great truth neither bloom nor fruitage.^ 



Quietly, however, the soil was receiving enrichment, and the air 

 warmth. The processes of mathematics were constantly improved, 

 the heavenly bodies were steadily though silently observed, and at 

 length appeared, afar olF from the centres of thought, on the borders 

 of Poland, a plain, simple-minded scholar, who first fairly uttered to 

 the world the truth, now so commonplace, then so astounding, that 

 the sun and planets do not revolve about the earth, but that the 

 earth and planets revolve about the sun, and that man was Nicholas 

 Kopernik.'' 



Kopernik had been a professor at Rome, but, as this truth grew 

 within him, he seemed to feel that at Rome he was no longer safe.^ 



of India, see Whewell, vol. i., p. 277. Also, Whitney, "Oriental and Linguistic Studies," 

 New Yorl, 1874. "Essay on the Lunar Zodiac," p. 345. 



^ For general statenoent of De Cusa's work, see Draper, " Intellectual Development of 

 Europe," p. 512. For skillful use of De Cusa's view in order to mitigate censure upon 

 the Church for its treatment of Copernicus's discovery, see an article in the Catholic 

 World, for January, 1869. For a very exact statement, in a spirit of judicial fairness, 

 see Whewell, " History of the Inductive Sciences," p. 275 and pp. 379, 380. In the lat- 

 ter, 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 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. 



"^ Copernicus'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 Coper- 

 nicus, as finally developed, which idea W^hewell 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 I'niversity 

 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-TerrEe | Immobilis | In quo decretum S. Congre- 

 gationis S. R. E. | Cardinalium | IqC. XVI adversus Pytha | gorico-Copernicanos editum 

 defenditur | Antwerpiaj MDCXXXL" 



L'Epinois, " Galilee,'' Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doc- 

 trine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widraanstadt, in 1533, and their kind treatment by 

 Eugenius IV. and Clement VIL, but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal 

 policy afterward. Lange, " Geschichte des Materialismus," vol. i., pp. 217, 218, while 



