(s 



394 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



lated : " I ask not the grace accorded to Paul, not that given to 

 Peter; give rae only the favor which thou didst show to the thief on 

 the cross." Not till thirty years after did a friend dare write on his 

 tombstone a memorial of his discovery.* 



The book was taken in hand at once by the proper authorities. It 

 was solemnly condemned : to read it was to risk damnation ; and the 

 world accepted the decree.^ 



Doubtless many will at once exclaim against the Roman Catholic 

 Church for this. Justice compels me to say that the founders of Prot- 

 estantism were no less zealous against the new scientific doctrine. 

 Said Martin Luther: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer, who 

 strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firma- 

 ment, tlie sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must 

 devise some new system which of all systems is, of course, the very 

 best. This fool wishes to revei'se the entire science of astronomy. 

 But Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand 

 still, and not the earth." 



Melanchthon, mild as he was, was not behind Luther in condemning 

 Kopernik. In his treatise, "Initia Doctrinae Physicse," he says: 

 " The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of 

 twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, 

 or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth 

 moves ; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun 

 revolves. . . . Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert 

 such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part 

 of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God, and to acqui- 

 esce in it." Melanchthon then cites i^assages from the Psalms and 

 from Ecclesiastes which he declares assert positively and clearly that 

 the earth stands fast, and that the sun moves around it, and adds 

 eight other proofs of his proposition that " the earth can be nowhere, 

 if not in the centre of the universe." ' 



' Figuier, " Savants de la Renaissance," p. 380. Also, Flammarion, " Vie de Coper- 

 nic," p. 190. 



* The " proper authorities " in this case were the " Congregation of the Index," or 

 cardinals having charge of the " Index Librorum Prohibitorum." Eecent desperate at- 

 tempts 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 poutitf of 

 the period, and each is prefaced by a special papal bull or letter. See specially Index 

 of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII., and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. 

 Oopernicus's work was prohibited in the Index " dmiec corrigatitry Kepler said that it 

 ought to be worded " donee explketur.'''' See Bertrand, " Fondateurs de I'Astrononiie 

 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. 



3 See Luther's " Table Talk." Also, Melanchthon's " Initia Doctrinae Physica;." This 



