MOTION OK THK KAKTH. 



MOTION OF THE EARTH. 



f- i 



bodies may be that of the spectator. Riccioli cites a sermon of Cuts, 

 which proves, says he, that the cardinal had come to a sounder 

 opinion ; for he speaks of God'* angel* or intelligence* moving the ran 

 and stars. Nothing can better illustrate, in our opinion, the argument* 

 against Riccioli and his predecessors : when the cardinal is writing for 

 men of science, ha advances, after his fashion, speculation about the 

 earth's motion ; when he is writing exrilatiwu (not exertitatitnu, as 

 Bieeioli says) to religious feeling, he speaks oi God's works in a manner 

 which persons in general understood ; in confounding the preacher of 

 religion with the philosopher, Riccioli made the usual error of his day, 

 and only repeated his own mode of treating Moses, Isaiah, and the 

 writer of Job. But it would have been better to have argued by 

 analogy, that if either of the latter had written a professedly philoso- 

 phical work, he might, whatever appears to the contrary from his 

 religious writings, have admitted the motion of the earth. 



Copernicus had no predecessor as a mathematical reasouer upon the 

 question. The tirnt continental followers of the new system were 

 Rheticus, Reinhold, Masstlinus the instructor of Kepler, and Urgtitius 

 who was probably the instructor of Galileo. In 1556 appeared in 

 England the ' Castle of Knowledge,' by Recorde [liECOBDE, ROBERT, in 

 Bloo. Div.l, in which a cautious and implied avowal of Copernican 

 principles is made, and also the Ephemeris of John Field, expressly 

 computed from Copernicus and Reinhold. John Dee and his pupil 

 Thomas Digges (son of Leonard) were both avowed Copemicans : the 

 first absolute defence of the system is contained in the Appendix to 

 the ' Prognostication Everlasting,' Ac., of Leonard Digges, republished 

 by Thomas Digges (who added the Appendix) in 1594. This Appendix 

 is called ' A Perfit Description of the Coclestial Orbes, according to the 

 most ancient Doctrine of the Pythagoreans ; lately reuiued by Coper- 

 nicus, and by Geometrical! Demonstrations approued.' Wo shall 

 quote from this work the account (in modern spelling) of " what 

 reasons moved Aristotle and others that followed him to think the 

 earth to rest immoveable as a centre to the whole world." 



" The most effectual reasons that they produce to prove the earth's 

 stability in the middle or lowest part of the world is that of Gravity 

 and Levity. For, of all other, the element of the earth (say they) is 

 most heavy, and all the ponderous things are carried into it, striving 

 (as it were) to sway even down to the inmost part thereof. For the 

 earth being round, into the which all weighty things on every side 

 fall, tnlritig right angles on the superficies, pass to the centre, seeing 

 every right line that falleth perpendicularly upon the horizon in that 

 place where it touch vth the earth, must needs pass by the centre. 

 And those things that are carried towards that medium," or middle 

 point, " it is likely that there also they would rest So much therefore 

 the rather shall the earth rest in the middle, and (receiving all things 

 into itself that fall) by his own weight shall be most immoveable. 

 Again, they seek to prove it by reason of motion and his nature ; for 

 of one and the same simple body the motion must also be simple, 

 saith Aristotle. Of simple motions there arc two kinds, right and 

 circular : right are either up or down ; so that every simple motion is 

 either downward toward the centre, or upward from the centre, or 

 circular about the centre. Now unto the earth and water, in respect 

 of tli-ir weight, the motion downward is convenient to seek the 

 centra ; to air and fire, in regard of their lightness, upward and from 

 the centre. So it is meet to these elements to attribute the right or 

 straight motion, and to the heavens only it is proper circularly about 

 this mean or centre to be turned round. Thus much Aristotle. If 

 therefore (saith Ptolemy of Alexandria) the earth should turn but 

 only by that daily motion, things quite contrary to these should 

 happen. For his motion should be most swift and violent, that in 

 twenty-four hours should let pass the whole circuit of the earth ; and 

 those things which, by sudden turning, are stirred, are altogether 

 unmeet to collect, but rather to disperse things united, unless they 

 should by some firm fastening be kept together. And long ere this 

 the earth, being dissolved in pieces, should have been scattered through 

 the heavens, which were a mockery to think of; and much more 

 beasts and all other weights that are loose could not remain unshaken. 

 But also things falling should not light on the places perpendicular 

 unilrr them, neither should they fall directly thereto, the same being 

 violently in the meanwhile earned away. Clouds also and other things 

 hanging in the air should always seem to us to be carried toward the 

 west." In his answer to the preceding, Digges propounds the experi- 

 ment which was afterwards urged (by those who had not tried it) 

 against Copernicus, as follows : " Of things ascending and descending 

 in respect of the world, we must confess them to have a mixed notion 

 of right and circular, albeit it seem to us right and straight, not other- 

 wise than if, in a ship under sail, a man should softly let a plummet 

 down from the top along by the mast even to the deck : this plummet 

 passing always by the straight mast seemeth also to fall in a right line ; 

 but being by discourse of reason weighed, his motion is found mixed 

 of right and circular." From his preface Digges appears to have con- 

 sidered magnetism as the cause of the earth's self-sustaining power ; 

 an opinion carried further by Gilbert (the next English Copernican) 

 in 1'i'Mi, who, in his book on the magnet, endeavours to deduce the 

 earth's motion from magnetic causes, as well as the precession of the 

 equinoxes. 



The period from 1548 to 1600, in which the controversy was purely 

 mathematical, has not excited the interest which every one knows to 



belong to the consequences of Galileo's discoveries. An account ! 



riod is to be found in the 'Companion to A* Almanac ' for 



1855, in ' Notes on the Ante-Galilean Copemicans.' To this article we 



must refer the reader for further account, in < mvtion wit- 



subject, of Leonardo Da Vinci, Calcagnini, Widmanstadt, < 

 Rheticus, Gassarus, Hheinhold, Ramus, Maurolycus, Bacon, .1. !:. 

 Benedictus, Tycho Brahe 1 , Rothmann, Stunica or Zuniga, Francis 

 Patricius, Urstitius. Gilbert, E. Wright, Clavius, Vieta, Mastlinus. 

 Bruno, Ursus Dithmarsus, Maginus, Stevinus, Kepler, Recorde, Field, 

 Digges, Dee, Blagrave, Lyiliat, Hume. 



Hitherto the theological part of the controversy has not made its 

 appearance. We must date this view of the question from the dis- 

 coveries of Galileo. Neither in ancient nor modern times have those 

 who would bind over the sciences to agree with llnir interprets 

 the Scriptures ever take alarm at hypotheses, until those hypotheses 

 began to have facts in their favour. The inconsistency is worth 

 noting; for, taking these objectors on their own principle!!, 

 may be impiety (if the Bible be a revelation of philosophy) in im- 

 pounding a theory which contradicts it; but there can be none in 

 stating the results which follow from actual investigation : tin- thoughts 

 of the mind of man may contradict revealed science (if such there be), 

 but the works of the God of nature can hardly detect falsehood in the 

 God of revelation. It was Copernicus, then, and not Gali! 

 the heretic, if heresy there were in the case ; but the former ami his 

 immediate disciples slept in peace, while the latter was forced to sign a 

 recantation. The story of Galileo is so well known, from the 

 use which has been made of it amongst us, as well as from the ex 

 account of Mr. Driukwater (Bethune) in the ' Library of Useful Know- 

 ledge,' that it is unnecessary to go into details. It has been a severe 

 lesson to the Roman Catholic Church to beware of bringing its infalli- 

 bility to the practical test of a declaration in physics. We say the 

 Roman Church, for though admitting that the seven inquisitors who 

 signed the indictment against Galileo are not to be regarded, upon the 

 principles of that Church, as a final authority, yet the sufferance of 

 their decision for two centuries must be construed as the assent * of a 

 church which is jealous above all others of what is taught or done by 

 its ministers. The Minims Le Seur and Jacquier knew better than we 

 can do in what state the doctrine of the earth's motion was left T by 

 the process ; their declaration at the commencement of the third book 

 of their edition of Newton (1742) runs as follows : "Newton in thin 

 third book assumes the hypothesis of the motion of the earth. The 

 propositions of the author cannot be explained otherwise than l>y 

 mating the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliycd t*> / 

 character not our own. (Hinc alienam eoacti sumus gcrere pensonam.) 

 But we profess obedience to the decrees promulgated by sovereign 

 pontiffs against the motion of the earth." We have sometimes sus- 

 pected that there is a little sly satire in this last phrase of the worthy 

 fathers. They do not represent the pope as having issued a decree 

 against the doctrine of the earth's motion, the phrase one would have 

 expected, but against the earth' t motion : not < 



mota, but contra ttllurit mot urn. At the same time, with reference to 

 the reproaches heaped upon the whole body of Roman Catholics for 

 this persecution of Galileo, we heartily wish that all persecutions, 

 Catholic and Protestant, had been as honest and as mild. There is no 

 reason to doubt the perfect good faith of the whole proceeding ; and, 

 remembering that the tribunal was one of whirl, <;.,!;],,, ) 

 admitted the jurisdiction, and supposing the inquisitors to have 

 believed they were doing their duty, any less amount of > 

 would have been a palpable respect of persons (for Galileo had power- 

 ful friends). For ourselves, we would as soon have been among the 

 inquisitors as in the position of Galileo himself, if it be true that, on 

 rising from his knees, after taking the most solemn oaths that he 

 "abjured, cursed, and detested" the doctrine of the motion cf the 

 earth, he repeated aside to a friend, " Epur li miwre " (" It doe.- 

 for all that "). We may pity, but cannot admire, either party. Not to 

 leave unsaid any palliative on either side, we may ntate th.it the 

 exclamation of Galileo has no very good authority, and t) 

 inquisitors themselves were not unanimous. One of them, the 

 Cardinal Bentivoglio, states, in his memoirs, that lie <li<l all lie could 

 to prevent the decision. It should also be noticed that the jirohi 

 issued at the time were mostly againat works written in Italian; we 

 cannot help suspecting that the opinion would have remained 1111- 

 assailcd if it had been expressed only in Latin. The question just 

 discussed was settled June 22, 1033, but this was not the )>eginning of 

 the controversy. The following list of writings will save future 



The Papal power mutt, upon the whole, have been modci 

 matter* of philosophy, if we may judge from the frrcnt strcAR laid on this one 

 case of Galileo. It ii the (landing proof thnt an authority which has luted a 

 thotusnd yeari wai sll the time employed in checking the progress of thought. 

 Their arc certainly one or two other instances, hut thoae who make most of the 

 outcry do not know them. 



But the mot amnring application of the caae before na Is thnt frnpumly 

 made by the unknown writers who publish their own great discoveries. Theae 

 generally cite the ptrucutiaa of Galileo u a parallel to thenrglrct of themselves. 



t Mr. lirinkwater states that both Copernicus and Galileo remain in the 

 Index Kxpurgatorius for Is2s, with 'nisi corrigatnr' to each. It is known 

 however that the omissions and alterations with which the fonncr author was 

 allowed to be read were settled In 1620. 



