MOTION OF THE EARTH. 



MOTION OF THE EARTH. 



810 



stone are carried together : consequently the stone should fall a little 

 east of the foot of the tower. This experiment was tried at Bologna 

 by Guglielmini, who published his results in a work called ' De Motu 

 Terne diurno,' Bologna, 1792; it was repeated at Hamburg: the 

 heights were respectively 241 and 235 feet (French). 



In every instance the projected body fell a fraction of an inch to 

 the east, and never to the west of the point directly under the point of 

 projection. Had this departure been an accidental effect, it is in- 

 credible that it should always have taken place in one direction. 

 Delambre does not state the number of experiments made ; but if it 

 were only six, and if the chances of departure east or west had been 

 equal, it would have been 63 to 1 against the departure being always 

 in one direction. In the last two proofs we are made to perceive the 

 earth's rotation, by phenomena which can be explained on no other 

 hypothesis that is worth consideration. 



4. We perceive the earth's orbital motion only in the phenomenon 

 of ABERRATION, from which one of two things must be true ; either 

 the earth moves round the sun, or light does not move in a straight 

 line ; and what is more, the light from every star, in whatever part of 

 the heavens it may be found, changes its course with the position of 

 the sun. The change, it is true, is minute, but it is as well established 

 as it would be if it were visible to the naked eye ; and it must be 

 remembered that twenty seconds is not a small quantity when the eye 

 is applied to an instrument capable of measuring one second. Were 

 there no other phenomenon by which to test it, the orbital motion 

 would be conclusively proved by that in question. 



5. The next argument is analogy, which, though not perfectly con- 

 clusive iteelf, lends a great additional force to the rest. The planets 

 all exhibit motion round the sun ; this can be proved ; and the only 

 question that remains is, whether the sun move round the earth, 

 carrying the planets round itself, or whether the earth be itself a planet 

 moving round the sun. The planets also, in most cases, revolve round 

 axes visibly, and there is no proof that any one does not. 



6. The last argument is authority, properly used. There are many 

 who do not know enough of the subject to decide even between 

 Newton and the worthy Frenchman, whose name is unnecessary to 

 mention, who thinks he proves the planets to be reflections of the sun 

 upon the polar ice, and the southern hemisphere of stars to be a reflec- 

 tion of the northern upon a very curious crystal plane, but how placed 

 we do not exactly know. With such persons authority must decide, if 

 there be any decision at all in their minds ; and it is of some import- 

 ance to them to know what sort of authority they trust to. The argu- 

 ment from authority may be thus summed up : 1. The motions of the 

 heavenly bodies are irregular, particularly those of the moon, which, 

 when closely examined, exhibit irregularities, the cycles of which never 

 were determined from observation alone. 2. At the time when the contro- 

 versy about the earth's motion took place, the time of the moon's tran- 

 sit over the meridian, for instance, could not be predicted within 

 several minutes. 3. By means of the labours of Newton and his suc- 

 cessors in theory, and Flamsteed and his successors in observation, the 

 prediction now rarely differs from the result by more than half a 

 second of time. 4. It has been the unanimous opinion of those con- 

 cerned in bringing astronomy to this state, not merely that the earth 

 bos a motion both of rotation and orbital progression, but that the 

 proofs are such as to leave no doubt whatsoever on the subject ; nor is 

 it in history that any person who was mathematician enough to 

 read the writings of Newton ever entertained any hesitation upon the 

 abject. 



7. For the recent experimental proofs proofs to those who have the 

 requisite knowledge of dynamics of the motion of the earth, see 

 GYROSCOPE; PENDULUM. 



A short time after the article GALILEO, was first published, there 

 appeared in a leading Roman Catholic publication, the ' Dublin 

 Iteview ' ( July, 1838, vol. v. pp. 72-116), a controversial article upon 

 the celebrated interference of the Inquisition. This article was much 

 cited, and seems to have been considered by some, at least, of the 

 English and Irish Roman Catholics as a triumphant reply to the 

 account usually given. We shall here briefly examine the main 

 assertions, and the question which arises out of them. 



We have already expressed our opinion of the use which is made of 

 Galileo's trial by Protestants : and we repeat that Roman Catholics have 

 a good right to consider the manner in which this case is harped upon as 

 a'high compliment to the authority which through so many centuries 

 ponewed the power of doing as much or more on every day of every 

 year. That the whole proceeding was disgraceful to the parties con- 

 cerned is generally admitted even by Catholics ; but the question, and 

 one which has not been fairly handled by Protestants, is, how far those 

 parties can claim to be the representatives of the church which declares 

 itself infallible in matters of faith. The importance of Galileo's trial 

 depends upon its connection with this question ; and party zeal has 

 mixed up with it all manner of discussion upon the character of the 

 proceeding itself, and the motives of those who originated it. English- 

 men would do well to remember, with regard to the latter points, 

 tln-ir own Star-Chamber, the astronomy* of the Act of Uniformity, 



* The poor nonconformists (ec Calamy's ' Life of Baxter ') pleaded in vain 

 thtt they were required " unfeigncdljr to assent and consent" to declarations 

 which distinctly implied that it was full moon at times when any one could see 



and the decision of the University of Oxford * that no woman has a 

 right to defend herself against the king. 



Even in Italy the defence of the Inquisition has been long and 

 openly given up by many. Witness the expressive silence of the 

 account of Galileo, in the ' Elogi degli Uomini illustri Toscani," Lucca, 

 1772, taken from a contemporary Milan periodical; the declaration 

 of Frisi (Milan, 1775) that "the imagination is horrified, and the 

 virtuous and feeling mind shudders," at the language applied to Galileo 

 in the sentence passed upon him; and that of Fabbroni (Pisa, 1784), 

 that " it is better to be silent upon the details than by recalling them 

 to increase the horror which every virtuous mind ought to feel against 

 the injustice of that time." And the article in the ' Dublin Review ' 

 styles the Inquisition " superlatively cruel in Spain, more mild and 

 sparing of human life in Rome " only more mild than superlatively 

 cruel. 



That the. Roman Church decided against the earth's motion has been 

 generally affirmed by Protestants, and denied by Catholics, we believe 

 with justice. But that the church which claims infallibility in essential 

 matters suffered two local tribunals, the office of which was the 

 suppression of heresy, to pronounce, and, as it turns out, to pronounce 

 wrongly, upon a question of astronomical fact, is all but universally 

 admitted. Nevertheless, even this is denied altogether by the author 

 of the article before us, whose account of the matter is as follows 

 That Galileo, in 1615, not content with supporting the Copernican 

 doctrine as a truth, which it was open to him to do, persisted in 

 invading what himself admitted to be the prerogative of the church, by 

 declaring that the sacred Scriptures could be interpreted against 

 Ptolemy and for Copernicus ; and this, in spite of many friendly 

 warnings, that he must confine himself to " demonstrating his system," 

 and writing "as a mathematician, and by way of hypothesis." That 

 when the first attempt was made upon him in 1615 (which was 

 rejected by the Inquisition for informality), as much licence as the 

 above was distinctly mentioned as given to all. That the prohibition 

 of 1616, to teach or write in favour of the Copernican doctrine, was a 

 prohibition to Galileo only, not to others, and was brought about partly 

 by Galileo's persisting in forcing the theological question upon the 

 court, and partly by the imprudence of his advocate, Cardinal Orsini, 

 in pressing the subject upon the pope. That before this prohibition 

 was given, on the occasion of Galileo's first personal appearance, the 

 qualificators of the Inquisition, whose office it is to put the propositions 

 bearing on the points at issue before the court, drew up the two 

 famous theses, in which the doctrine of the earth's motion was called 

 false and heretical. That when Galileo, in 1632, brought on the pro- 

 ceeding of 11633, not only by a breach of the prohibition, but by a 

 sarcastic reference to it, and a caricature of the arguments of his friend 

 and benefactor, the reigning pope, these theses were merely cited in 

 the preamble of the sentence, and are not there to be taken as any- 

 thing but recapitulation. That the word heretical, in the proceedings 

 of the Inquisition, is the stylus curies, and that even offences against 

 morals or the public peace, apart from all doctrine, must be styled 

 heretical, before that court can assume jurisdiction. 



In the above are the following assertions. 1, That any one (except 

 Galileo, restrained for his own misconduct) was at liberty to teach the 

 earth's motion as true, provided he confined himself to philosophy, and 

 let theology alone. 2, That the Inquisition pronounced no opinion 

 upon the truth of the doctrine. 3, That it pronounced no opinion 

 upon the orthodoxy of the same. We deny each of these positions, 

 upon the clearest reasons, which we shall bring forward. But we do 

 not deny that much has been stated which, when closely examined 

 (for articles in reviews do not deal in references), would probably 

 establish the fact that the prohibition of 1616 was mainly due to the 

 injudicious ardour with which Galileo pressed the theological question. 

 Nor do we deny that the conduct of the philosopher was weak and 

 ungrateful in putting into the mouth of the wrongheaded personage of 

 his dialogue the arguments urged to him in personal conference by his 

 benefactor Urban, with a hint that they came from a high quarter. 

 All parties admit that it was the irritation of the pope at this conduct 

 which led to the final proceeding. 



As to the first of the preceding assertions. There were, at the time 

 in question, three distinct modes of maintaining a theory. First, as a 



that it was little more than half moon. And to make this more remarkable, it 

 should be remembered, that in the year following it was pioposed to insert into 

 the act for relief of those who had not subscribed on account of sickness, a 

 clause declaring the assent and consent to be nothing more than a declaration 

 of obedience. This clause passed the Lords, but was rejected by the Commons, 

 and the bill passed without it. 



* It was in 1622, between the two proceedings against Galileo, that the 

 Convocation at Oxford promulgated this doctrine. (Wood, 'Ilistoria,' &c., 

 pp. 326-328.) William Knight, with a meaning perhaps both seditious and 

 offensive, had publicly maintained that if the sovereign were to attack a subject, 

 tanquam lalKO aut stuprator, and if no other help were nigh, the subject might 

 defend himself or herself as against any other assailant. The university, not 

 content with committing Knight to prison, declared the proposition false, 

 dangerous, and impious ; and enacted that all candidates for degrees should 

 subscribe this censure, and make oath that they would neither hold, teach, nor 

 defend this opinion. The false physics of the Inquisition seems to have the 

 evidence of the senses in its favour ; the false morals of the Oxford convocation 

 has always found its denial in the heart and conscience of every honest man and 

 of every honest woman. 



