In this year (1620) appeared the corrections under which the Congregation of the Index--i.e., the Committee of Cardinals which superintended the _Index_ of forbidden books--proposed to allow the work of Copernicus to be read. I insert these conditions in full, because they are often alluded to, and I know of no source of reference accessible to a twentieth part of those who take interest in the question.
By a decree of the Congregation of the Index, dated March 5, 1616, the work of Copernicus, and another of Didacus Astunica,[137] are suspended _donec corrigantur_, as teaching:
"Falsam illam doctrinam Pythagoricam, divinae que Scripturae omnino adversantem, de mobilitate Terrae et immobilitate Solis."[138]
But a work of the Carmelite Foscarini[139] is:
{91}
"Omnino prohibendum atque damnandum," because "ostendere conatur praefatam doctrinam ... consonam esse veritati et non adversari Sacrae Scripturae."[140]
Works which teach the false doctrine of the earth's motion are to be corrected; those which declare the doctrine conformable to Scripture are to be utterly prohibited.
In a "Monitum ad Nicolai Copernici lectorem, ejusque emendatio, permissio, et correctio," dated 1620 without the month or day, permission is given to reprint the work of Copernicus with certain alterations; and, by implication, to read existing copies after correction in writing. In the preamble the author is called _nobilis astrologus_; not a compliment to his birth, which was humble, but to his fame. The suspension was because:
"Sacrae Scripturae, ejusque verae et Catholicae interpretationi repugnantia (quod in homine Christiano minime tolerandum) non _per hypothesin_ tractare, sed _ut verissima_ adstruere non dubitat!"[141]
And the corrections relate:
"Locis in quibus non _ex hypothesi_, sed _asserendo_ de situ et motu Terrae disputat."[142]
That is, the earth's motion may be an hypothesis for elucidation of the heavenly motions, but must not be asserted as a fact.
(In Pref. circa finem.) "_Copernicus._ Si fortasse erunt [Greek: mataiologoi], qui cum omnium Mathematum ignari sint, tamen de illis judicium sibi summunt, propter aliquem locum scripturae, male ad suum propositum detortum, ausi fuerint meum {92} hoc institutum reprehendere ac insectari: illos nihil moror adeo ut etiam illorum judicium tanquam temerarium contemnam. Non enim obscurum est Lactantium, celebrem alioqui scriptorem, sed Mathematicum parum, admodum pueriliter de forma terrae loqui, cum deridet eos, qui terram globi formam habere prodiderunt. Itaque non debet mirum videri studiosis, si qui tales nos etiam videbunt. Mathemata Mathematicis scribuntur, quibus et hi nostri labores, si me non fallit opinio, videbuntur etiam Reipub. ecclesiasticae conducere aliquid.... _Emend._ Ibi _si fortasse_ dele omnia, usque ad verbum _hi nostri labores_ et sic accommoda--_Coeterum hi nostri labores_."[143]
All the allusion to Lactantius, who laughed at the notion of the earth being round, which was afterwards found true, is to be struck out.
(Cap. 5. lib. i. p. 3) "_Copernicus._ Si tamen attentius rem consideremus, videbitur haec quaestio nondum absoluta, et ideireo minime contemnenda. _Emend._ Si tamen attentius rem consideremus, nihil refert an Terram in medio Mundi, an extra Medium existere, quoad solvendas coelestium motuum apparentias existimemus."[144]
{93}
We must not say the question is not yet settled, but only that it may be settled either way, so far as mere explanation of the celestial motions is concerned.
(Cap. 8. lib. i.) "Totum hoc caput potest expungi, quia ex professo tractat de veritate motus Terrae, dum solvit veterum rationes probantes ejus quietem. Cum tamen problematice videatur loqui; ut studiosis satisfiat, seriesque et ordo libri integer maneat; emendetur ut infra."[145]
A chapter which seems to assert the motion should perhaps be expunged; but it may perhaps be problematical; and, not to break up the book, must be amended as below.
(p. 6.) "_Copernicus._ Cur ergo hesitamus adhuc, mobilitatem illi formae suae a natura congruentem concedere, magisquam quod totus labatur mundus, cujus finis ignoratur, scirique nequit, neque fateamur ipsius cotidianae revolutionis in coelo apparentiam esse, et in terra veritatem? Et haec perinde se habere, ac si diceret Virgilianus AEneas: Provehimur portu ... _Emend._ Cur ergo non possum mobilitatem illi formae suae concedere, magisque quod totus labatur mundus, cujus finis ignoratur scirique nequit, et quae apparent in coelo, perinde se habere ac si ..."[146]
{94}
"Why should we hesitate to allow the earth's motion," must be altered into "I cannot concede the earth's motion."
(p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Addo etiam, quod satis absurdum videretur, continenti sive locanti motum adscribi, et non potius contento et locato, quod est terra. _Emend._ Addo etiam difficilius non esse contento et locato, quod est Terra, motum adscribere, quam continenti."[147]
We must not say it is absurd to refuse motion to the _contained_ and _located_, and to give it to the containing and locating; say that neither is more difficult than the other.
(p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Vides ergo quod ex his omnibus probabilior sit mobilitas Terrae, quam ejus quies, praesertim in cotidiana revolutione, tanquam terrae maxime propria. _Emend._ _Vides_ ... delendus est usque ad finem capitis."[148]
Strike out the whole of the chapter from this to the end; it says that the motion of the earth is the most probable hypothesis.
(Cap. 9. lib. i. p. 7.) "_Copernicus._ Cum igitur nihil prohibeat mobilitatem Terrae, videndum nunc arbitror, an etiam plures illi motus conveniant, ut possit una errantium syderum existimari. _Emend._ Cum igitur Terram moveri assumpserim, videndum nunc arbitror, an etiam illi plures possint convenire motus."[149]
{95}
We must not say that nothing prohibits the motion of the earth, only that having _assumed_ it, we may inquire whether our explanations require several motions.
(Cap. 10. lib. i. p. 9.) "_Copernicus._ Non pudet nos fateri ... hoc potius in mobilitate terrae verificari. _Emend._ Non pudet nos assumere ... hoc consequenter in mobilitate verificari."[150]
(Cap. 10. lib. i. p. 10.) "_Copernicus._ Tanta nimirum est divina haec. Opt. Max. fabrica. _Emend._ Dele illa verba postrema."[151]
(Cap. ii. lib. i.[152]) "_Copernicus._ De triplici motu telluris demonstratio. _Emend._ De hypothesi triplicis motus Terrae, ejusque demonstratione."[153]
(Cap. 10. lib. iv. p. 122.[154]) "_Copernicus._ De magnitudine horum trium siderum, Solis, Lunae, et Terrae. _Emend._ Dele verba _horum trium siderum_, quia terra non est sidus, ut facit eam Copernicus."[155]
We must not say we are not ashamed to _acknowledge_; _assume_ is the word. We must not call this assumption a _Divine work_. A chapter must not be headed _demonstration_, but _hypothesis_. The earth must not be called a _star_; the word implies motion.
It will be seen that it does not take much to reduce Copernicus to pure hypothesis. No personal injury being done to the author--who indeed had been 17 years out of {96} reach--the treatment of his book is now an excellent joke. It is obvious that the Cardinals of the Index were a little ashamed of their position, and made a mere excuse of a few corrections. Their mode of dealing with chap. 8, this _problematice videtur loqui, ut studiosis satisfiat_,[156] is an excuse to avoid corrections. But they struck out the stinging allusion to Lactantius[157] in the preface, little thinking, honest men, for they really believed what they said--that the light of Lactantius would grow dark before the brightness of their own.
