Читать книгу History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom - Andrew Dickson White - Страница 24

Table of Contents

But, on the other hand, there had been planted, long before, the germs of a heliocentric theory. In the sixth century before our era, Pythagoras, and after him Philolaus, had suggested the movement of the earth and planets about a central fire; and, three centuries later, Aristarchus had restated the main truth with striking precision. Here comes in a proof that the antagonism between theological and scientific methods is not confined to Christianity; for this statement brought upon Aristarchus the charge of blasphemy, and drew after it a cloud of prejudice which hid the truth for six hundred years. Not until the fifth century of our era did it timidly appear in the thoughts of Martianus Capella: then it was again lost to sight for a thousand years, until in the fifteenth century, distorted and imperfect, it appeared in the writings of Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa.

But in the shade cast by the vast system which had grown from the minds of the great theologians and from the heart of the great poet there had come to this 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 observed, and at length appeared, far from the centres of thought, on the borders of Poland, a plain, simple-minded scholar, who first fairly uttered to the modern 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: this man was Nicholas Copernicus.

Copernicus had been a professor at Rome, and even as early as 1500 had announced his doctrine there, but more in the way of a scientific curiosity or paradox, as it had been previously held by Cardinal de Cusa, than as the statement of a system representing a great fact in Nature. About thirty years later one of his disciples, Widmanstadt, had explained it to Clement VII; but it still remained a mere hypothesis, and soon, like so many others, disappeared from the public view. But to Copernicus, steadily studying the subject, it became more and more a reality, and as this truth grew within him he seemed to feel that at Rome he was no longer safe. To announce his discovery there as a theory or a paradox might amuse the papal court, but to announce it as a truth—as THE truth—was a far different matter. He therefore returned to his little town in Poland.

To publish his thought as it had now developed was evidently dangerous even there, and for more than thirty years it lay slumbering in the mind of Copernicus and of the friends to whom he had privately intrusted it.

At last he prepared his great work on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, and dedicated it to the Pope himself. He next sought a place of publication. He dared not send it to Rome, for there were the rulers of the older Church ready to seize it; he dared not send it to Wittenberg, for there were the leaders of Protestantism no less hostile; he therefore intrusted it to Osiander, at Nuremberg.(45)

(45) For the germs of heliocentric theory planted long before, see Sir

G. C. Lewis; and for a succinct statement of the claims of Pythagoras,

Philolaus, Aristarchus, and Martianus Capella, see Hoefer, Histoire de

l'Astronomie, 1873, p. 107 et seq.; also Heller, Geschichte der Physik,

Stuttgart, 1882, vol. i, pp. 12, 13; also pp. 99 et seq. For germs among

thinkers of India, see Whewell, vol. i, p. 277; also Whitney, Oriental

and Linguistic Studies, New York, 1874; Essay on the Lunar Zodiac, p.

345. For the views of Vincent of Beauvais, see his Speculum Naturale,

lib. xvi, cap. 21. For Cardinal d'Ailly's view, see his treatise De

Concordia Astronomicae Veritatis cum Theologia (in his Ymago Mundi

and separately). For general statement of De Cusa's work, see Draper,

Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512. For skilful 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 the spirit of judicial

fairness, see Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, p. 275, and

pp. 379, 380. In the latter, 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." Whewell says: "De Cusa propounded the

doctrine of the motion of the earth more as a paradox than as a reality.

We can not consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and

consistent view of the truth." On De Cusa, see also Heller, vol. i, p.

216. For Aristotle's views, and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas,

see the De Coelo et Mundo, sec. xx, and elsewhere in the latter. It is

curious to see how even such a biographer as Archbishop Vaughan slurs

over the angelic Doctor's errors. See Vaughan's Life and Labours of St.

Thomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.

As to Copernicus's danger at Rome, the Catholic World for January, 1869, cites a 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 Copernicus as finally developed—which is simply not the case—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 University of Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the Church was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as follows: Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis-Terrae Immobilis, in quo decretum S. Congregationis S. R. E. Cardinal. an. M.DC.XVI adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur, Antverpiae, MDCXXI. L'Epinois, Galilee, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa in 1435, and by Widmanstadt in 1533, and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV and Clement VII; but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal policy afterward. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i, pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this theory and received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X, at first inclined toward Luther and others, in their "squabbles with the envious friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface: "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant." For dangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, as above, vol. i, p. 217.

But Osiander's courage failed him: he dared not launch the new thought boldly. He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus for his novel idea, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as a fact, but as a hypothesis. He declared that it was lawful for an astronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus had done.

Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific truths—a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science—forced, in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.(46)

(46) Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had

endeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying,

"Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos

contradicturos metuis." See Apologia Tychonis in Kepler's Opera Omnia,

Frisch's edition, vol. i, p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely

responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de

l'astronomie moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that

Copernicus may have yielded "in pure condescension toward his disciple."

But this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's

own dedicatory letter to the Pope, which follows the preface. For a good

summary of the argument, see Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, pp.

378, 379; see also citation from Gassendi's Life of Copernicus, in

Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as

he usually is, in his Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy appears to have

followed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that

Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface. For the

latest proofs, see Menzer's translation of Copernicus's work, Thorn,

1879, notes on pp. 3 and 4 of the appendix.

On the 24th of May, 1543, the newly printed book arrived at the house of Copernicus. It was put into his hands; but he was on his deathbed. A few hours later he was beyond the reach of the conscientious men who would have blotted his reputation and perhaps have destroyed his life.

Yet not wholly beyond their reach. Even death could not be trusted to shield him. There seems to have been fear of vengeance upon his corpse, for on his tombstone was placed no record of his lifelong labours, no mention of his great discovery; but there was graven upon it simply a prayer: "I ask not the grace accorded to Paul; not that given to Peter; give me only the favour 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.(47)

(47) See Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 190.

The preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus suggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its purpose well. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities evidently thought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases professors like Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely as a hypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on the theological side, but there was no great demonstration against the system until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by Galileo as a TRUTH, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus were condemned, "until they should be corrected"; and the corrections required were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the old Ptolemaic theory.

That this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was forbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were forbidden "all books which affirm the motion of the earth." Henceforth to read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and the world accepted the decree.(48) The strongest minds were thus held fast. If they could not believe the old system, they must PRETEND that they believed it;—and this, even after the great circumnavigation of the globe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is the case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great work on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical and geographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told the truth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly bodies he remained orthodox—declaring, "I have seen the two poles, whereon the heavens turn as upon their axletrees."

(48) The authorities deciding this matter in accordance with the wishes

of Pope V and Cardinal Bellarmine were the Congregation of the Index,

or cardinals having charge of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Recent

desperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals

seem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work was

sanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be

universally accepted by the Church. Eleven different editions of the

Index in my own possession prove this. Nearly all of these declare on

their title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the

period, and each is preface by a special papal bull or letter. See

especially the Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII,

and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's statements were

prohibited in the Index "donec corrigantur." Kepler said that it ought

to be worded "donec explicetur." See Bertand, Fondateurs de l'Astronomie

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 grovelling level of Osiander, making his discovery a mere

hypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the

whole Copernican doctrine—e.g., "correction" insisted upon for chap.

viii, p. 6. For a scholarly account of the relation between Prohibitory

and Expurgatory Indexes to each other, see Mendham, Literary Policy

of the Church of Rome; also Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bucher, Bonn,

1855, vol. ii, chaps i and ii. For a brief but very careful statement,

see Gebler, Galileo Galilei, English translation, London, 1879, chap. i;

see also Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, article Galileo, p.8.

There was, indeed, in Europe one man who might have done much to check this current of unreason which was to sweep away so many thoughtful men on the one hand from scientific knowledge, and so many on the other from Christianity. This was Peter Apian. He was one of the great mathematical and astronomical scholars of the time. His brilliant abilities had made him the astronomical teacher of the Emperor Charles V. His work on geography had brought him a world-wide reputation; his work on astronomy brought him a patent of nobility; his improvements in mathematical processes and astronomical instruments brought him the praise of Kepler and a place in the history of science: never had a true man better opportunity to do a great deed. When Copernicus's work appeared, Apian was at the height of his reputation and power: a quiet, earnest plea from him, even if it had been only for ordinary fairness and a suspension of judgment, must have carried much weight. His devoted pupil, Charles V, who sat on the thrones of Germany and Spain, must at least have given a hearing to such a plea. But, unfortunately, Apian was a professor in an institution of learning under the strictest Church control—the University of Ingolstadt. His foremost duty was to teach SAFE science—to keep science within the line of scriptural truth as interpreted by theological professors. His great opportunity was lost. Apian continued to maunder over the Ptolemaic theory and astrology in his lecture-room. The attack on the Copernican theory he neither supported nor opposed; he was silent; and the cause of his silence should never be forgotten so long as any Church asserts its title to control university instruction.(49)

(49) For Joseph Acosta's statement, see the translation of his History,

published by the Hakluyt Society, chap. ii. For Peter Apian, see Madler,

Geschichte der Astronomie, Braunschweig, 1873, vol. i, p. 141. For

evidences of the special favour of Charles V, see Delambre, Histoire

de l'Astronomie au Moyen Age, p. 390; also Bruhns, in the Allgemeine

deutsche Biographie. For an attempted apology for him, see Gunther,

Peter and Philipp Apian, Prag, 1822, p. 62.

Doubtless many will exclaim against the Roman Catholic Church for this; but the simple truth is that Protestantism was no less zealous against the new scientific doctrine. All branches of the Protestant Church—Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican—vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and, at a later period, the Puritans showed the same tendency.

Said Martin Luther: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the 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 reverse 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 Copernicus. In his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six years after Copernicus's death, 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 acquiesce in it." Melanchthon then cites the passages in the Psalms and 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." So earnest does this mildest of the Reformers become, that he suggests severe measures to restrain such impious teachings as those of Copernicus.(50)

(50) See the Tischreden in the Walsch edition of Luther's Works, 1743,

vol. xxii, p. 2260; also Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinae Physicae.

This treatise is cited under a mistaken title by the Catholic World,

September, 1870. The correct title is as given above; it will be found

in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. xiii (ed. Bretschneider, Halle, 1846),

pp. 216, 217. See also Madler, vol. i, p. 176; also Lange, Geschichte

des Materialismus, vol. i, p. 217; also Prowe, Ueber die Abhangigkeit

des Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4; also note, pp. 5, 6, where text is

given in full.

While Lutheranism was thus condemning the theory of the earth's movement, other branches of the Protestant Church did not remain behind. Calvin took the lead, in his Commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the ninety-third Psalm, and asked, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Turretin, Calvin's famous successor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology, in which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the heavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the centre. In England we see similar theological efforts, even after they had become evidently futile. Hutchinson's Moses's Principia, Dr. Samuel Pike's Sacred Philosophy, the writings of Horne, Bishop Horsley, and President Forbes contain most earnest attacks upon the ideas of Newton, such attacks being based upon Scripture. Dr. John Owen, so famous in the annals of Puritanism, declared the Copernican system a "delusive and arbitrary hypothesis, contrary to Scripture"; and even John Wesley declared the new ideas to "tend toward infidelity."(51)