Copernicus had no predecessor as a mathematical reasouer upon the question. The first continental followers of the new system were Rheticus, Reinhold, lisestlinus the instructor of Kepler, and Uratitius who was probably the instructor of Galileo. In 1556 appeared in England the 'Castle of Knowledge,' by Recorde [Recoeue, Ronenr, in Moo. Div.), in which a cautious and implied avowal of Copernican principles is made, and also the Epherneris of John Field, expressly computed from Copernicus and Reinhold. John Dee and his pupil Thomas Diggea (son of Leonard) were both avowed Copernicans the first absolute defence of the system is contained in the Appendix to the ` Prognostication Everlasting,' kc., of Leonard Diggea, republished by Thomas Digges (who added tho Appendix) in 1594. This Appendix is called A Perfit Descriptiou of the Ccelestial Orbes, according to the most ancient Doctrine of the Pythagoreans; lately reuiued by Coper nicus, and by Geometricall 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 (an it were) to sway even dawn to the inmost part thereof. For the earth being round, into the which all weighty things on every side fall, makiug right angles on the superficies, pass to tho centre, seeing every right lino that falleth perpendicularly upon the horizon in that place where it toucheth 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 reasou 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 are 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 their weight, the motion downward is convenient to seek the centre ; 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 ero this the earth, being dissolved in pieces, should have been scattered through the heavens, which wore a mockery to think of; and much more baste and all other weights that are loose could not remain unshaken. But also things falling should not light on the places perpendicular under 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 bo carried toward the west." In his answer to the preceding, Diggea 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 as 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 jessing always by the straight mast seemeth also to fall in a right line ; but being by discourse of reason weighed, his motion in found mixed of rigbt 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 1600, who, In his book on the magnet, endasvours to deduce tho earth's motion from magnetic) cause., as well as the precession of the equinoxes.
The period from 1543 to 3609, In which the controversy was purely mathematical, 11141 not excited the Interest which every one knows to belong to the consequences of Galileo'n discoveries. An account of this period is to be found in the ' Companion to the Almanac' for 1855, in ' Notes on the Ante-Galilean Copernicans.' To this article we must refer the reader for further account, in connection with this subject, of Leonardo Da Vinci, Calcagnini, Widmanstadt, Copernicus, Rheticus, Gasnarus, Itheinhold, ltamus, blaurelyeus, Bacon, .1. 11. Benedictus, Tycho Bnilid, Rothmann, Stunica or Zuniga, Fronde Pstriclus, Urstitins, Gilbert, E. Wright, Clavius, Vieta, Maistlinus, Bruno, Ursus Dithmarsua, Jlaginus, Stevinus, Kepler, Rocorde, Field, Digger!, Dee, Blagrave, Lydiat, Hume.
Hitherto the theological part of the controversy has not made its appearance. We must date this view of the question from the dia. cowries of Galileo. Neither in ancient nor modern times have those who would bind over the sciences to agree with their interpretation of 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 principles, there may bo impiety (if the Bible be a revelation of philosophy) in pro pounding a theory which contradicts it ; but there can bo none in stating the results which follow from actual investigation: the thoughts of the mind of man may contradict revealed science (if such there be), but tho works of the God of nature can hardly detect falsehood in the God of revelation. It was Copernicus, then, and not Galileo, who was the heretic, if heresy there were in the case ; but the former and 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 party use which has been made of it amongst us,as well as from the excellent account of Mr. Drinkwater (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 teat 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 sutferance 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 stato 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) rune as follows :—" Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the motion of the earth. The propositions of the author cannot be explained otherwise than by making the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. (Ilinc alien= coach sumua gerero personam.) 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's motion: not contra doctrinam t(lluris mote; but contra telluric ntotum. At the same time, with reference to the reproaches heaped upon the whole body of ltorrum 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 proceediug; and, remembering that the tribunal was one of which Galileo himself admitted the jurisdiction, and supposing the inquisitors to have believed they were doing their duty, any lees amount of severity 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 ho " abjured, cursed, and detested" the doctrine of the motion of the earth, he repeated aside to a friend, " E purr si inuorc" ("lt does move, for all that "). We may pity, but cannot admire, either party. Not to leave unsaid any palliative on either side, we may )state that the exclamation of Galileo has no very good authority, and that the inquisitors themselves were not unanimous. One of them, the Cardinal Bentivoglio, states, in hie memoirs, that he did all Ito could to prevent the decision. It should also bo noticed that the prohibitions issued at the time were mostly against works written in Italian ; wo cannot help suspecting that the opinion would have remained un assailed if it lied been expressed only in Latin. The question just discussed was settled June 22, 1633, but this was not the beginning of the controversy. The following list of writings will save future reference ; they are headed by their dates :-1614, Scheiner,' Disqu. Math. de contr. et novitat. Astron. ; ' 1615, Foscarini, Epistola Italica de mobil. terrn.; ' 1615, Zuniga, Lett. sopra l'opin. del Copernico ; ' 1616, Cruger,* Disput. de quot. telluris revel. 1618-1622, Kepler, Epit. Astron. Copern.; ' 1619, Lansberg Comm. in motum terra;' also tracts of Ursinus, Campanella, and Godenius; 1619, Fienus, Disp. an Ccelum moveatur et terra quiescat ; ' 1631, Morinus, Famosi et antiqui problematic de telluris motu et quiete hactenus optata solutio ; ' 1631, Fremendus, Antaristarchus, FAVO Orbis terse immo bilis ; ' 1633, Galileo, Dial. sopra i due massimi sistemi del monde, Tolemaico e Copernicano,' the prohibited work ; 1633, Lansberg (James, son of Philip), Apol. comment. Phil. Lansberg in motum terra; ; ' 1634, 3Ierinus, Rasp. ad J. Lansberg Apolog.; ' 1634, Reese, Confut. opin. Lansbergii; ' 1635, Lineman, Dsput. math. adstruens mot. ilium. telluri vindicandum ease ; ' 1638, Wilkins, Discourse tending to prove that 'tis probable there may be another habitable world in the moon ; ' 1638, Bouillaud, Philolaus, sive dies. de vero syst. mundi;' 1640, Licetus, ' De terra, unico centre metus, disp. ; ' 1640 Wilkins (anonymous), 'A Discourse tending to prove that 'tis probable the earth is one of the planets ; ' 1642, Gassendi, Episteln dun de motu impresso a mature tran.slato ; ' tracts of Deusingius, Morinus, and others • 1643, Morinus, Ake telluris fracte, contra Gassendum ;' 1643, Caramentius, ALiphilelaus ; ' 1644, Pelaccus, Anticopernicus Catholicus ; ' 1645, Rheita, Genius Enoch et Elise ' (defence of the Tychonic system) ; 1645, Bouillaud, Astronomia Philolaica ; ' 1645, Christian, HUTU. de trip. mundi system. ; ' 1645, Grandamicus, Nova Demetastr. immob. term ex virtute magnetica ; ' 1646, Reese, The New Planet no Planet, or the Earth no Wandering Star, except in the wandering heads of Galileans ' (answer to Wilkins) ; 1647, Gassendi, ' Institutio Astronomiea ; ' 1649, Gassendi, Apol. in Morini lib. cui tit. Abe telluris fractx una cum tribus Galilei Epistelis de Conciliatione Sacrn Scriptum cum syetemate telluris mobilis; 1651, Riccioli, Almagestum Novum ;' 1653, Dubois, Dialogue Theologico astronomicus; 1655, Herbinius, Examen Controv. famesx,' &c.; 1656, anonymous, Demenstr. math. ineptiarum J. Dubois ; ' 1665, Fabri, phys. in quibus de motu term clisputatur ;' 1668, Riccioli, Axgemento fiscico-matematico contrail mote diurtto della terra;' 1680, Bianchini, contra it syst. Copern.; ' 16S2, Mcgerlinus, `Syst. Mundi Copena. demonstr.' The controversy ceases to have any interest after the publication of the Principia ' of Newton. Even to this day we believe there are some who deny the earth's motion, on the authority of the Scriptures, and every now and then a work appears producing mathematical reasons for tlit denial ; these works, as fast as published, after making each two converts and a half in a country town, are heard of no more until fifty years afterwards, when they are discovered by bibliemaniacs bound up in volumes of tracts with dissertations on squaring the circle, and perpetual motion, and pamphlets predicting national bank ruptc.