Corrections to Copernicus

The Congregation of the Index, on Copernicus

   These are the corrections that 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. These are taken from Augustus de Morgan's A Budget of Paradoxes; Vol. 1, pp. 90-96, Second Edition, 1915. I am writing the translation from the original latin as it appears in de Morgan. The final comments are also by de Morgan.

    By a decree of the Congregation of the Index, dated March 5, 1616, the work of Copernicus, and another of Didacus Astunica, are suspended donec corrigantur as teaching:

   "The false Pythagorean doctrine, absolutely opposed to the Holy Scriptures, concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun."

   But a work of the Carmelite Paolo Antonio Foscarini (1580-1616) (his Lettera sopra l'opinione de' Pittagorici e del Copernico, della mobilita de la Terra e stabilita del Sole, e il nuovo pittagorico sistema del mondo) is: "To be wholly prohibited and condemned" because "it seeks to show that the aforesaid doctrine is consonant with the truth and is not opposed to the Holy Scriptures."

   Works which teach the false doctrine of the earth's motion are to be corrected; those which declare the doctrine comformable 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:

"As repugnant to the Holy Scriptures and to its true and Catholic interpretation (which in a Christian man cannot be tolerated in the least), he does not hesitate to treat (of his subject) `by hypothesis' but he even adds `as most true'!"

   The corrections relate:

"To the places in which he discusses not by hypothesis but by making assertions concerning the position and motion of the earth."

   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. If by chance there shall be vain talkers who, although ignorant of all mathematics, yet taking it upon themselves to sit in judgment upon the subject on account of a certain passage of Scripture badly distorted for their purposes, shall have dared to criticize and censure this teaching of mine, I pay no attention to them, even to the extent of despising their judgment as rash. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, a writer of prominence in other lines although but little versed in mathematics, spoke very childishly upon the form of the earth when he ridiculed those who declared that it was spherical. Hence it should not seem strange to the learned if some shall look upon us in the same way. Mathematics is written for mathematicians, to whom these labors of ours will seem, if I mistake not, to add something even to the republic of the Church... Emend. Here strike out everything from `if by chance' to the words `these labors of ours,' and adapt it thus: `But these labors of ours.'"

   And the allusion to Lactantius (one of the Church Fathers, born about 250 A.D., and died about 330), 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. However if we consider the matter more carefully it will be seen that the investigation is not yet completed, and therefore, ought by no means to be condemnded. Emend. However, if we consider the matter more carefully it is of no consequence whether we regard the earth as existing in the center of the universe or outside of the center, so far as the solution of the phenomena of celestial movements is concerned."

   We must not say that 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.) "The whole of this chapter may cut out, since it avowedly treats of the truth of the earth's motion, while it refutes the reasons of the ancients proving its immobility. Nevertheless, since it seems to speak problematically, in order that it may satisfy the learned and keep intact the sequence and unity of the book, let it be emended as below."

(p. 6) "Copernicus. Therefore why do we still hesitate to concede to it motion which is by nature consistent with its form, the more so because the whole universe is moving, whose end is not and cannot be known, and not confess that there is in the sky an appearance of daily revolution, while on the earth there is the truth of it? And in like manner these things are as if Virgil's Aeneas should say, `We are borne from the harbor'... Emend Hence I cannot concede motion to this form, the more so because the universe would fall, whose end is not and cannot be known, and what appears in the heavens is just as if..."

(p. 7) "Copernicus. I also add that it would seem very absurd that motion should be ascribed to that which contains and locates, and not rather to that which is contained and located, that is the earth. Emend I also add that it is not more difficult to ascribe motion to the contained and located, which is the earth, than to that which contains it."

(p. 7) "Copernicus. You see, therefore, that from all these things the motion of the earth is more probable than its immobility, especially in the daily revolution which is as it were a particular property of it. Emend Omit from `You see' to the end of the chapter."

(Cap. 9. lib. i. p.7) "Copernicus. Therefore, since there is nothing to hinder the motion of the earth it seems to me that we should consider whether it has several motions, to the end that it may be looked upon as one of the moving stars. Emend Therefore, since I have assumed that the earth moves, it seems to me that we should consider whether it has several motions."

(Cap. 10. lib. i. p.9) "Copernicus. We are not ashamed to acknowledge... that this is preferably verified in the motion of the earth. Emend We are not ashamed to assume... that this is consequently verified in the motion."

(Cap 10. lib. i. p. 10) "Copernicus. So divine is surely this work of the Best and Greatest. Emend. Strike out these last words."

(Cap 11. lib. i) "Copernicus. Demonstration of the threefold motion of the earth. Emend. On the hypothesis of the threefold motion of the earth and its demonstration."

(Cap. 20. lib. iv. p.122) "Copernicus. Concerning the size of these three stars, the sun, the moon, and the earth. Emend. Strike out the words `these three stars' because the earth is not a star as Copernicus would make it."

   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 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 `he seems to speak problematically in order to satisfy the learned' is an excuse to avoid corrections. But they struck out the stinging allusion to Lactantius 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.