I should not wish, indeed, that some — whether through weariness of the labor, or through inexperience of Geometrical demonstrations — should so fly to the compendium of this chapter that they think they can draw hence a knowledge sufficient for bearing a certain judgment about these hypotheses among those versed in these matters, without the danger of discoursing of them little consistently and firmly, or at least little learnedly, with ignorance of the Authors who supplied these Arguments. For such a danger he will not avoid, unless he has read through the preceding chapters of this section. For it behooves [one] to have beforehand the knowledge of [things] neither small nor few — and indeed often abstruse to the senses of the common [people] — who would render a judgment upon the controversy most celebrated this age among the Astronomical [controversies], and agitated among the most learned men on both sides…
[…continues on p. 466 (PDF 501) with the catchword “rhibi-” (di-ribi-turus) — ”…[who] is about to settle a judgment [upon the controversy].”]
(printed p. 466 — within Chapter XXXIII (the grand Epitome): the recapitulation begins under the heading of the twenty arguments for the diurnal motion of the Earth and their solutions (chs. 5–7). The first six arguments-for and their brief answers are given — from the Earth’s sphericity, the diurnal rapture, the naturalness of circular motion to the elements, the absurdity of the vast heaven moving for the tiny Earth, the ease of moving the small Earth, and our uncertainty whether the heaven is mobile.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 466]
…[who is about to render a judgment that is] inhibitory — nay, peremptory, as they call it — and to bear and sustain [it] when delivered. I could not, nevertheless, [do otherwise than] gather into one view the chief heads of the arguments and responses, that I might pluck the conclusions to be set down below from their nearer branches, whose long roots — driven higher and deeper — one may now see hitherto [laid out]. Let no one, meanwhile, wonder, if — led by the consideration of brevity — we shall not adduce the Arguments in syllogistic form; nay, sometimes we shall vary the order of the propositions.
Twenty Arguments For the Diurnal Motion of the Earth, and their Solutions; which were handed down from Chapter 5 to 7 inclusive.
[Margin: See ch. 5, from no. 1 to 8.]
[I.] First Argument. The diurnal motion is to be attributed rather to the Earth (as being certainly spherical, and so apt for whirling about its own center), than to the heaven of the Fixed [stars], of whose roundness — and so of whose aptitude for this whirling — we are not certain.
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered by conceding the argument: first, if the appearance of the diurnal motion must necessarily be saved by a whirling about the center, distinct in reality from the other motions appearing in the heaven; secondly, if other things be equal; thirdly, if a figure apt for this whirling be required, or if the roundness of the earth be of itself ordained for this whirling. But otherwise, by denying [it]: for by a single real motion of the Fixed stars, and a single [motion] in each of the Planets, the appearances of all the celestial motions can be represented; and there are many other reasons against the diurnal motion of the Earth prevailing over this trifling little reason taken from sphericity; and therefore other things are not equal; and the roundness of the Earth is of itself ordained for other ends than for motion.
[Margin: See ch. 5, from no. 8 to 11.]
[II.] Second Argument. If the whole heaven be moved by the diurnal whirling toward the West, it is necessary that, by the motion of rapture [being swept along], all the elements be moved by it in the same direction — and so the earth, as being suspended in the midst of the air, and least impeded from this rapture by any resistance of the air (which is none), or by the force of its own gravity (because this does not impede circular motion, but [only] straight [motion] upward). But if the Earth be moved by the diurnal whirling, it is not necessary that the heaven be moved with it, and so a multiplication of motions is spared. Rather, therefore, the diurnal motion is to be ascribed to the Earth than to the heaven.
[Margin: Threefold reason of the response.]
It is answered by denying the consequence of the Major: both because, if the Earth were moved with the heaven by the motion of rapture and the whirling of 24 hours, very many celestial Phenomena (about which [see] there) would perish for us; and because that motion of rapture supposes the heaven solid up to the Moon, when nevertheless the fluidity of the Planetary heaven is more probable; and finally, because not even the wiser Peripatetics concede that the motion of rapture reaches to the middle, much less to the lowest region of the Air; and if it did reach [it], it would still be powerless, on account of its own fluidity and rarity, to impress motion into the whole depth of the Earth, a most thick and most dense body. Besides, it was denied to Galileo that the Earth is of itself indifferent to motion equally as to rest.
[Margin: See ch. 5, from no. 11 to 16.]
[III.] Third Argument. Circular motion is more natural to the elements than straight [motion], since it is uniform [equal] and finite, and befits them [when] already ordered and established in their place; but straight [motion is] uniformly difform in the ascent of light [bodies] and the descent of heavy [ones], and infinite, and befitting only [bodies] unordered and as it were sick, or being badly outside their place. Therefore, if Aristotle attributed to Fire and the supreme region of the air a circular motion — [coming] from outside, and violent or preternatural — much more ought he to have conceded to them, and to the rest of the elements (and so to the Earth), a circular motion.
[Margin: 1st Response.]
It is answered, first, by denying the Major; for no circular motion befits the elements from within, but at most a rapture from outside, which accordingly ought not to be called absolutely natural; nay, no motion at all befits them [when] well-ordered and established in their place. But to [bodies] unordered, that [motion] befits which is made by the shortest line, and most swiftly, as far as their nature bears — of which kind is the motion of heavy and light [bodies] through a straight perpendicular line, uniformly-difformly always accelerated toward the end, and as finite as is their removal from their proper place; and therefore this motion rather befits them — the supposition being made of [their] removal from their place — than any other. For which and other causes we taught that the Peripatetic doctrine is much more solid in this [matter] than the Copernican or Galilean; nay, that this [latter] is little consistent with itself — as when they say that circular motion is rather likened to the finite, straight [motion] to the infinite, when nevertheless straight [motion] has limits on both sides, [while] circular has none, but always begins there where it seemed about to end. Or when they say that the circular is therefore more perfect and more congruent to the elements, because more like to rest (as being wholly made within itself); rather, therefore, rest itself — being more perfect than circular motion — is to be attributed to the elements; for, as in God, immobility supposes a lesser indigence [need] than motion, and therefore is to be attributed to God as a perfection simply simple: besides that, the annual motion of translation being added to the Earth, that perfection really perishes, nor is the diurnal motion any longer wholly made within itself. Many other [things] see in their [proper] place.
[Margin: 2nd Response.]
It is answered, secondly, by denying the Consequence concerning a circular motion toward the West (such as Aristotle attributed to the element of Fire); for if he had attributed this to the earth too, rather than toward the East (as the Copernicans do), the celestial Phenomena would not be saved.
[Margin: See ch. 5, from no. 16 to 18.]
[IV.] Fourth Argument. It is absurd that the whole heaven and the sphere of the Fixed [stars] — which has the character of the whole, and is incomparably greater than the Earth — should be moved for the sake of the Earth (which is so tiny a particle of the Universe), rather than the Earth itself. Rather, therefore, the Earth than the heaven is moved by the diurnal motion.
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: both because the heaven, though greater in bulk, is nevertheless less in power and in perfection of substance than the Earth taken with men and the other animals — for the moving Intelligences are not an intrinsic part of the heaven; and because neither the heaven nor the moving Intelligences are moved for the sake of the Earth and its inhabitants as for an ultimate end, but that they may declare the glory of God and serve the Creator — for which end it was not even absurd that the Angels, and the very Son of God, were destined for the salvation of men. Otherwise it would also be absurd that the Planets are moved about the Earth, or that the Earth is moved for the sake of men, [who are] smaller than the Earth itself: and therefore the argument was retorted.
[Margin: See ch. 5, from no. 18.]
[V.] Fifth Argument. It is easier, and of less expense, to move the little globe of the Earth than the immense machine of the heaven; therefore God and Nature — which does what is easier — move the Earth rather than the heaven by the diurnal motion.
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered by denying both the Antecedent — because [of the Earth’s natural gravity and rest we are certain].
[VI.] Sixth Argument. But concerning the mobility of the supreme heaven we are as uncertain as it is uncertain whether it be finite or infinite; for if it were infinite, either it would not be movable by a diurnal revolution, or at least it is controverted among Physicists whether it would be movable.
It is answered: the Major being granted if other things be equal, [but] denied if [they be] unequal (as in reality they are unequal), by denying the Minor; for it is evident Physically to us that the Fixed stars move — the possession of which evidence is on the side of sense, and the burden of proof to the contrary lies upon the denier; and hence we gather [their] mobility more immediately than from [their] finitude. But the evidence of this disjunctive proposition — Either the Fixed stars, or we with the Earth, move — is not Physical only, but Mathematical or Metaphysical, which is not necessarily required in Physics; otherwise not even the finitude of the Earth would be evident, since its measure depends on experiments evident only Physically. Many [things], for erudition, concerning the infinity of the World were said on that occasion.
[…continues on p. 467 (PDF 502) with the catchword “VII. Septi-” (Septimum Argumentum) — the seventh argument for the Earth’s diurnal motion.]
(printed p. 467 — within Chapter XXXIII (the Epitome): the recap of the arguments for the diurnal motion continues through VII–XIII, each with its solution — from motion belonging to the located body, the nobility of immobility, the fixed stars’ constant mutual distances, the stars’ independence, the incredible stellar velocity, and the rule that motion slows with distance from the center (where Riccioli charges Galileo, Kepler, and Lansberg with a base equivocation between the stars’ proper and diurnal motions). Argument XIII, on two contrary motions in the same body, begins.)
[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 467]
[Margin: See ch. 5, no. 24.]
[VII.] Seventh Argument. Local motion is to be attributed rather to the located [body] than to the place, since a place of itself requires immobility. But the supreme heaven is the place with respect to the Earth, and the Earth [is] the located [body]: therefore the motion is to be attributed to the Earth rather than to the heaven.
[Margin: Twofold or threefold response.]
It is answered by conceding the Major concerning that local motion by which a place loses the character of place — because it is transferred elsewhere together with the located [body], and so puts on the character of a vessel, or carries off the located [body]; but by denying the Major concerning a motion not repugnant to the essence of a physical place; although neither is the Minor true concerning the immediate place. Moreover the argument was retorted: because neither ought the Earth to be moved with the neighboring air, since it [the Earth] with the said air is the place of animals and plants; and much less ought it to be moved by the motion of translation — destroying the immobility of the place — of which kind is the annual motion, which the Copernicans add to the diurnal.
[Margin: See ch. 5, no. 25.]
[VIII.] Eighth Argument. Immobility is nobler than motion, and more akin to incorruptibility; since local motion was instituted to preserve from corruption that which otherwise would wither by torpor, or [else motion] tends toward corruption. Therefore immobility [is to be conceded] to the heaven, and motion to the Earth (as being subject to corruption more than the heaven).
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying that part of the Antecedent concerning the end of local motion: for it was not instituted of itself to preserve from corruption, and much less the diurnal circular motion; nor does it tend of itself toward corruption, but toward place as place is. Then, neither is the heaven, as is supposed, by its own nature and from within incorruptible; nor is the diurnal revolution of the Earth with the neighboring air useful for preserving the Earth’s surface from corruption — but rather the agitation of the air and water by winds, rivers, the flux and reflux of the sea, etc.
[Margin: See ch. 5, no. 26.]
[IX.] Ninth Argument. All the Fixed stars, from the observations of all the ages compared with one another, perpetually keep among themselves the same distance which they once had. But if they were moved by the diurnal whirling, they would not keep it: for either they would be moved by the motion of a solid Firmament, and its parts would be dissipated by the excessive velocity; or they would be moved of themselves in a fluid heaven, and would be much more dissipated, and would fluctuate with a wandering motion — both on account of the rapidity of the whirling, and on account of the fluidity.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered, the Major being conceded, by denying the Minor; because the Firmament, if it is solid (as is gathered from the authority of many Fathers), is not on that account worn down, or shaken by reciprocal motion, nor does it strike against another hard body, nor grow hot; and accordingly a dissipation of [its] parts is not to be feared for it. Nay, from that very conservation of distance of the Fixed [stars] among themselves — even on the supposition of their motion — its solidity and indissipable firmness is more probably gathered. But if it is Fluid, yet they are moved by Intelligences, in such a way that they keep that equality of distance, and are moved like the encampment of a camp [array of an army], as Ecclesiasticus speaks of these stars (ch. 43); and they remain while they are moved in their watches, as Baruch speaks (ch. 3). Finally, hence God commends himself (Job 38), that the circuit of Arcturus and of the Pleiades and the constellation cannot be dissipated. Nor indeed ought the admirableness which shines forth in the array of the stars — advancing in so great and so perpetual an order — to derogate from faith in the divine works; and much less among the Copernicans, who (as will be said afterward) are wont to commend the divine Omnipotence and Magnificence from the immensity of the interval between Saturn and the Fixed [stars], and from the vastness of the eighth sphere — nay, of the Fixed [stars] greater than the Annual orb itself, on their hypothesis.
[Margin: See ch. 5, no. 31 & 32.]
[X.] Tenth Argument. It seems absurd — nay, ridiculous — that the Fixed Stars, and their sphere [which is] so vast, and needing nothing terrestrial, but altogether independent of the Earth, should be moved about so tiny an Earth, and for the sake and good of the Earth as the end of their motion; rather than the Earth itself, which depends on the heaven and needs its influences. Therefore the Earth rather than the heaven is moved by the diurnal motion.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: for the Earth — as being filled with animals, especially rational [ones] — is greater than the heaven, as regards the magnitude of [its] power and nobler substance; nor does it need the heaven or the stars as [its] masters, but as [its] servants, which [God has] thus [established] to be moved for the good of men, as is established from sacred letters — yet so that the ultimate end be the glory of God.
[Margin: See ch. 6, from no. 1 to 7.]
[XI.] Eleventh Argument. If the diurnal motion be ascribed to the Fixed [stars] rather than to the Earth, their velocity comes out plainly incredible, and far exceeding the measure of the subject: for from the Ptolemaic distance of the Fixed [stars], it follows that any one of the Fixed [stars] on the celestial Equator, in one beat of the human artery [pulse], traverses 760 German Miles; nay, much more, if we follow the Keplerian distance; but if Ours, in each pulse-beat of the artery any Fixed [star] traverses 152⅗ semidiameters of the Earth — that is, 629,128 Italian Miles, or 157,282 German [Miles]. Therefore the Earth is moved by the diurnal motion rather than the Fixed [stars]: for in one pulse-beat of the human artery, a point of the terrestrial Equator ought to traverse only 376 Geometric paces (from what is said in ch. 19, no. 13).
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying both parts of the Antecedent. The first indeed, because a velocity does not come out incredible [merely] because it is greater than another’s, unless it exceed the capacity or motive power of the subject, or is going to offend the sense by its rapidity: none of which is found in the velocity of the Fixed [stars], because it is commensurate to their distance and to the magnitude of the circumference, and is produced by the power of the Intelligences, and yet is scarcely sensible to sense, since they scarcely seem to move within a short time. But the second part, concerning the measure of the subject, is denied: because if about the same center any two circles be described, differing in magnitude however much, and each be wholly revolved in the same time, the motion of their parts (or of similar arcs) is as proportioned as those similar arcs are [similar] to one another; but the arcs of the aforesaid circles, included within the same lines drawn out from the center, are similar to one another, and of just as many degrees; wherefore the 629,128 Italian Miles [traversed] in one Second of the celestial Equator are as proportioned [to it] as the 376 paces in one Second of the terrestrial Equator [are] — the proportion of the distance from the same center thus requiring [it], and [with] the straight lines drawn out from it to either circumference, like legs, of which those would fit the heaven as a giant, these the Earth as an ant. It is added that that velocity is more credible which saves the evidence of the senses, than [that] which destroys it; and much more credible is the velocity of the Fixed [stars] asserted by the Ptolemaics than the bulk of the Fixed [stars] asserted by the Copernicans, as was shown in ch. 30, no. 8.
[Margin: See ch. 6, from no. 8 to 11.]
[XII.] Twelfth Argument. The motion of the celestial bodies is the slower, the farther they are distant from the center of the universe: thus the motion of Jupiter is slower than that of Mars, and the motion of Saturn than that of Jupiter, etc. But if the diurnal motion were attributed to the Fixed [stars], it would be far swifter than the motion of Saturn — when nevertheless the Fixed [stars] are much farther distant from the center of the Universe than Saturn; and so it would exceed the measure of the subject and the proportion of the intervals. Therefore [it is] to be attributed not to the Fixed [stars], but to the Earth.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by conceding the Major concerning the proper motion apparent toward the East, but denying [it] concerning the common or diurnal motion toward the West (or, as they name it, of the Primum Mobile): because if at the same time all the circles about the same center are moved in the same direction, it is necessary that the arcs of the more remote [circles] be greater, and accordingly that their motion be swifter. But in the Minor the terms are changed, and the discourse is of the diurnal and common motion, whereas in the Major the discourse was of the proper motion; and yet — who would believe it? — into this so base a fallacy and equivocation fell Galileo and Kepler and Lansberg, as we showed in their place from their own words; as if forsooth they did not know what is known even to the raw recruits of Astronomy: that the proper motion of the Fixed [stars] is so much slower than the motion of Saturn that, while Saturn requires scarcely 30 years for one revolution, the Fixed [stars] nevertheless demand 26,000 — nay, in Ptolemy, 36,000 years. The rest pertaining to this erudition, see ch. 6, from no. 9 to 11.
[Margin: See ch. 6, from no. 11.]
[XIII.] Thirteenth Argument. If the Fixed [stars] and the other heavenly bodies were moved toward the West by the diurnal or common motion of the Primum Mobile — when nevertheless the proper motion toward the East cannot be denied to them — the same movable [body] would be moved by two contrary motions at the same time; which is either impossible, or at least so difficult to grasp that even the appearance and suspicion of it must be avoided. But it is avoided if the Earth alone be turned toward the East by a diurnal revolution…
[…continues on p. 468 (PDF 503) with the catchword “uer-” (con-uer-tatur) — completing the thirteenth argument.]
(printed p. 468 — within Chapter XXXIII (the Epitome): the recap runs from Argument XIII through XX, completing the twenty arguments for the diurnal motion with their solutions — the alleged contrariety of motions, the simplicity of fewer motions, Galileo’s maximum-and-minimum-circles argument (which Riccioli derides), the equator-to-pole speed change, Kepler on the annual inequality of days, comets’ westward motion, the tropical trade winds, and the magnetic Terrella experiment, dismissed as feigned by Petrus Peregrinus and never confirmed.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 468]
…[but it is avoided if the Earth alone be turned toward the East by a diurnal revolution], while the stars individually perform their simple motions toward the East. Therefore the diurnal motion is to be reckoned to the Earth rather than to the Fixed [stars] and the other heavenly bodies.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered, first, by denying the Major: for there is a single motion in the Fixed [stars], a single [one] in Saturn (and so of the rest), toward the West, by spirals — but in the Fixed [stars] swifter than in Saturn, and in Saturn swifter than in Jupiter, etc., because daily the higher stars are revolved more quickly to the same Meridian than the lower [ones]: from which arose that deception, that they are commonly thought to recede toward the East — [they] which are left behind toward the West by the swifter [stars]; and hence the occasion of suspecting two contrary motions. But this contrariety is as false as [it would be] in any two [bodies] running in a circle toward the same direction, of which one reaches the same terminus more slowly than the other. Yet this very appearance of contrariety would not be avoided by the Earth’s motion, because, that being posited, all [things] would nevertheless appear equally as now, as the Copernicans profess. Then the argument was Retorted, [pointing] to that contrariety of motions which would follow, on the Copernican hypothesis, in heavy [bodies] or projectiles toward the West.
[Margin: See ch. 6, no. 14 & 15.]
[XIV.] Fourteenth Argument. Fewer and simpler motions are posited if a single diurnal motion be attributed to the Earth, and to each planet its own [motion] toward the East, than if the diurnal motion be added to the Fixed [stars] and Planets over [above] their proper [motion]. Therefore, etc.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: for the diurnal motion of the Fixed [stars] and Planets is not in reality distinct from [their] proper motion, since the proper [motion] is not such except apparently, on account of the deficiency and slower arrival at the Meridian; and so in the heaven no more than 8 motions are posited — one in the Fixed [stars], and 7 in the Planets (for it is of no concern here to rehearse the motions of the Satellites of Saturn and Jupiter, since these too are to be multiplied no less in the Copernican than in the more common hypothesis). But if the diurnal motion be given to the Earth, then that [motion] is really distinct from the proper motion of the Fixed [stars] (which, namely, Lansberg, Longomontanus, Boulliau, and many other Copernicans or Semi-Copernicans admit in the Fixed [stars]), and from the 7 motions of the Planets; and besides, in the motion of heavy and light [bodies] — nay, in all terrestrial and aquatic mixed [bodies] — several motions mixed of straight and circular must be admitted. Wherefore, in reality, all [things] being computed, more motions are multiplied, and more composite [ones] in terrestrial [bodies]; whence the argument was Retorted against the Copernicans.
[Margin: See ch. 6, no. 16.]
[XV.] Fifteenth Argument. If the Fixed [stars] were moved by the diurnal motion rather than the Earth, some would describe — not only in different, but even in the same time — maximum circles (namely those which are on the Equator), others minimum [circles] (namely those near the poles), and so those [equatorial ones] would be most swift, these [polar ones] most slow. But this is absurd. Therefore the Earth is moved by the diurnal motion rather than the Fixed [stars]. Of this argument too, [thus] put forth, I should be ashamed — unless all the shame redounded upon Galileo, who urges it in earnest, and [who is] surely about to be thrashed by the Raw Recruits of Astronomy.
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered, first, by denying the Minor — since it arises from Geometrical necessity that the parts of a spherical surface, revolved by a single motion of the sphere, [namely] those which are nearer the poles, describe smaller circles and are moved more sluggishly than those which are more remote from the poles of the sphere. Secondly, that comparative particle of the Major, rather than the Earth, is denied. For, the diurnal motion being given (but not conceded) to the Earth, neither would the appearance of slowness in the Fixed [stars] nearer the pole, and of swiftness in the Fixed [stars] near the Equator, be removed; and in the parts of the Earth itself there would really be that inequality of velocity and of circles, according as they are nearer or more remote from the poles of the terrestrial revolution. Wherefore, if this were absurd, there would be a double absurdity — either in a double subject (one apparent in the eighth sphere, the other real in the Earth) — which [absurdity] would be in a single, or in one real, subject, if the diurnal motion be attributed to the Fixed [stars]. So that, accordingly, the aforesaid argument can be Retorted ad hominem.
[Margin: See ch. 6, no. 17 & 18.]
[XVI.] Sixteenth Argument. If the Fixed [stars] were moved by the diurnal motion, they would perpetually vary [their] declination from the Equator, and therefore also [their] velocity, so that [a star] which once had been most swift on the Equator would, in some age, come out most slow on account of [its] nearness to the Pole. But this is absurd. Therefore, etc. So also Galileo, and in earnest — when nevertheless this argument has no kernel [of substance].
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered, first, by denying the Major if the diurnal motion be considered precisely, [but] conceding [it] if the proper apparent [motion] be conceded to the Fixed [stars] — that is, if that single motion toward the West, by spirals, be completed in latitude. Secondly, the Major being granted, by denying the Minor: for this is no more absurd in the heaven than it would be in the Earth if it were moved by the diurnal motion, and besides by a motion of the axis, and by a libration excusing the proper motion which appears in the Fixed [stars]; nay, it would follow more in the Earth, where more frequently and with greater variety animals, rivers, ships, clouds, etc. perpetually change [their] declination from the terrestrial Equator. Accordingly it is answered, thirdly, by retorting the argument. But what we there indicated concerning the Fixed stars that will reach the pole, and concerning the retrogradation of some of them in Right Ascension — and expounded (bk. 6, ch. 11 and 19, probl. 5, 10, 11) — cannot here be explained in few [words].
[Margin: See ch. 6, no. 19.]
[XVII.] Seventeenth Argument. The annual inequality of the natural days, which is manifest to Astronomers, has a more evident cause of itself if the diurnal motion together with the annual be attributed to the Earth — as being quickened by its approach to the Sun, [and] retarded by its recession. So Kepler; to whom it is answered by denying the Antecedent: for if that inequality arises from the variety of the distance between the Sun and the Earth, whether the Earth really approach the Sun, or the Sun the Earth, we have an equal reason of the inequality on both sides.
[Margin: See ch. 7, no. 1, 2 & 3.]
[XVIII.] Eighteenth Argument. It is more likely that Comets do not have in themselves the diurnal motion, but only [their] proper trajectories — lest we increase the difficulties in so wandering and manifold a motion; therefore the diurnal motion toward the West, which appears in Comets, is really from the conversion of the Earth toward the East. For it cannot be attributed to the rapture of fire or air, since the heavens of the Planets are not solid, nor do they sweep along the fire, etc.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by Denying the Antecedent. For just as the diurnal motion in the Planets, so also in the Comets, is more evident than the proper motion; and therefore, just as we ought not to deny the diurnal motion to the Planets, so neither to the Comets; otherwise we should rather multiply motions — namely the proper trajectory[-motion] in the Comets, and the common diurnal [motion] in the Earth — since the same Intelligence or force which moves the Comets by the diurnal motion can move them by spirals laxer than in the Planets, so that, by the laxity of the spirals the motion in latitude, and by the slowness of the revolution to the Meridian or Horizon, the motion in longitude toward the East is represented — yet by a single real motion.
[Margin: See ch. 7, from no. 4 to 8.]
[XIX.] Nineteenth Argument. The perpetual Wind and Breeze within the Tropics [the trade winds] — which is the cause, at least partial, of the easier and shorter navigation toward the West than toward the East — is more likely from the diurnal motion of the Earth toward the East, leaving behind the air, which on account of its fluidity does not receive so great an impetus, nor is swept along by the Earth’s whirling so as to follow it exactly. Therefore it is more likely that the Earth is moved by the diurnal motion than not. The rest, for better perceiving the force of this argument, see in the place cited.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: for since the diurnal motion of the Sun and the other Planets toward the West is more evident to sense, the cause of that perpetual breeze is to be attributed rather to the Sun, and the other Planets co-operating, and carrying around the vapors and exhalations, or successively raising [them] toward the West — especially since it is not so perpetual and continuous as it would have to be, if it were from the Earth’s whirling; concerning which variety, consult the history of these Winds, selected by us (ch. 7, from no. 4).
[Margin: See ch. 7, from no. 9 to the end.]
[XX.] Twentieth Argument. A little sphere made of Magnet-stone [lodestone], which is called a Terrella [little earth] — if it be suspended upon the poles of its own axis (along which axis the magnetic power is extended toward the Poles of the terrestrial Equator) — is turned by a diurnal revolution toward the East; which the spagyrists [alchemists] also report of the chymical or Hermetic Earth. Therefore the whole Earth too, which is a great Magnet, is turned toward the East by a diurnal revolution.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by Denying the Antecedent: for the experiment — which [was] not performed, but feigned in imagination by Petrus Peregrinus from his own probable conjecture — was neither found out nor held for true by Gilbert, nor by the Fathers of our Society (Athanasius Kircher, [Niccolò] Cabeo, or Niccolò Zucchi), who wrote best of all on this matter; nay rather…
[…continues on p. 469 (PDF 504) with the catchword “potiùs” — the contrary is found, [that the Terrella does not so turn].]
(printed p. 469 — within Chapter XXXIII (the Epitome): the new section opens on the twenty-nine arguments for the Sun’s central situation and the Earth’s annual motion, with their solutions (chs. 8–18). Arguments XXI–XXX are recapitulated with answers — from the nobility of the center, the Sun as center of the planetary system, fount of light and of motion, the fitness of the lesser circling the greater, the Microcosm analogy, the shell-thicknesses of the heavens, and Mars’s perigee, ending as Kepler’s nested-polyhedra argument (XXX) is introduced.)
[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 469]
…[nay] rather they [Gilbert, Kircher, etc.] teach that the Magnetic power was implanted in the Earth so that it might keep itself immovably in that situation in which GOD once established it [with respect] to the Poles of the World. The aforesaid Terrella, nevertheless, is moved toward the Poles under the Meridian, if it be suspended from the poles of the Meridian, until its axis coincides with the axis of the terrestrial Equator; but this motion is not that of which we are disputing. The Earth, however, is not a great magnet. The rest necessary for this erudition, see ch. 7, from no. 9.
Twenty-nine Arguments For the situation of the Sun in the center of the Universe, and the Annual Motion of the Earth about the center of the Universe (together with the Diurnal); and their Solutions; which were handed down from Chapter 8 to 18 inclusive.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 2 & 3.]
[XXI.] First Argument. The center of the World is the most noble place, and the Sun [is] more noble than the Earth; therefore [the center] is owed to the Sun rather than to the Earth. It is answered by conceding the former part of the antecedent in the natural order — for in the supernatural [order] the more noble place is the Empyrean, and the lowest and worst is Hell, the place of the damned; but the latter part is denied. For the Earth, with [its] living and animal [beings], especially rational [ones], is more noble than the Sun.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 4, 5, 6.]
[XXII.] Second Argument. The Sun is the center of the Planetary system, since it is now certain that Mercury and Venus are moved about it, whence a like conjecture is made about the others. Therefore it ought to be the center of the Universe.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered, first, by Denying the Antecedent concerning the system of the Planets adequately [taken]: for it is not the center of the Lunar motion — nay, probably not even of Saturn’s and Jupiter’s, for causes handed down in their place. Secondly, by Denying the consequence: because the center of the Universe ought to be the center of all the Mundane bodies — that is, of the elements, and of all the celestial [bodies], and so also of the sphere of the Fixed [stars] and of the new Phenomena — of which kind is the Earth, or the Earth’s center; and therefore the argument was Retorted against the Copernicans.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 7, 8, 9.]
[XXIII.] Third Argument. The Sun is the fount of Light and heat of the whole Universe. Therefore it ought to be placed in the middle of the Universe, that it may illuminate all [things] equally.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by Denying both the Antecedent — because it is not the fount of the light of the Fixed [stars]; and the Consequence — because it does not illuminate all the Planets equally, as is clear from the diversity of [their] phases: it suffices, therefore, if it be situated in such a heaven that it may illuminate the Earth and the Planets in the manner in which it now illuminates [them], according to the measure of divine Providence.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 10, 11, 12.]
[XXIV.] Fourth Argument. The Sun is the fount of the motion of the Planets, since they are attempered to its motion. Therefore it ought to be in the center of the World.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by Denying the Consequence: because the Sun is not the fount of the motion of the Fixed [stars], of the New Phenomena, of the Elements, etc. Nay, neither is it the efficient cause of the motion of the Planets (as Kepler feigns), but the exemplary [cause], as regards some rationale of the motion; but the Earth, with men, is the final and objective cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 13.]
[XXV.] Fifth Argument. It is more credible that the Planets and the Earth are moved about that which is greater than all these — namely about the Sun — than that the Sun is moved about the Earth, which is smaller than many Planets.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered by conceding this likelihood if other things be equal, and [if] that which is greater in bulk be also greater in power and in perfection of substance — in which way the Earth, with men, is greater than all the Planets; but if the magnitude of bulk alone be considered, that proposition is denied. Then, if the rationale of rest is to be taken from bulk, it is therefore more credible that the Sun is moved about the elementary sphere, than this [sphere], with the Lunar heaven, about the Sun — [the Sun] being indeed much smaller than that sphere.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 14.]
[XXVI.] Sixth Argument. It is the Earth which needs the Sun and the other Planets, and in which there is a creature [that is] the measurer and contemplator of the divine works; but not the Sun. Therefore the Earth rather ought, by its annual translation, to approach the various parts of the world to be contemplated, and to carry back thence the wages [merchandise] of the influences.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered: the Earth needs the stars not as masters, but as servants — by divine command and ordination — and serving man; but for contemplating and measuring the intervals and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies, the motion of the Earth confers no more than the motion of the Sun and the rest of the heavenly bodies about an immovable Earth, since the same [things] appear on either hypothesis; and it suffices that man go forth into the open, and, by observations duly made, measure the motions, intervals, and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 15.]
[XXVII.] Seventh Argument. In the Microcosm — that is, in man — the feet are moved, not the head, by progressive motion. Therefore also in the Macrocosm — that is, in the World — the Earth ought to be moved, not the Sun.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying the Consequence: both because the Earth is not the foot in the World — and much less on the Copernican hypothesis, since on it [the Earth] is not the lowest, but is the immovable footstool of the feet of GOD (as the Royal Psalmist speaks); and because, just as at the motion of the feet the head too is transferred, so at the motion of the earth either the Sun or the sphere of the Fixed [stars] ought to be transferred — for one or the other ought to be called the head; but the Copernicans concede neither.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 16 & 17.]
[XXVIII.] Eighth Argument. Unless the Sun be in the center of the World, and the Earth (with the Elements and the Lunar heaven) be moved between the convex [surface] of Venus and the concave [surface] of Mars, [then] to the Sun — the greatest of the Planets — there belongs a heaven least of all thick [the thinnest shell], and to Venus and Mars by far the greatest; and too great a space would intervene between the convex [surface] of the Sun and the concave [surface] of Mars.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered that it is a greater absurdity that no heaven [shell] be given to the Sun placed immovably in the center, than [that there be] some heaven outside the center; and [absurd] to compute the Earth, with the elements, among the celestial bodies; then, if Mercury, Venus, or even Mars be posited [as] satellites of the Sun, all these look to a single heaven: concerning which matter we said more in our new system, at the end of the third section.
[Margin: See ch. 8, no. 18 & 19.]
[XXIX.] Ninth Argument. Unless the Sun rest in the World’s center, and the Earth be moved through the Annual Orb — approaching Mars and receding from it — it is necessary that Mars at Perigee be not rarely nearer to the Earth than the Sun [is], and so penetrate the heaven of the Sun, and thus the distinction of the heavens be destroyed. But this is unfitting. Therefore, etc.
[Margin: Threefold response.]
It is answered by denying the Minor: because, if the Sun rest in the center, then it has no need of a heaven [shell]; and if the Earth advance annually between Venus and Mars, it itself, with the elements, comes out [as] one of the Planets; but it is a greater absurdity to cast the Sun out of all heaven, and in its place to raise the Earth with the elements into the heaven, than [that there be] a mingling of the heaven of one Planet with [that] of another. Then, if Mars (as we said in our system) be, together with Venus and Mercury, a satellite of the Sun, the same heaven serves the Sun and these three. Lastly, since the heaven of the Planets is fluid, there is no greater necessity of assigning to the Planets a distinct heaven, than [of assigning] to birds or fishes a distinct region of air or of water.
[Margin: See ch. 8, from no. 20 to 26.]
[XXX.] Tenth Argument. If the Earth be moved by an annual motion about the Sun placed in the center of the World, and the Annual Orb of the Earth be between the concave [surface] of Mars and the convex [surface] of Venus, [then] the rationale of the number of the Planets, and of the intervals which are between the Planets, is rendered from the most beautiful proportions — worthy of God the Maker — namely from the commensurations of the five Regular bodies inscribed in or circumscribed about the spheres. Therefore it is far more probable that the Earth is thus moved than not moved. The Antecedent is proved: because if you circumscribe a Dodecahedron about the annual orb of the Earth, the sphere circumscribed about this will be the concave [surface] of the orb of Mars; but if you circumscribe a Tetrahedron about the convex [surface] of the orb of Mars, the sphere comprehending it will be the concave [surface] of the orb of Jupiter; and if you circumscribe a Cube or Hexahedron about the convex [surface] of the orb of Jupiter, the sphere embracing it will be the concave [surface] of Saturn; then, if you inscribe an Icosahedron in the concave [surface] of the Annual orb, the sphere inscribed in this Icosahedron will be the convex [surface] of the orb of Venus; finally, if you inscribe an Octahedron in the concave [surface] of Venus, the sphere inscribed in this will be the convex [surface] of the orb of Mercury. Which Kepler called the Cosmographic Mystery, and adapted — in imitation of the Pythagoreans and Platonists — to the order and symmetry of the World; concerning which truly ingenious application, see what is said in ch. 8, from no. 20.
[…continues on p. 470 (PDF 505) with the catchword “Respon-” (Respondetur) — the response to the tenth Argument (Kepler’s polyhedra).]
(printed p. 470 — within Chapter XXXIII (the Epitome): the fourfold answer to Kepler’s nested-polyhedra argument — it destroys the septenary of planets, fits only two intervals, does not save the phenomena, and misapplies the solids’ beauty to fluid heavens. Arguments XXXI–XXXIII, on the multiplication of motions, stations and retrogradations as optical imperfections, and phenomena explained only by the Earth’s motion, are answered in turn; Argument XXXIV, on the constancy of the planets’ orbital inclinations, begins.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 470]
[Margin: Response in fourfold manner.]
It is answered in fourfold manner. First, by denying the Antecedent: because that beauty, appearing at first sight in the distribution of the Planetary intervals, includes inwardly many absurdities, and yet does not render the rationale of the number of the Planets; for it destroys the number of the primary Planets commonly received by the wise — since it makes the Sun (one of the Planets) into a Fixed star; but the Moon, in this distribution of bodies, it does not number among the primary Planets, but makes it the companion of the Earth, and makes the Earth a primary Planet, together with the elements; but Mercury and Venus it reckons among the Primary [planets]. Wherefore from that proportion there arise only 6 Planets — that is, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Earth (or the sphere of the Elements), Venus, and Mercury. But what [is] more absurd than that the two great Luminaries — by whose most evident motions to sense the years and months are distinguished — should be expunged from the white list of the Planets; and that famous Septenary number of the Planets (as it were the Heptachord [seven-stringed lyre] of the World), far more known and celebrated than the Pythagorean distribution of the Mundane bodies [is], should be torn apart?
[Margin: 2nd Response.]
Secondly, the Antecedent is denied: because not even thus is the rationale of the Planetary intervals adequately rendered, since the rationale of the thickness of the heavens is not rendered — especially of Saturn and Mercury — nor of the interval between Saturn and the Fixed [stars]; nay, of the remaining five intervals there are only two which closely correspond to the distances due to the Copernican hypothesis and deduced from observations — namely [those] of Mars and Venus; the rest differ greatly, and cannot be fitted to the proportions of the Regular bodies except by numbers violently begged [forced], as I taught in ch. 8, no. 25, in the 4th response.
[Margin: 3rd Response.]
Thirdly, the Consequence is denied: because, if we should wish to measure [exactly] the Planetary intervals to the measures of the Regular bodies, the Phenomena are not saved, as I taught in the same place, in the 2nd response.
[Margin: 4th Response.]
Fourthly, the Consequence is likewise denied: because that proportion and beauty of the Regular bodies does not seem suited to the Physical effects which divine Providence willed to be in the nature of things — for it consists in the determinate number of regular faces by which those five [Regular] bodies are bounded; but the intervals of the Planets are not taken from bodies as bodies are [qua solids], nor in the fluid heavens is there a real distinction of heavens — much less of Regular bodies — nor do they [the solids] flow into [influence] these lower [things] as such bodies, but by reason of light, and of the influences flowing through light into the lower [things]. Besides that neither the Platonists nor the Pythagoreans distributed those bodies thus, but assigned to Earth the Cube, to Fire the Tetrahedron, to Air the Octahedron, to Water the Icosahedron, and to the globe of the Universe the Dodecahedron — and indeed not looking to quantity and measure (as Kepler does), but speaking metaphorically, and other properties being regarded — namely, in the Cube stability, in the Tetrahedron (or pyramid) of Fire mobility, etc. — as may be seen in Plutarch (bk. 2 On the Opinions [of the Philosophers], ch. 6). But that Harmonic proportions are found even on the hypothesis of an immovable Earth, Kepler himself confessed, as I taught in ch. 8, no. 26.
[Margin: See ch. 9, from no. 1 to 5.]
[XXXI.] Eleventh Argument. Motions, or the instruments of motions, are not to be multiplied without necessity. But if the Earth rest, the motions of the second Anomaly are multiplied in the five lesser Planets, and the instruments of these motions — namely, three Epicycles in the three superior [planets], and two Eccentrics in the two inferior Planets — and indeed without necessity, since all those [things] can be furnished by the single Annual Orb of the Earth. Therefore the Earth is moved through the Annual orb rather than at rest.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered, first, by Denying the Minor: because they are not really multiplied, if there be a single spiral motion in each. But the multiplication of apparent motions arises from a twofold necessity. The first is that the motions which are evident to sense be saved — of which kind is the Sun’s motion, and the harmony of the other Planets attempered to the Sun’s motion — and that there not be introduced in their place the motions of the Earth and of the other elements, from which the intellect shrinks more than from the mere multiplicity of motions. The other necessity is, lest other motions, more manifold and differing in species, number, and accidents, be multiplied — namely the annual motion in the Lunar heaven, in the Earth and all the Elements, and the inhabitants of the elements. Secondly, it is answered by distinguishing the Major, and denying it concerning mere arithmetical multiplication, [but] conceding it concerning a multiplication useless or superfluous for the end intended by God and by Nature — for the sake of which end, in many other [matters] too, [Nature] accomplishes by more [means] what could otherwise be done arithmetically by fewer, but not equally well, nor [thereby] obtaining the end.
[Margin: See ch. 9, from no. 6 to 9.]
[XXXII.] Twelfth Argument. In the apparent motion of the Planets there are many imperfections, if that motion were really such as it appears — but especially the Stations and Retrogradations, and the excess of the Epicycle of Mars and Jupiter over the Epicycles of the others (when nevertheless their Eccentrics are very small); and the more frequent vicissitudes of Stations and Retrogradations in the slower Planets; and the like. But if these be not real, but merely apparent, they are not Physical imperfections but Optical, and more tolerable. But if the Earth be not moved, they are real Physical [imperfections]; if it be moved, they are merely apparent and Optical — for they all come about on account of the approach of the annually-moved Earth to the Planets (going in a mere and simple eccentric toward the East), or on account of the recession of the Earth from them. Therefore the Earth is moved annually rather than not.
[Margin: Response in fourfold manner.]
It is answered. First, by Denying absolutely that they are imperfections; for neither is inequality in motion, nor the pauses, nor the quickening and retardation — [when] congruous to the end of the motion — an imperfection, but a perfection, not otherwise than in harmonic concords and rhythmic dances. Secondly, by Denying that they are imperfections comparatively — that is, greater than those which must be admitted on the hypothesis of an Earth moved annually and daily. For all motion of the Sun must be extinguished (which is worse than a momentary station, or the retrogradation of some Planets); and the Earth with the elements must be transferred into the heaven; and innumerable motions must be attributed to all the inhabitants of the Earth, the Water, and the Air neighboring the Earth; and the Lunar heaven must be inserted between Mars and Venus, and moved with the Earth by the annual motion, etc. Thirdly, by Denying that they are real imperfections on the one hypothesis and apparent on the other: for on both they are apparent, because they arise from the position of the eye — for if the eye were at the center of the Epicycle of the five Planets, they would seem always to go forward. Fourthly, the argument was Retorted: because on the hypothesis of the Earth’s annual motion mixed with the diurnal, it is necessary to admit a far more frequent species of Stations and Retrogradations, and an inequality of the motion mixed of the diurnal and annual — and indeed without any necessity or foundation taken from the senses, which perceive no motion of the Earth, much less an inequality of it. But these [things] cannot be perfectly understood unless what is said is read (ch. 8, from no. 6 to 9, and ch. 14, from no. 4). Moreover, that the rationale of the Stations and Retrogradations can be rendered on the Tychonic hypothesis too, and on others equipollent [to it], Kepler confessed, as I taught in the same place.
[Margin: See ch. 9, from no. 10 to 12.]
[XXXIII.] Thirteenth Argument. There are many other [things] in the heaven, of which a sufficient rationale cannot be rendered by the hypotheses of others, [but] which nevertheless is rendered by the single annual motion of the Earth, approaching the Planets and receding from them. Namely: why the Eccentrics of the Sun, of Venus, and of Mercury have equal revolutions; why the Superior Planets appear now greatest, now least, and why in opposition with the Sun they are always low [near], and in conjunction high [far], etc. Therefore the Earth is moved by the Annual motion.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered, first, by Denying the Antecedent: for on the hypothesis of others too a sufficient rationale is rendered. For whether the Earth itself approach the Planets (moved by no other motion than a single [one] in longitude), or — the Earth being immovable — the Planets themselves approach the Earth by a double apparent motion, the same Phenomena come about; nay, fewer motions are made if the individual Planets (as we posit) are carried round by an Intelligence through a single spiral line, representing several motions in length and breadth. Secondly, the Consequence is denied: because, granted that the rationale of the aforesaid effects be rendered by the annual motion of the Earth, yet many other more absurd [things] would lie hidden in this motion, which we have more than once indicated above, and others still will be uncovered in the following chapter.
[Margin: See ch. 9, from no. 13 to 15.]
[XXXIV.] Fourteenth Argument. If the Earth be moved by the annual motion, the inclination of the orbit of the five lesser Planets preserves a constant angle, nor is there need of a libration of the orbs, or of a tortuosity [twisting] of the Planet’s path…
[…continues on p. 471 (PDF 506) with the catchword “secus” — “otherwise [if the Earth be still, a libration is needed].”]
(printed p. 471 — within Chapter XXXIII (the Epitome): heliocentric Arguments XXXIV–XLIV are recapitulated with their solutions — the constancy of orbital inclinations, the Equant, seasonal changes in the stars’ size, Jupiter’s satellites, the Moon’s libration, the 1572 nova, comets’ paths, the shifting meridian, the varying pole-altitude (including Mersenne’s plumb-line experiment, in which Riccioli himself found no certain difference), and sunspot paths. Argument XLIV, on the trade winds implying an annual breeze, begins.)
[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 471]
…[the inclination preserves a constant angle], but it is otherwise if the Earth be not so moved. Therefore the Earth is so moved.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent: since that constancy of the angle can be saved on the other hypotheses of a resting Earth too, as I taught in ch. 9. Then the consequence is denied: because on the hypothesis of a moving Earth many other [things] far more imperfect lie hidden, than would be an inconstant inclination of the orbit and a tortuous path of the Planets.
[Margin: See ch. 9, no. 16 & 17.]
[XXXV.] Fifteenth Argument. The Equant circle in Astronomy is discordant [absurd], since with respect to it the Planet is posited to be moved equally, even though it be not moved in that circle, but in another. But this imperfection is removed by the Annual motion of the Earth, [and] not by [its] rest. Therefore, etc.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered. First, by denying the Major, if the Equant seem absurd because it supposes a real inequality in the motion of the Planets: for that this is to be admitted, and is not an imperfection, we taught sufficiently in sect. 2, ch. 4. Secondly, we denied the Minor: for the imperfection of the Equant, taken for the bisection of the Eccentricity, is neither removed on the hypothesis of Kepler and Boulliau (who nevertheless posit the Annual motion of the Earth); and is removed on the hypothesis of Tycho, Longomontanus, and Ours.
[Margin: See ch. 10, no. 1.]
[XXXVI.] Sixteenth Argument. The same Fixed stars seem swifter and greater than themselves (other things being equal — in the serenity of the air and the distance from the horizon) at one time of the year than at the other, opposite [time], as John Stadius, John Pena, and Rothmann affirmed; therefore it is a sign that the Earth approaches them at one time, and recedes from them at another time.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: which is contradicted both by our [own] and the common experiment of observers, and by Copernicus’s own hypothesis — in which it is supposed that, through the annual orb, no Parallax (or sensible diversity of aspect) befalls in the Fixed stars.
[Margin: See ch. 10, no. 2.]
[XXXVII.] Seventeenth Argument. The revolution of the satellites of Jupiter about Jupiter is not regular, if it be estimated from lines drawn from the center of the earth; but it is [regular], if from the center of the Sun — so observing Simon Marius. Therefore the Earth rather than the Sun is moved by the annual motion.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered, the Antecedent being granted (about which, nevertheless, one may doubt), by Denying the consequence: for from this it is not concluded that the Earth moves, but at most that the Sun is the center of the motion of the Planets, or is the exemplar for Jupiter of revolving its own satellites in the manner in which the Sun carries round its own [satellites], Venus and Mercury.
[Margin: See ch. 10, no. 3, 4, 5.]
[XXXVIII.] Eighteenth Argument. The variation of motion and the libration of the Lunar body is better explained on the supposition of the annual motion of the Earth. Therefore, etc.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by denying the Antecedent: both because they are explained equally well by a little libratory circle; and because that libration and variation is monthly, and accordingly does not have a congruous rationale from the annual motion as such; and because many [things] in it have been falsely supposed by Hevelius and Boulliau, which we shall uncover in the Appendix to bk. 4. Besides that there are many other absurd [things] in the Earth’s motion, which prevail over this very slight convenience, if there were any.
[Margin: See ch. 10, no. 6.]
[XXXIX.] Nineteenth Argument. The new Star which appeared in Cassiopeia in the year 1572 gave an indication of the Earth’s approach to it, on account of its increase [in brightness]. It is answered by denying the antecedent: since it continually decreased — even then, when the Earth (if it had been moved annually) would have approached it; see what is said in ch. 10, no. 6.
[Margin: See ch. 10, no. 7.]
[XL.] Twentieth Argument. The trajectory of Comets — as regards the motion both of longitude and of latitude — is much more readily explained on the hypothesis of the Earth annually carried round. Therefore the Earth is moved annually.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent: since rather Tycho confirms thence the rest of the Earth — because, if the Earth were moved by this motion, some Comets ought to have appeared Retrograde and slower, which nevertheless did not appear such. Secondly, by Denying the Consequence: both on account of the other absurdities of the Earth’s annual motion (indicated ch. 9, from no. 5), which extinguish this little spark of probability violently extruded from the Comets; and because Kepler supposes a rectilinear and orderly-decreasing motion in the Comets, when he has demonstrated neither. But we have said more on this matter, both in ch. 10, no. 7, and in bk. 8, sect. 1, ch. 26.
[Margin: See ch. 11, from no. 1 to 5.]
[XLI.] Twenty-first Argument. The Meridian Line gradually, and after some ages, changes its position, and declines from the pristine plane of the Meridian. Therefore this arises from the motion of the Earth.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent: which Joseph Scaliger deduced from most fallacious a priori principles, and Cesare Marsili from slippery little observations. Secondly, by Denying the Consequence: because the Copernican hypothesis rather requires a stable appearance of the Meridian line; but see what is said in ch. 11, from no. 1 to 5.
[Margin: See ch. 11, from no. 6 to 16.]
[XLII.] Twenty-second Argument. The altitudes of the Pole of the same place have been found to vary — either after many ages (as Domenico Maria, Joseph Scaliger, John Stadius, and Giovanni Antonio Magini noted); or at least twice a year (as Rothmann observed); or finally daily (as Alexander Calignon observed, from the nodding of plumb-lines toward the sides of the world, nor did Gassendi deny it). Therefore the Earth is moved annually. Which one could confirm, if a Plumb-line 40 Parisian feet high and 5 pounds in weight, on the day of the summer Solstice, should perform 20 or 30 fewer vibrations [oscillations] in one hour in the evening than in the morning — as Mersenne thought that hence the truth of either hypothesis could be decided, and wrote to the Most Illustrious Count of Alais, Governor of the Province, a copy of whose letter Fr. Paolo Casati showed me.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent, and uncovering the fallacies — nay, even the contradiction — in the observations. Secondly, by Denying the Consequence drawn from the first and third species of change: for from those there would follow a secular [age-long] motion, or a diurnal [one] toward the poles, but not an annual [one]; and yet to that [annual one] the magnetism of the Earth is repugnant — [the magnetism] attributed by many Copernicans for this very reason, that the Earth may keep itself in the same situation with respect to the Poles. But see ch. 11, from no. 6 to 16.
[Margin: Argument from the vibrations of the Plumb-line, for distinguishing the Ptolemaic and Copernican Hypotheses.]
As for the number of the evening vibrations of the plumb-line, etc.: I have answered that such an experiment is tried in vain, since it would be better tried with a shorter plumb-line (as exhibiting a greater number of vibrations); and yet to us — neither in the morning, nor in the evening, nor around Noon nor Midnight (which would be better, because then the difference which the diurnal motion would add to the annual would be more evident than in the morning or evening) — did any certain and sensible difference appear between the vibrations of one hour (the hour marked equal from the transits of the stars) and [those] of another. Nor can such a difference arise of itself from the motion of the earth, since the plumb-line itself ought to comply with either motion of the earth, according to Copernicus; and all the phenomena of natural motions ought to be equally saved on either hypothesis — whatever be [the case] concerning violent or preternatural [motions].
[Margin: See the whole chapter 12.]
[XLIII.] Twenty-third Argument. The apparent path of the Solar Spots [sunspots], and their truly admirable and most certain vicissitudes, are explained by simpler and fewer motions if the annual motion of the Earth be asserted, than if [that] of the Sun. Therefore the Earth rather than the Sun is moved annually.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent: for on either hypothesis only three real motions are necessary to maintain the Phenomena of the Solar Spots. Namely, on the hypothesis of a moving Earth: the Annual motion of the Earth, the Diurnal motion of the Earth, and the motion of the Whirling of the Sun about its own center. But on the hypothesis of an immovable Earth there are required: the spiral motion of the center of the Sun (but slower than the motion of the Fixed [stars] and of the Primum Mobile, and so representing in itself a single [combined] diurnal and annual motion); and the annual motion of the poles of the mobile Solar Axis about its own fixed axis, carried out from West to East; and a third motion, of a quasi-monthly whirling about another mobile axis, from East to West. Wherefore in the number of real motions there is parity; but in this there is disparity — that these motions are distributed by Galileo among two really distinct subjects (namely the diurnal and annual [motion] to the Earth, and the monthly whirling to the Sun), and therefore it is no wonder if the Sun’s motion seems simpler; but by Scheiner all three [are attributed] to the same subject, namely the Sun; and these motions are more evident to the senses. Secondly, the Consequence is denied, on account of the many other inconveniences lying hidden in the motions of the Earth — but [these have been] indicated often already, and especially in ch. 9, from no. 5.
[Margin: See ch. 13, no. 1.]
[XLIV.] Twenty-fourth Argument. [The twenty-fourth argument] is taken from the perpetual wind which is felt toward the West, especially in the Torrid Zone [the trade winds]; for hence some beg also for the annual motion some breeze. But this argument would require continuous winds, and [winds] in the whole tract of the Torrid [Zone] —
[…continues on p. 472 (PDF 507) with the catchword “tos” (ven-tos) — “…winds, which are not [found everywhere].”]
(printed p. 472 — Chapter XXXIII concludes its epitome of the 29 pro-motion annual arguments (XLIV–XLIX), dismissing among others Galileo’s celebrated tidal argument — deservedly “hissed off the stage” — and the argument from accelerated fall. Chapter XXXIV then opens the epitome of the immobility arguments: thirty-eight against the diurnal-plus-annual motion (chs. 19–24), beginning with Argument I on the real velocity-increment of falling bodies.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 472]
…[winds], if the cause were from the motion of the Earth; which, however, is false according to history; and a more probable cause shows itself in the Sun, successively exciting now these, now other vapors and exhalations, while it is moved toward the West. Nay, such a wind would have to be toward the East by day, and toward the West by night — which is very much to be noted.
[Margin: See ch. 13, no. 2.]
[XLV.] Twenty-fifth Argument. The metallic fibers and veins in mines appear turned toward the East; therefore [this is] from the annual motion of the Earth toward the East. But the Consequence is denied: because, if this is true, it arises from the illumination of the Sun, which rises and takes [its] increase from the eastern quarter; for why would the rivers (which are more fluid) not bend their course toward the East on account of the Earth’s annual motion, very many obstacles being overcome? But it is truer that those veins are turned toward the Poles of the world, as appears in quarries, and in the cut trunks of trees.
[Margin: See ch. 13, no. 3.]
[XLVI.] Twenty-sixth Argument. An iron plate, suspended in a small and closed chamber by a brass thread at equilibrium, so that it looks with one end toward the East and the other toward the West, nevertheless at length turns itself toward the poles; whence some have suspected a cause from the motion of the Earth mixed of the annual and diurnal — when nevertheless they ought rather to recognize the magnetic power of the iron, directing itself toward the poles of the world.
[Margin: See ch. 13, no. 4.]
[XLVII.] Twenty-seventh Argument. Some take [it] from the danger of putrefaction, unless the Earth be either perpetually agitated, or preserved by a soul as by salt. But corruption on the surface of the earth is not now wholly avoided, since in many parts it follows; but in the deep [interior] it is feared in vain.
[Margin: See the whole ch. 14.]
[XLVIII.] Twenty-eighth Argument. The alternating vicissitudes which all the Schools have hitherto admired in the Tide of the Sea — whether you regard the diurnal [tides], which mostly return in six hours; or the monthly [ones], which vary notably at the New and Full Moons; or the annual [ones], which have a notable diversity at the Equinoxes and Solstices — are explained in no other more convenient way, and [by] no more evident (or at least more probable) cause adduced, than by the unequal motion of the Earth, arising from the various commixture of the diurnal motion with the annual. Therefore, even from this one convenience, both motions of the Earth come out more probable than [its] rest. But how Galileo — and Gassendi subscribing to him — expound the flux and reflux of the Sea by both motions of the Earth, see ch. 14, from no. 1 to 10.
[Margin: Response.]
It is answered by Denying the Antecedent: both because that inequality which would arise from the diurnal and annual motion of the earth would be insensible, and without a sudden change of itself, and so unfit for shaking the Earth, and by the shaking for causing the tide of the sea; and because even if it were sensible, it would not be sufficient to produce the very many varieties of the tides which are manifest; nay, Galileo’s doctrine would overturn the most certain Rules of the most expert Skippers [sea-captains], which depend on the phases and motions of the Moon; and the greatest part of the history concerning the Tide of the Sea would be false. But on the other hand, although no opinion concerning the cause of the Tide of the Sea has yet shone forth which removes all difficulties and satisfies the intellect contemplating all the differences of the tides, yet there are some which are much more probable than Galileo’s opinion — which therefore Claramonti, Cabeo, and Fournier deservedly hissed off the stage [derided]. But to curb Galileo’s boasting in this argument, it seemed good to us, in ch. 14, by a most diligent inquiry, to gather the history of the motions of the Sea, and especially of the tide (which we did from number 11 to 20); and the most select Rules of the Skippers (which is performed from no. 20 to 22); and finally the opinions concerning the cause of the Tide of the Sea (namely from number 23 to 43) — which being read through, the whole argument of Galileo will doubtless vanish, just like a bubble or thinnest foam of the Sea. Whatever be [the case] concerning the system of Mr. Giovanni Battista Baliani, by which he asserts that the Tide of the Sea is better explained with the Moon placed at the center and the Earth [moving] about it — which he devised not absolutely, but in order to overcome Galileo’s hypothesis by a better hypothesis — yet out of reverence toward the decrees of the Sacred Congregation he did not publish [it], as we said in ch. 15.
[Margin: See the whole chs. 16 & 17.]
[XLIX.] Twenty-ninth Argument. By the diurnal motion of the Earth alone, together with the annual, the difficulty is removed of rendering the reason why Heavy and Light [bodies], in their natural descent or ascent, acquire a continuous increment of velocity — that is, are moved swifter and swifter toward the end; for it is shown that their motion is in reality circular, and uniform in the spaces of the World; granted that to us — transferred together with them — it appears rectilinear and unequal. Therefore, even on account of this single cause, the motion of the Earth is more probable than [its] rest.
[Margin: Twofold response.]
It is answered, first, by Denying the Antecedent: because by the figure of motion ascribed to this motion by Boulliau, or especially by Galileo, the real difference of the impact of Heavy [bodies] is not saved — [a difference] which is the greater, and patent by most manifest effects, the higher the place from which some Heavy [body] descends; and it presupposes a real increment of impetus, acknowledged elsewhere by Galileo (but [there] forgetting himself). Then, by the same figure, the circular motion of Heavy [bodies] is not saved, unless they be in the plane of the Equator, and of such slowness that they would require precisely 6 hours for their arrival at the center of the earth, and the motion of the Earth be diurnal only; although, not even on these conditions being posited, would that line be circular from the beginning to the end of the motion. But outside the Equator, the line of this motion would be a spiral about a Cone or Cylinder — but always unfit for saving the real difference of the impacts, because the motion of Heavy and Light [bodies] would in reality be uniform, or without sensible inequality. Secondly, the Antecedent is denied as to the particle only. For by another and more Physical, and better, way the reason of the aforesaid increment is rendered; for which cause, the opinions of others having been gathered in ch. 18, it pleased [us] to subjoin also our own opinion concerning the cause of this increment.
✠ [Chapter XXXIII ends here.]