Volete ch’io vi dica la causa?
THEOPHILO. Ditela pure.
SMITHO. Perche la divina scrittura (il senso della quale ne deve essere molto raccomandato come cosa che procede da intelligenze superiori che non errano) in molti luoghi accenna, et suppone il contrario.
THEOPHILO. Hor quanto á questo credetemi che se gli Dei si fussero degnati d’insegnarci la theorica delle cose della natura: come ne han fatto favore, di proporci la prattica di cose morali: io piu tosto mi accostarei alla fede de le loro revelationi, che muovermi punto della certezza de mie raggioni, et proprii sentimenti. Ma (come chiarissimamente ogn’uno può vedere) nelli divini libri in servitio del nostro intelletto, non si trattano le demostrationi, et speculationi, circa le cose naturali, come se fusse philosophia: ma in gratia de la nostra mente et affetto, per le leggi si ordina la prattica circa le attione morali. Havendo dumque il divino legislatore questo scopo avanti gl’occhi; nel resto non si cura di parlar secondo quella veritá per la quale non profittarebbono i’ volgari, per ritrarse dal male, et appiglarse al bene: ma di questo il pensiero lascia á gl’huomini contemplativi: et parla al volgo di maniera; che secondo il suo modo de intendere, et di parlare, venghi á capire quel ch’e’ principale.
SMITHO. Certo é cosa conveniente quando uno cerca di far Istoria, et donar leggi: parlar secondo la comone intelligenza; et non esser sollecito in cose indifferenti. Pazzo sarrebe l’Istorico che trattando la sua materia, volesse ordinar vocaboli stimati novi, et riformar i’ vecchi: et far di modo che il lettore sii piu trattenuto á osservarlo, et interpretarlo come gramatico, che intenderlo come Istorico.
Tanto piu uno che vuol dare à l’universo volgo la legge et forma di vivere, se usasse termini che le capisse lui solo et altri pochissimi, et venesse á far consideratione et caso, de materie indifferenti dal fine, à cui sono ordinate le leggi: certo parrebbe che lui non drizza la sua dottrina al generale et alla moltitudine per la quale sono ordinate quelle; ma á savii, et generosi spirti, et quei che sono veramente huomini, li quali senza legge fanno quel che conviene: per questo disse Alchazele philosopho, sõmo pontefice et Theologo Mahumetano: che il fine delle leggi non é tanto di cercar la veritá delle cose, et speculationi; quanto la bontá de costumi, profitto della civilitá, convitto di popoli; et prattica per la commoditá della humana conversatione, mantenimento di pace, et aumento di Repupliche. Molte volte dumque, et á molti propositi, e’ una cosa da stolta et ignorante, piu tosto riferir le cose seconda la verità; che secondo l’occasione et comoditá.
Come quando il sapiente disse Nasce il sole et tramonta, gira per il mezo giorno, et s’inchina á l’Aquilone: havesse detto, la terra si raggira á l’oriente, et si tralascia il sole che tramonte, s’inchina á doi tropici del Cancro verso l’Austro; et Capricorno verso l’Aquilone: Sarrebbono fermati gl’auditori á considerare, come costui dice la terra muoversi? che novelle son queste? l’harebbono al fine stimato un pazzo, et sarebbe stato da dovero un pazzo.
Pure per satisfare á l’importunitá di qualche Rabbino impatiente, et rigoroso: vorrei sapere se col favore della medesima scrittura questo che diciamo si possa confirmare facilissimamente.
THEOPHILO. Voglono forse questi reverendi, che quando Mose disse che Dio tra gl’altri luminari ne hà fatti dui grandi, che sono il sole et la luna: questo si debba intendere assolutamente per che tutti gl’altri siino minori della luna: o’ veramente secondo il senso, volgare, et ordinario modo di comprendere et parlare? Non sono tanti astri piu grandi che la luna? non possono essere piu grandi che il sole? che mancha a’ la terra, che non sii un luminare piu bello, et piu grande che la luna, che medesmamente ricevendo nel corpo de l’Oceano et altri mediterranei mari il gran splendore del sole; può comparir lucidissimo corpo a’ gl’altri mondi chiamati astri: non meno che quelli appaiono a’ noi tante lampeggiante faci?
Certo che non chiami la terra un luminare grande o’ piccolo, et che tali dichi essere il sole et la luna, é stato bene et veramente detto nel suo grado, perche dovea farsi intendere secondo le paroli et sentimenti comoni: et non far come uno che qual pazzo et stolto, usa della cognitione et sapienza. Parlare con i’ termini de la veritá dove non bisogna: e’ voler che il volgo et la sciocca moltitudine dalla quale si richiede la prattica; habbia il particular intendimento: sarrebe come volere che la mano habbia l’ochio la quale non é stata fatta dalla natura per vedere, ma per oprare, et consentire á la vista. Cossi benche intendesse la natura delle sustanze spirituali: a’ che fine dovea trattarne, se non quanto che alchune di quelle hanno affabilità, et ministerio con gl’huomini, quando si fanno ambasciatrici? Benche havesse saputo che alla luna et altri corpi mondani che si veggono, et che sono á noi invisibili, convenga tutto quel che conviene á questo nostro mondo, o’ al meno il simile: vi par che sarrebbe stato ufficio di legislatore di prenderse, et donar questi impacci à popoli? Che hà da far la prattica delle nostre leggi, et l’essercitio delle nostre virtu con quell’altri? Dove dumque gl’huomini divini parlano presupponendo nelle cose naturali il senso comunmente ricevuto, non denno servire per authoritá: ma piu tosto dove parlano indifferentemente, et dove il volgo non há risolutione alchuna: in quello voglo che s’habbia riguardo alle parole de gl’huomini divini, ancho á gl’enthusiasmi di Poeti, che con lume superiore ne han parlato: et non prendere per methaphora quel che non e’ stato detto per methaphora: et per il cõtrario prendere per vero quel che é stato detto per similitudine. Ma questa distintione del methaphorico et vero, non tocca á tutti di volerla comprendere: come non é dato ad ogni uno di posser la capire.
Hor se voglamo voltar l’occhio della consideratione á un libro contemplativo, naturale, morale, et divino: noi trovaremo questa philosophia molto favrita, et favorevole. Dico ad un libro di Giob, quale é uno di singularissimi che si possan leggere, pieno d’ogni buona theologia, naturalitá, et moralitá, colmo di sapientissimi discorsi, che Mose come un sacramento há congionto á i’ libri della sua legge. In quello un di personaggi volendo descrivere la provida potenza de Dio: disse quello formar la pace ne gl’eminẽti suoi, cioé sublimi figli, che son gl’astri, gli Dei, de quali altri son fuochi, altri sono acqui (come noi diciamo altri soli, altri terre) et questi concordano: per che quantumque, siino contrarii, tutta via l’uno vive, si nutre et vegeta, per l’altro; mentre non si confondeno insieme; ma con certe distanze gl’uni si moveno circa gl’altri. Cossi vien distinto l’universo in fuoco, et acqua che sono soggetti di doi primi principii formali et activi, freddo, et caldo. Qué corpi che spirano il caldo son gli soli che per se stessi son lucenti et caldi: que corpi che spirano il freddo, son le terre; le quali essendo parimente corpi etherogenei son chiamate piu tosto acqui, atteso che tai corpi per quelle si fanno visibili, onde meritamente le nominiamo da quella raggione che ne sono sensibili: sensibili dico non per se stessi: ma per la luce de soli sparsa ne la lor faccia. A’ questa dottrina e’ conforme Mose, che chiama firmamento l’aria, nel quale tutti questi corpi hanno la persistenza et situatione, et per gli spacii del quale vengono distinte et divise le acqui inferiori, che son queste che sono nel nostro globo; da l’acqui superiori che son quelle de gl’altri globi, dove pure se dice, esserno divise l’acqui da l’acqui . Et se ben considerate molti passi della scrittura divina, gli Dei et ministri de l’altissimo sõ chiamati, acqui, abissi, terre, et fiamme ardenti. chi lo impediva che non chiamasse corpi neutri, inalterabili, inmutabili, quinte essenze, parti piu dense delle sphere, berilli, carbuncoli, et altre phantasie de le quali come indifferenti niente manco il volgo s’harrebe possuto pascere?
SMITHO. Io per certo molto mi muovo da l’authoritá del libro di Giobbe et di Mose et facilmente posso fermarmi in questi sentimenti reali piu tosto che in methaphorici et astratti: se non che alchuni pappagalli d’Aristotele, Platone, et Averroe dalla philosophia de quali son promossi poi ad esser Theologi: dicono che questi sensi son metaphorici, et cossi in virtu de loro methaphore le fanno significare tutto quel che gli piace, per gelosia della philosophia nella quale sõ allevati.
THEOPHILO. Hor quanto siino costante queste methaphore, lo possete giudicar da questo che la medesma scrittura e’ in mano di Giudei, Christiani, et Mahumetisti, sette tanto differenti, et contrarie, che ne parturiscono altre innumerabili contrarissime, et differentissime, le quali tutte vi fan trovare quel proposito che gli piace, et meglo li vien comodo: non solo il proposito diverso, et differente, ma anchor tutto il contrario, facendo de un Sí, un Non, et di un Non, un Sí. come verbigratia in certi passi dove dicono che dio parla per Ironia.
SMITHO. Lasciamo di giudicar questi, son certo che á loro non importa che questo sii, o’ non sii methaphora: peró facilmente ne potranno far star in pace con nostra philosophia.
THEOPHILO. Dalla censura di honorati spirti, veri religiosi, et ancho naturalmente huomini da bene, amici dalla civile conversatione, et buone dottrine: non si dé temere. perche quando bene harran considerato trovarranno, che questa philosophiá non solo contiene la veritá, ma anchora favorisce la religione piu che qualsivogla altra sorte de philosophia. Come quelle che poneno il mondo finito, L’effetto et l’efficacia della divina potenza finiti, le intelligenze et nature intellettuali solamente otto o’ diece, La sustanza delle cose esser corrottibile, L’anima mortale, come che consista piu tosto in una accidentale dispositione, et effetto di complessione, et dissolubile contemperamento, et armonia, L’esecuzione della divina giustitia sopra l’attioni humane per consequenza nulla, La notitia di cose particolari a’ fatto rimossa dalle cause prime et universali. Et altri inconvenienti assai, li quali non solamente come falsi acciecano il lume de l’intelletto: ma anchora, come neghittosi, et empii smorzano il fervore di buoni affetti.
SMITHO. Molto sono contento di haver questa informatione della philosophia del Nolano. Hor veniamo un poco a’ gli discorsi fatti col dottor Torquato; il quale son certo che non puó essere tanto piu ignorante che Nundinio; quanto e’ piu presuntuoso, temerario, et sfacciato.
FRULLA. Ignoranza et arroganza son due sorelle individue in un corpo et in un’anima.
THEOPHILO. Costui con un’emphatico aspetto, col, quale il divum Pater vien descritto nella Metamorphose seder in mezzo del concilio de gli Dei, per fulminar quella severissima sentenza contra il profano Licaone; dopo haver contemplato la sua aurea collana.
PRUDENTIO. Torquem auream, aureum monile.
THEOPHILO. Et appresso remirato al petto del Nolano, dove piu tosto harrebe possuto manchar qualche bottone. Dopo essersi rizzato, ritirate le braccia da la mensa, scrollatosi un poco il dorso, sbruffato có la bocca alquanto, acconciatasi la beretta di velluto in testa, intorciglatosi il mustaccio, posto in arnese il profumato volto, inarcate le cigla, spalancate le narici, messosi in punto con un riguardo di rovescio, poggiatasi al sinistro fianco la sinistra mano; per donar principio alla sua scrima, appuntó le tre prime dita della destra insieme, et cominciò a’ tra di mandritti, in questo modo parlando. Tune ille philosophorum protoplastes? Subito il Nolano suspettando di venire ad altri termini che di disputatione gl’interroppe il parlare dicendogli. Quo vadis domine, quo vadis? quid si ego philosophorum protoplastes? quid si nec Aristoteli nec cuiquam, magis concædam, quam mihi ipsi concesserint? ideo ne terra est centrum mundi inmobile? cõ queste et altre simili persuasioni con quella maggior patienza che posseva l’essortava á portar propositi, con i’ quali potesse inferire demostrativa ò probabilmente in favore de gl’altri protoplasti? contra di questo novo protoplaste. Et voltatosi il Nolano á gli circostanti ridendo con mezo riso. Costui (disse) non é venuto tanto armato di raggioni quanto di paroli, et scommi, che si muoiono di freddo et fame. Pregato da tutti che venesse á gl’argumenti. Mandó fuori questa voce, unde igitur stella Martis nunc maior, nunc veró minor apparet; si terra movetur?
SMITHO. O Archadia, é possibile che sii in rerum natura, sotto titolo di philosofo et medico.
FRULLA. Et dottore, et torquato.
SMITHO. Che habbia possuto tirar questa consequenza? Il Nolano che rispose?
THEOPHILO. Lui non si spantò per questo: ma gli rispose che una delle cause principali per le quali la stella di Marte appare maggiore et minore, á volte á volte, é il moto della terra, et di Marte anchora, per gli proprii circoli, onde aviene che hora siino piu prossimi; hora piu lontani.
SMITHO. Torquato che soggionse?
THEOPHILO. Dimandó subito della proportione de moti degli pianeti et la terra.
SMITHO. Et il Nolano, hebbe tanta patienza che vedendo un si presuntuoso et goffo, non voltò la spalli et andarsene a casa, et dire à colui che l’havea chiamato che. .
THEOPHILO. anzi rispose che lui non era andato per leggere ne per insegnare, ma per rispondere: et che la simmetria, ordine, et misura de moti celesti si presuppone tal qual’é, et é stata conosciuta da antichi et moderni: et che lui non disputa circa questo, et non é per litigare contra gli Mathematici per toglere le lor misure et Theorie, alle quali sottoscrive, et crede. Ma il suo scopo versa circa la natura et verificatione del soggetto di questi moti. Oltre disse il Nolano se io metterò tempo per rispondere a questa dimanda; noi staremo quá tutta la notte senza disputare, et senza ponere giamai gli fondamenti delle nostre pretensioni contra la comone philosophia. perche tanto gl’uni quanto gl’altri condoniamo tutte le suppositioni; pur che si conchiuda la vera raggione delle quãtitá, et qualitá di moti; et in questi siamo concordi, a’ che dumque beccarse il cervello fuor di proposito? Vedete voi se dalle osservanze fatte et dalle verificationi concesse possiate inferire qual che cosa che conchiuda contra noi: et poi harrete libertá di proferire le vostre condannationi.
SMITHO. Bastava dirgli che parlasse á proposito.
THEOPHILO. Hor quá nessuno di circostanti fú tanto ignorante, che col viso et gesti non mostrasse haver capito che costui era una gran pecoraccia aurati ordinis.
FRULLA. Idest il tosone:
THEOPHILO. Pure per imbroglar il negocio, pregorno il Nolano che esplicasse quello che lui volea defendere, per che il profato Dottor Torquato agrumentarebbe. Rispose il Nolano che lui s’havea troppo esplicato; et che se gl’argumenti de gl’aversarii erano scarsi: questo non procedeva per difetto di materia, come puó essere á tutti ciechi manifesto. Pure di nuovo gli confirmava che L’universo e’ infinito. Et che quello costa d’una immensa etherea reggione. E’ veramente un cielo il quale e’ detto spacio et seno, in cui sono tanti astri che hanno fissione in quello, non altrimente che la terra. Et cossi la luna il sole et altri corpi innumerabili sono, in questa etherea reggione, come veggiamo essere la terra. Et che non e’ da credere altro firmamento, altra base, altro fundamento ove s’appoggino questi grandi animali che concorreno alla constitution del mondo. Vero soggetto, et infinita materia della infinita divina potenza attuale: come bene ne há fatto intendere tanto la regolata raggione et discorso: quanto le divine revelationi che dicono nõ essere numero de ministri del’Altissimo, al quale miglaia de miglaia assistono, et diece centenaia de miglaia gl’amministrano. Questi sono gli grandi animali de quali molti con lor chiaro lume che da lor corpi diffondeno: ne sono di ogni contorno sensibili. De quali altri son effettualmente caldi come il sole et altri innumerabili fuochi. Altri sõ freddi, come la terra, la luna, venere, et altre terre innumerabili. Questi per comunicar l’uno á l’altro; et participar l’un da l’altro il principio vitale, á certi spacii, con certe distanze, gl’uni compiscono gli lor giri circa gl’altri, come e’ manifesto in questi sette, che versano circa il sole, de quali la terra e’ uno che muovẽdosi circa il spacio di 24. hore dal lato chiamato Occidente verso l’Oriente: caggiona l’apparenza di questo moto del’universo circa quella, che e’ detto moto mundano, et diurno.
La quale imaginatione e’ falsissima, contra natura, et impossibile: essendo che sii possibile, conveniente, vero, et necessario, che la terra si muova circa il proprio centro per participar la luce et tenebre, giorno et notte, caldo et freddo.
Circa il sole per la partcipatione de la Primavera, Estade, Autunno, Inverno. Verso i’ chiamati poli, et oppositi punti hemispherici: per la rinovatione di secoli, et cambiamento del suo volto; a’ fin che dove era il mare, sii l’arida: ove era torrido, sii freddo; ove il tropico, sii l’equinottiale: et finalmente sii de tutte cose la vicissitudine, come in questo; cossí ne gl’altri astri, non senza raggione da gl’antichi veri philosophi chiamati mondi.
Hor mentre il Nolano dicea questo: il dottor Torquato cridava. Ad rem. Ad rem. Ad rem. Al fine il Nolano se mise á ridere, et gli disse, che lui non gli argomentava, ne gli rispondeva; ma che gli proponeva: et però ista sunt Res. Res. Res. et che toccava al Torquato appresso de apportar qualche cosa Ad rem.
SMITHO. Perche questo asino si pensava essere trà goffi et balordi, credeva che quelli passassero questo suo Ad rem, per uno argumento, et determinatione: et cossi un semplice crido còla sua cathena d’oro satisfar alla moltitudine.
THEOPHILO. Ascoltate d’avantaggio. Mentre tutti stavano ad aspettar quel tanto desiderato argumento; ecco che voltato il dottor Torquato á gli commensali, dal profondo della sufficienza sua sguaina et gli viene á donar sul mostaccio uno adagio Erasmiano ANTICIRAM NAVIGAT.
SMITHO. Non possea parlar meglo un’asino, et non possea udir altra voce chi vá á pratticar con gl’asini.
THEOPHILO. Credo che prophetasse (benche non intendesse lui medesmo la sua profetia) che il Nolano andava á far provisione d’Elleboro per risaldar il cervello á questi pazzi barbareschi.
SMITHO. Se quelli che v’eran presenti come erano civili, fussero stati civilissimi: gl’harrebbono attaccato in loco della collana un capestro al collo; et fattogli contar quaranta bastonate in commemoratione del primo giorno di quaresima.
THEOPHILO. Il Nolano gli disse che il dottor Torquato lui non era pazzo, per che porta la collana, la quale se non havesse á dosso, certamente il dottor Torquato non valerebe piú che per suoi vestimenti, i’ quali però vaglono pochissimo se á forza di bastonate non gli sarran spolverati sopra. Et con questo dire si alzó di tavola, lamentandosi ch’il signor Folco non havea fatto provisione de meglor suppositi.
FRULLA. Questi son i’ frutti d’Inghilterra: et cercatene pur quanti volete; che le trovarete tutti dottori in gramatica, in questi nostri giorni: ne quali in la felice patria regna una costellatione di pedantesca ostinatissima ignoranza et presuntione: mista con una rustica inciviltá che farebbe prevaricar la patienza di Giobbe, et se non il credete. Andate in Oxonia et fatevi raccontar le cose intravenute al Nolano. quando publicamente disputó con qué dottori in Theologia in presenza del Prencipe Alasco Polacco, et altri della nobiltá Inglesa. fatevi dire come si sapea rispondere á gli argomenti? come restó per quindeci syllogismi, quindeci volte qual pulcino entro la stoppa quel povero dottor: che come il Coripheo dell’Achademia ne puosero avanti in questa grave occasione? Fatevi dire con quanta inciviltá et discortesia procedea quel porco, et con quãta patienza et humanitá quell’altro che in fatto mostrava essere Napolitano nato, et allevato sotto piu benigno cielo? Informatevi come gl’han fatte finire le sue publiche letture, et quelle de immortalitate animæ, et quelle de quintuplici sphera?
SMITHO. Chi dona perle á porci non si dé lamentar se gli son calpestrate. Hor sequitate il proposito del Torquato.
THEOPHILO. Alzati tutti di tavola, vi furono di quelli che in loro linguaggio accusavano il Nolano per impatiente, invece che doveano haver piu tosto avanti gl’occhi la barbara et salvatica discortesia del Torquato et propria. Tutta volta il Nolano che fá professione di vencere in cortesia quelli, che facilmente posseano superarlo in altro: se rimesse; et come havesse tutto posto in oblio disse amichevolmente al Torquato.
Non pensar fratello ch’io per la vostra opinione vogla o’ possa esservi nemico: anzi vi son cossi amico, come di me stesso. Per il che voglo che sappiate, ch’io prima ch’havesse questa positione per cosa certissima: alchuni anni á dietro la tenni semplicemente vera: Quando ero piu giovane, et men savio, la stimai verisimile. Quando ero piu principiante nelle cose speculative, la tenni si fattamẽte falsa, che mi maraviglavo d’Aristotele che non solo non si sdegnó di farne consideratione: ma ancho spese piu de la mittà del secondo libro del cielo, et mondo, forzandosi dimostrar che la terra non si muova. Quando ero putto, et á fatto senza intelletto speculativo, stimai che creder questo era una pazzia, et pensavo che fusse stato posto avanti da qualchuno, per una materia sophistica, et captiosa, et esercitio di quelli ociosi ingegni, che voglono disputar per gioco, et che fan professione di provar et defendere che il bianco e’ nero. Tanto dumque io posso odiar voi per questa caggione, quanto me medesimo quando ero piu giovane, piu putto, men saggio, et men discreto. Cossi in loco ch’io mi devrei adirar con voi, vi compatisco: et priego Idio che come hà donato á me questa cognitione, cossi (se non gli piace di farvi capaci del vedere,) al meno vi faccia posser credere che sete ciechi, et questo non sara poco per rendervi piu civili, et cortesi, meno ignoranti, et temerarii. Et voi anchora mi dovete amare se nõ come quello che sono al presente piu prudente, et piu vecchio; al meno come quel che fui piu ignorãte, et piu giovane, quando ero in parte ne gli miei piu teneri anni, come voi sete in vostra vecchiaia. Voglo dire che quantumque mai son stato conversando et disputando cossi salvatico, mal creato, et incivile, son stato peró un tempo ignorante come voi.
Cossi havendo io riguardo al stato vostro presente, conforme al mio passato; et voi al stato mio passato, conforme al vostro presente: io vi amarò, et voi non m’odiarete.
SMITHO. Essi (poi che sono entrati in un’altra specie di disputatione) che dissero à questo?
THEOPHILO. In conclusione che loro erano compagni di Aristotele di Tolomeo, et molti altri dottissimi philosophi; et il Nolano soggionse che sono innumerabili sciocchi, insensati, stupidi, et ignorãtissimi, che in cio sono cõpagni nõ solo di Aristotele et Tolomeo: ma di essi loro anchora: i’ quali non possono capire quel che il Nolano intende, con cui non sono ne possono esser molti consentienti; ma solo huomini divini et sapientissimi come Pithagora, Platone, et altri. Quanto poi alla moltitudine che si gloria d’haver philosophi dal canto suo; vorrei che consideri che per tanto che sono qué philosophi conformi al volgo; han prodotta una philosophia volgare. Et per quel ch’appartiene a’ voi che vi fate sotto la bandiera d’Aristotele, vi dono aviso che non vi dovete gloriare, quasi intendessivo quel che intese Aristotele, et penetrassivo quel che penetró Aristotele: per che e’ grandissima differenza tra il non sapere quel che lui non seppe; et saper quel che lui seppe: per che dove quel philosopho fú ignorante há per compagni non solamente voi, ma tutti vostri simili, insieme con i’ scafari, et fachini Londrioti. dove quel galant’huomo fu dotto et giudicioso credo et son certissimo che tutti insieme ne sete troppo discosti. Di una cosa fortemẽte mi maraveglo, che essendo voi stati invitati et venuti per disputare; non havete giamai posto tali fondamenti, et proposte tale raggioni, per le quali in modo alchuno possiate conchiudere contra me, ne contra il Copernico, et pur vi sono tanti gaglardi argomenti, et persuasioni. Il Torquato come volesse hora sfodrare una nobilissima demostratione; con una Augusta maestá dimanda. UBI EST AUX SOLIS? Il Nolano rispose che lo imaginasse dove gli piace, et concludesse qualche cosa. Per che l’auge si muta et non stá sempre nel medesmo grado del’eclittica et non può veder á che proposito dimanda questo. Torna il Torquato à dimandar il medesmo come il Nolano non sapesse rispondere á questo. Rispose il Nolano quot sunt sacramenta ecclesiæ? Est circa vigesimum Cancri: et oppositum circa decimum vel centesimum Capricorni, ò sopra il campanile di san Paolo.
SMITHO. Possete conoscere á che proposito dimandasse questo?
THEOPHILO. Per mostrar á qué che non sapean nulla, che lui disputava, et che diceva qualche cosa, et oltre tentare tanti quomodo, quare, ubi, sin che ne trovasse uno al quale il Nolano dicesse che non sapea: fin a questo che volse intendere quante stelle sono della quarta grandezza. Ma il Nolano dicesse che non sapeva altro che quello che era al proposito. Questa interrogatione de l’auge del sole, conchiude in tutto et per tutto che costui era ignorantissimo di disputare. Ad uno che dice la terra muoversi circa il sole, il sole star fisso in mezzo di questi erranti lumi, dimandare dove e’ l’auge del sole? é á punto come se uno dimandasse á quello del’ordinario parere, dove é l’auge de la terra? et pur la prima lettione che si dá ad uno che vuole imparar di argumentare e’ di non cercare et dimandar secondo i’ proprii principii: ma quelli che son concessi da l’avversario. Ma á questo goffo tutto era il medesmo; per che cossi harrebe saputo tirar argumenti da que suppositi che sono, á proposito come da qué che son fuor di proposito.
Finito questo discorso cominciorno á raggionar in Inglese trá loro et dopo haver alquãto trascorso insieme; ecco comparir sú la tavola carta et calamaio. Il dottor Torquato distese quanto era largo et lungho un foglo, prese la piuma in mano, tira un linea retta per mezzo del foglo da un canto à l’altro, in mezzo forma un circolo á cui la linea predetta passando per il centro, facea diametro, et dentro un semicircolo di quello scrive terra, et dentro l’altro scrive sol. Dal canto de la terrá forma otto semicircoli, dove ordinatamente erano gli caratteri di sette pianeti, et circa l’ultimo scritto OCTAVA SPHAERA MOBILIS et ne la margine PTOLOMEUS. trá tanto il Nolano disse à costui che volea far di questo, che sanno sin á i’ putti? Torquato ripose Vide, tace, et disce: ego docebo te Ptolomeum et Copernicum.
SMITHO. Sus quandoque Minervam.
THEOPHILO. Il Nolano ripose che quando uno scrive l’alphabeto, mostra mal principio di voler insegnar gramatica ad un che ne intende piu che lui. seguita á far la sua descritione il Torquato; et circa il sole che era nel mezzo, forma sette semicircoli con simili caratteri circa l’ultimo scrivendo SPHAERA INMOBILIS FIXARUM, et ne la margine, COPERNICUS. Poi se volta al terzo circolo, et in un punto della sua circonferenza forma il centro d’un epiciclo, al quale havendo delineata la circonferenza; in detto centro penge il globo de la terra et á fin che alchuno non s’ingannasse pensando che quello non fusse la terra; vi scrive á bel carattere, TERRA. et in un loco de la circonferenza de l’epiciclo distantissimo dal mezzo, figurò il carattere della luna. Quando vedde questo il Nolano, ecco (disse) che costui mi volea insegnare del Copernico, quello che il Copernico medesmo non intese, et piu tosto s’harrebe fatto taglar il collo che dirlo o’ scriverlo. Perche il piu grande asino del mõdo saprá che da quella parte sempre si vedrebbe il diametro del sole equale; et altre molte cõclusioni seguitarebbono che nõ si possono verificare. Tace, tace, disse il Torquato, tu vis me docere Copernicum? Io curo poco il Copernico, disse il Nolano, et poco mi curo che voi o’ altri l’intendano: ma di questo solo voglo avertirvi che prima che vengate ad insegnarmi un’altra volta: che studiate meglo. Ferno tanta diligenza i’ gentil’uomini che v’eran presenti, che fú portato il libro del Copernico et guardando nella figura, veddero che la terra non era descritta nella circõferenza del’epiciclo come la luna, peró volea Torquato che quel punto che era in mezzo de l’epiciclo nella circõferenza della terza sphera, significasse la terra. [Figure 7]
[Fig. 7 Bruno’s drawing of the Ptolemaic system facing the Copernican system on the same page includes his correction to Torquatus’s representation of the Copernican system. © The British Library Board, C.37.c.14.(2.) p. 98.]
SMITHO. La causa de l’errore fú, che il Torquato havea contemplate le figure di quel libro, et non havea letto gli capitoli: et se pur le há letti, non l’há intesi.
THEOPHILO. Il Nolano se mise ad ridere; et dissegli che quel punto non significava altro che la pedata del compasso, quando si delineò l’epiciclo della terra, et della luna, il quale é tutto uno et il medesmo.
Hor se volete veramente sapere dove è la terra secondo il senso di Copernico: leggete le sue paroli. Lessero, et ritrovarno che dicea la terra et la luna essere contenute come da medesmo epiciclo; &c. et cossi rimasero mastigando in lor lingua, sin tanto che Nundinio et Torquato havendo salutato tutti gli altri, eccetto ch’il Nolano, sen’ andorno. et lui invió uno appresso che da sua parte salutasse loro. Qué cavallieri dopo haver pregato il Nolano che non si turbasse per la discortese inciviltá et temeraria ignoranza de lor dottori: ma che havesse compassione alla povertá di questa patria, la quale é rimasta vedova delle buone lettere, per quanto appartiene alla posessione di philosophia et reali mathematiche (nelle quali mentre sono tutti ciechi; vengono questi asini et ne si vendono per oculati, et ne porgeno vessiche per lanterne) con cortesissime salutationi lasciandolo, se ne andaro per un camino: noi et Nolano per un’altro ritornammo tardi á casa, senza ritrovar di qué rintuzzi ordinarii per che la notte era profonda, et gl’animali cornupeti et calcitranti non ne molestaro al ritorno, come alla venuta; per che prendendo l’alto riposo s’erano nelle lor mandre et stalle retirati.
PRUDENTIO.
Nox erat et placidum carpebant fessa soporem
Corpora per terras, sylvæque et sæva quierant
Æquora, cum medio volvuntur sidera lapsu,
Cum tacet omnis ager, pecudes. &c.
SMITHO. Horsú habbiamo assai detto oggi; di gratia Theophilo ritornate domani perche voglo intendere qualch’altro proposito circa la dottrina del Nolano. Perche quella del Copernico benche sii comoda alle supputationi: tutta volta non é sicura et ispedita quanto alle raggioni naturali, le quali son le principali.
THEOPHILO. Ritornaró volentieri un’altra volta.
FRULLA. Et io.
PRUDENTIO. Ego quoque. Valete.
Fine del Quarto Dialogo.
Do you want me to tell you why?
THEOPHILUS. Yes, tell me.
SMITHUS. Because the Holy Scriptures – whose meaning is to be constantly recommended as proceeding from beings of a superior intelligence, unable to err – in many passages suggest and suppose the contrary.1
THEOPHILUS. Well, as far as that is concerned, believe me that if the gods had deigned to teach us a theory of natural things, as they have favoured us with pragmatic advice on moral issues, I would sooner align my faith with their revelations than allow myself to be persuaded by the certainty of my own reasons or sentiments. But it is plain for all to see that the divine books, which support our intellect, fail to offer philosophical demonstrations or speculation concerning natural things. Rather, they add grace to our minds and affections by ordering the practice of moral actions according to laws. Given that this is the purpose of the divine legislator, he has nothing to say concerning those truths which would be of no use in teaching the common herd to avoid what is evil and to hold on to what is good. Such things are left by him to thoughtful men, while he speaks to the common people in a way adapted to their comprehension and mode of expression. Thus they are persuaded of what is essential for their good.2,
SMITHUS. When attempting to influence the course of history or to lay down laws, it is no doubt extremely useful to speak according to the intelligence of the common people, without raising points indifferent to them. In writing about his subject, the historian would be mad if he attempted to create new words or to reform old ones. If he did that, his reader would be more likely to observe and interpret him as a grammarian than to appreciate him as a historian.
Similarly, someone who wishes to impart to the common people the lawful way of living their lives should not use terms which only he – together with a few others – can understand. For if he were to start speculating about affairs which have nothing to do with the reasons which give rise to those laws, it would seem as if he was unconcerned with general doctrine or with the multitude for which such laws are passed. He would appear to be thinking more of those wise and generous spirits who truly deserve the name of men, and who do what is right without the need for laws. For this reason the philosopher Al-Gazali, a Mahometan high priest and theologian, said that the end of laws is not so much to search for the truth of things and ideas as to further the rightness of customs, the pleasures of civilization and peace between peoples; to practise civil conversation; to maintain order and increase republics.3 So that very often, when dealing with many different subjects, it is unrefined and unintelligent to insist on some bare truth rather than adapting one’s discourse to the occasion, and to the circumstances.
Take the example of the wise man who said: “The sun riseth and goeth down, turneth toward the south and boweth to the north wind.”4 Supposing he had said: “The earth turns to the east, leaving behind it the setting sun; it bows to the two tropics, that of Cancer towards the south and of Capricorn towards the north.” Those listening to him would have stopped to ask: “What does this man mean by saying that the earth moves? What novelty is this?” They would have thought he was mad; and indeed, he would have been mad. To placate the anger of some impatient and painstaking Rabbi, I wonder whether it is possible to confirm what we are saying now by referring to the Scriptures themselves.
THEOPHILUS. Do these reverend gentlemen want Moses – when he said that amongst all the luminous bodies God had created two great ones, the sun and the moon – to have meant in absolute terms that all the others were smaller than the moon? Or do they consider him to have spoken according to a general perception, in the usual way of understanding and speaking of such things?5 Are there not many heavenly bodies greater than the moon? Or than the sun? What is lacking in the earth to make it a luminous body more beautiful and bigger than the moon, receiving in the expanses of its oceans and its other inland seas the magnificent splendour of the sun, so that it appears to other worlds called stars as a luminous body, just as they appear to us as so many flashing torches?
Undoubtedly, the fact that he fails to call the earth a luminous body, either great or small, while he refers in such terms to the sun and the moon, is well said in the circumstances; because he had to make himself understood according to common sentiments and words, and not make use of his knowledge and wisdom like a madman or a fool. To speak in terms of truth where it is not requisite to do so, and to wish that the foolish and ignorant multitude whose obedience he wishes to assure were able to understand such particulars, would be like wishing that the hand possessed an eye. But the hand has not been made by nature in order to see, but in order to do, in collaboration with sight. And so, although Moses understood the nature of spiritual substances, why should he have wished to talk about them, except in so far as some of them are close to the world of men and minister to them, becoming intermediaries? Even if he had known that the moon and other heavenly bodies, both visible and invisible, are essentially the same as this world of ours, or at least similar to it, do you really think that it was his duty as a legislator to present such conundrums to the people?6 What do obedience to our laws or the exercise of our virtues have to do with such things? So, when divine men speak of natural things on the basis of general assumptions, or according to received wisdom, they must not be taken as authorities on the subject. Rather they should be listened to when they speak objectively, in a context which has nothing to do with the vulgar herd. Those are the moments when the words of divine men should be heeded, as should the outpourings of poets. For then they speak words of superior wisdom, not taking as metaphor that which was not said metaphorically, nor, on the contrary, taking as truth that which was said as a similitude. But it is not easy for everybody to understand this distinction between metaphor and truth, or to know what it means.
If we should now wish to turn our attention to a contemplative book which is natural, moral, and divine, we will find such philosophy much favoured and favourable. I mean the Book of Job, which is one of the most remarkable that it is possible to find, full of good theology, natural and moral philosophy: a mine of wise speeches, which Moses has added to the books of his laws as if it were a sacrament. In that book, one of the characters, wishing to describe the providential power of God, says that “he maketh peace in his high places” – that is, among his sublime sons – which are the stars or the gods, some of which are made of fire, others of water (in the same way as we say that some are suns, others earths), and that they are in harmony with one another.7 For although they are of opposite natures, nevertheless every one of them lives, nourishes itself, and vegetates for or through another. Yet they never clash. Rather, they move around each other at fixed distances, so that the universe is separated into fire and water, which result from the two formal and active first principles, cold and heat.8 Those bodies that emit heat are the suns, which in themselves are glowing and hot. Those bodies that emit cold are earths, which, being also heterogeneous, are often called waters in so far as such bodies are rendered visible by their waters, or by the light of suns shining on their surfaces. So they deserve to be named according to the cause which makes them visible. Moses adheres to this doctrine when he calls the air “firmament,” in which all these bodies find their duration and their situation, and within whose space are divided and distinguished the inferior waters, which are those of our own globe, from the superior ones, which are those of other globes.9 In the same place, he says that the waters are divided from the waters. And if you consider carefully many passages of the divine Scriptures, you will find that the gods and ministers of the Almighty are called “waters,” “abysses,” “earths,” and “ardent flames.” What prevented Him from calling them “neutral, inalterable, immutable bodies,” “fifth essences,” “the densest parts of spheres,” “orbs,” “carbuncles,” and other such fantasies, which, being indifferent terms, the multitude would have fed on willingly?
SMITHUS. I too attribute great authority to the Book of Job and to Moses, and I have no difficulty in interpreting them in terms of their true opinions rather than in terms of metaphors or abstractions. The trouble is that a number of people parroting Aristotle, Plato, and Averroes, on the basis of whose philosophy they consider themselves theologians, claim that such meanings are really metaphorical. And so by the virtue of metaphors, they manage to make these passages assume whatever sense they like, being jealous partisans of the philosophy in which they were trained.10
THEOPHILUS. And just how constant these metaphors are can be judged by the fact that the same scriptures are in the hands of Jews, Christians, and Muslims: sects which are so different and contrary to each other that they give birth to others which are innumerable, conflicting, and even more different. Nevertheless they manage to discover in these metaphors whatever intentions they find congenial and pleasing. Not only are the meanings varied and different, but at times they are quite contrary; so that a “yes” becomes a “no,” and a “no” a “yes”: as, for example, in certain passages where they say that God is speaking ironically.
SMITHUS. I think we have criticized these people enough now. Certainly they care little if something is or is not metaphorical; so that they should easily be able to reconcile anything with our philosophy.
THEOPHILUS. There is no need to fear the criticism of honourable minds, of the truly religious, or – naturally – of virtuous people, who are friends of civil conversation and good doctrine. For once they have considered the matter carefully, they will find this philosophy of ours not only true, but also more favourable to the true religion than any other philosophy. I mean those people who posit a finite universe, the finite effect and influence of the divine power, or who think that the intelligences and divine natures are only eight or ten. Then there are those who believe the substance of things to be corruptible, or the soul mortal, as if it consisted in an accidental disposition, or effect of composition, its temper and harmony being subject to dissolution. Consequently they believe the action of divine justice in human affairs to be nil, and the details of particular things to be far removed from the first and universal cause. There are others who hold equally unreasonable beliefs. With these false ideas they blind the light of the intellect: furthermore, such carping and impious men dampen the vehemence of proper sentiments.11
SMITHUS. I am well satisfied with this information regarding the Nolan’s philosophy. – But now, I would like to return to his conversation with Dr Torquatus. For I am certain that the latter’s ignorance cannot outdo that of Nundinius as much as his arrogant and shameless presumption does.
FRULLA. Ignorance and arrogance are two inseparable sisters combined in one body and one soul.
THEOPHILUS. He assumed a grave expression, like the one in the description of the divum pater12 in the Metamorphoses, when Jupiter sits in the centre of the council of the gods, and thunders out that severe sentence on the profane Lycaon.13 Then, after gazing at his golden chain …
PRUDENTIUS. Torquem auream, aureum monile.14
THEOPHILUS. … and glancing at the Nolan’s chest – where he was more likely to find a button missing than anything else – and after he had drawn himself up, taken his arms off the table, shrugged his shoulders a little, puffed and pouted with his mouth several times, arranged his velvet cap properly on his head, turned up his moustaches, carefully composed his perfumed face, raised his eyebrows, enlarged his nostrils, settled himself with a glance on either side, and rested his left hand on his left side, he began to give vent to his feelings. He did this by placing the first three fingers of his right hand together and wagging them back and forth, while saying: “Tune ille philosophorum protoplastes …?”15 Fearing that the outcome might go beyond the terms of a debate, the Nolan interrupted what he was saying with these words: “Quo vadis domine, quo vadis? Quid si ego philosophorum protoplastes? quid si nec Aristoteli nec cuiquam magis concedam, quam mihi ipsi concesserint? ideo ne terra est centrum mundi inmobile?”16 With this and other similar words of persuasion, as patiently as he could, the Nolan tried to convince him to make some propositions which he could then argue demonstratively or probably, in favour of the other original philosophers and against this one. And turning round, half laughingly, towards the other guests, the Nolan said: “This man has not come here armed with reasons but with words and jokes, which are dying of hunger and cold.” All of them beseeched Torquatus to come to the point, so that he finally gave vent to these words: “Unde igitur stella Martis nunc maior, nunc vero minor apparet, si terra movetur?”17
SMITHUS. O what Arcadian ignorance! Is it possible that in rerum natura,18 with the title of philosopher and doctor …
FRULLA. And a doctor wearing a chain.
SMITHUS. … that he should arrive at such a conclusion? What was the Nolan’s reply?
THEOPHILUS. He was not at all disconcerted. He replied that one of the principal causes which makes Mars appear greater or less, from time to time, is the motion of the earth added to that of Mars itself, around their differing orbits. For this reason sometimes they are close together, and at others far apart.19
SMITHUS. What did Torquatus say to that?
THEOPHILUS. He suddenly asked about the relative motion of the planets with respect to the earth.
SMITHUS. And the Nolan was patient enough, in the face of someone so rude and presumptuous, not to turn away and leave the house, saying to the person who had invited him that …
THEOPHILUS. On the contrary, he replied that he had not gone there either to lecture or to teach, but rather to defend himself. He had no intention of arguing about the symmetry, order, and measurements of the movements of the heavenly bodies, which he accepted as such, according to the observations of the ancients and the moderns. He had no intention of arguing with the mathematicians over their measurements or their calculations, with which he was quite prepared to agree. His purpose was rather to question the nature and verify the causes of these movements. And the Nolan added: “If I take time to answer this question, we will be here all night without discussing and without considering the bases on which our objections to the common philosophy are founded. For both sides can accept all the hypotheses, and agree on them, in order that the quantity and quality of the movements are ascertained. In that case, why worry over something which is not the question being discussed? Try and see whether, from the known observations and the agreed calculations, you can reach any conclusion which refutes us: in that case, you will be free to advance your objections.”20
SMITHUS. It would have been sufficient to tell him to keep to the subject.
THEOPHILUS. But actually nobody in that company was so ignorant as not to express in their faces and gestures their awareness that this man was really an old ram aurati ordinis.21
FRULLA. Idest22 with a golden fleece.
THEOPHILUS. At that point, in order to confuse the issue, they asked the Nolan to explain what it was that he wanted to defend, so that the aforesaid Dr Torquatus could argue against him. The Nolan replied that he had already explained himself more than enough, and that if the arguments of his adversaries were thin, it was not for lack of material, as even a blind man could see. And so once again he repeated that the universe is infinite; that it consists of an immense, ethereal region; that it is really one sky called space, or a container, in which many stars are situated just like the earth, the moon, the sun, and other innumerable bodies which inhabit that ethereal region in the same way as the earth does. So there is no need to believe in another firmament, another basis or foundation on which to place these huge animated creatures which contribute to the constitution of the world. For they are the true subject and infinite matter of the infinite divine active power; and both ordered reason and speech agree on this, as well as divine revelation, which says that the ministers of the Almighty are innumerable, consisting of thousands upon thousands – and He is waited on by tens of hundreds and thousands.23 These are the great living creatures, many of them visible on all sides by means of the clear light which emanates from their bodies. Some of them are effectively hot, like the sun and other innumerable fiery bodies; while others are cold, like the earth or the moon, Venus, and other innumerable earths. In order to communicate with each other, and to share the vital principle, some of them orbit around the others within a certain space and at certain distances. This is clearly shown by these seven which move around the sun: one of them being the earth, which revolves from west to east in the space of 24 hours, giving rise to the apparent motion of the universe around it. This we call the mundane or daily motion.
Such apparent motion is quite false, unnatural, and impossible. On the contrary, it is possible, reasonable, true, and necessary that the earth revolves around its own centre in order to participate in light and shadow, day and night, heat and cold.
It moves around the sun in order to participate in spring, summer, autumn, and winter. For renewal over the centuries and changes over its surface, the earth moves around what are called its poles and its antipodes. This is necessary in order that there should be land where there was sea, cold where it was torrid, a tropical climate where there was an equinoctial one, and in all things incessant change. In the other stars, called by the ancient and true philosophers – not without reason – “worlds,” the same thing happens as on earth. Now, while the Nolan was saying this, Dr Torquatus was crying out: “Ad rem, ad rem, ad rem.”24 In the end the Nolan began to laugh, and said to him that it was not his intention to argue, or to answer back, but rather to put forward propositions; and so “Ista sunt res, res, res.”25 It was up to Torquatus now to say something ad rem.26
SMITHUS. The fact is that this ass thought that he was among oafs and dolts, who would accept this “ad rem”27 of his for an argument or a proof. He thought that a simple cry, and his gold chain, were enough to satisfy the masses.
THEOPHILUS. Listen to more of this. While everybody was waiting to hear that argument produced which they all desired, behold Dr Torquatus turning towards the dinner guests and drawing forth from the depths of his arrogance an Erasmian adage that got caught up in his moustache: “Anticiram navigat.”28
SMITHUS. An ass could not have spoken better, and anyone who keeps company with asses is unlikely to hear more than that.
THEOPHILUS. I think that he was prophesying, without understanding his own prophecy, that the Nolan was going to gather hellebore in order to heal the brains of these mad barbarians.
SMITHUS. If those present had been really polite rather than being just a little polite, they would have hung a rope around his neck in place of his chain. Then they would have inflicted forty blows on him with a cane to commemorate the first day of Lent.
THEOPHILUS. The Nolan said that Dr Torquatus was not mad, because he was wearing a chain: and that without a chain, Dr Torquatus would certainly not have been worth more than his clothes. Even these would be worth very little after a caning, if they were not well brushed.29 With these words, he rose from the table grumbling that Sir Fulke could have supplied better company.
FRULLA. These are the fruits of England; and nowadays, however well you search, you will find them all to be doctors in grammar. For in this happy land there reigns a constellation of pedantic and obstinate ignorance and arrogance, mixed with rustic incivility, which would try the patience of Job. If you do not believe me, go to Oxford and get someone to tell you what happened to the Nolan there, when he disputed publicly with those doctors of theology in the presence of the Polish Count Laski, and other English noblemen. Have them tell you how he answered their arguments, and how that poor doctor, whom they put forward on that solemn occasion as the star of the Academy, was floored by him fifteen times with fifteen syllogisms, like a chick in the chaff. Have them tell you how uncivil and rude that swine was, and how much patience and humanity was shown by his opponent, who behaved like a true Neapolitan, born and raised under a more gentle sky. Find out from them how they interrupted his public lectures, both those de immortalitate animae and those de quintuplici sphera.30
SMITHUS. Whoever casts pearls before swine should not complain when they are trodden under foot. Now continue with Torquatus’s arguments.
THEOPHILUS. Once everybody had risen from table, some of them started to accuse the Nolan of impatience, while really they should have been concerned with their own rudeness and incivility, and that of Torquatus. In any case, the Nolan, who likes to think that he surpasses in courtesy those who are easily able to surpass him in other things, sat down again; and, as if he had forgotten all about it, said in a friendly tone to Torquatus:
“My friend, do not think that I want or ever could be your enemy on account of your opinions. On the contrary, I am as much a friend to you as I am to myself. And for this reason I want you to know that before becoming convinced of my present opinion, of which I am now certain, a few years ago it only seemed to me true. When I was younger and less wise than now, I thought it was probable. When I was a beginner in speculation of this kind, I considered it so false that I was surprised by Aristotle, who not only deigned to take it into consideration but who even dedicated more than half of the second book of On the heavens and the earth to an attempt to demonstrate that the earth does not move. When I was a youngster still lacking in speculative intellect, I thought that such an idea was madness; and I was convinced that somebody had proposed it merely as a sophistical and captious question fit to exercise idle minds, such as those who like to dispute in play, and who claim to be able to prove that white is black. So I can no more hate you for this opinion than I could hate myself when I was younger, more callow, less wise and experienced.31 Instead of getting angry with you, I should really be sorry for you; and I pray to God that, as he gave me this understanding, even if it is not his pleasure to open your eyes, he will at least lead you to realize that you are blind. Perhaps this will serve to make you more civil and courteous, or at lest less ignorant and rash. You should really love me, if not for what I am at present – that is, more prudent and mature than you – at least for what I was when I was younger and more ignorant. For, in my more tender years, I was something like you in your old age. What I mean is, that although I myself have never been uncouth, rude, and uncivil in conversation and debate, there was nevertheless a time when I was ignorant like you. And so, as I respect your present because it corresponds to my past, and as you respect my past because it corresponds to your present, I shall love you, and you should refrain from hating me.”
SMITHUS. But as they had started to talk about quite another subject, what did they say to this?
THEOPHILUS. To conclude: that they were disciples of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and many other learned philosophers. To which the Nolan replied that there are innumerable fools, with no sense and much ignorance, who are followers not only of Aristotle and of Ptolemy, but of many others who are not able to understand what the Nolan is saying. For there never can and never will be many who agree with him, except for men whose wisdom is almost divine, like Pythagoras, Plato, and others. He added: “As for the multitude, which delights in having philosophers on its side, you should take into consideration that in so far as those philosophers speak with the voice of the common people, they have produced a common philosophy. And as far as you who gather under the flag of Aristotle are concerned, I warn you that you should not boast as if you really understood Aristotle, and had fully penetrated Aristotle’s thought; because there is a great difference between not knowing what he did not know, and knowing what he knew. For where that philosopher was ignorant, he has as his companions not only you but all those like you, as well as the boatmen and porters of London; and where that gentleman was wise and judicious, I believe, and am fully convinced, that all of you without exception are nowhere near his class. But there is one thing which really surprises me: and that is, that having been invited here to argue and dispute, you have not even proposed a thesis, or put forward reasons, which in any sense invalidate my position, or that of Copernicus; even though there are numerous valid arguments and reasons available.” Whereupon Torquatus, as if he meant now to unsheathe an incontestable proof, asked with august majesty: “Ubi est aux solis?”32 The Nolan replied that he could put the apogee of the sun wherever he wished, and reach his conclusions accordingly. Given that the apogee changes, and does not stay fixed in the same degree of the ecliptic, it was not clear why this question was being asked. Torquatus went on repeating it, as if the Nolan was short of a reply. So the Nolan replied: “Quot sunt sacramenta ecclesiae? Est circa vigesimum Cancri; et oppositum circa decimum vel centesimum Capricorni, or above the bell-tower of St Paul’s.”33
SMITHUS. Do you know why Torquatus asked this question?
THEOPHILUS. To show those who knew nothing that he was debating – that he had something to say – and also to see if by trying out as many quomodo, quare, ubi34 as possible he would eventually find one to which the Nolan would have no reply. Finally he got round to asking how many stars are of the fourth rank of magnitude; but the Nolan said that he only knew about the topic being discussed. The question about the apogee of the sun shows without any shadow of doubt that this person had no idea how to carry on a debate. When somebody claims that the earth moves around the sun, and that the sun is the star which lies in the middle of these wandering lights, it is absurd to ask that person where the apogee of the sun lies. It is like asking somebody who holds the traditional opinion where the apogee of the earth lies. And to think that the first lesson given to anyone wishing to learn how to dispute is to ask questions not according to his own principles, but according to those held by his adversary. But to this oaf it was all the same, because in that way he could argue his case both from the suppositions which were being debated and from those which were not.
When this discussion had ended, they started talking in English among themselves, and, after some time, suddenly paper and an ink-stand appeared on the table. Dr Torquatus smoothed out a sheet of paper to its full length and breadth, took the pen in his hand, drew a line through the middle of the sheet from side to side, made a circle in the middle with the above-mentioned line passing through its centre as its diameter, and inside the semicircle so formed wrote Earth, while inside the other semicircle he wrote Sun. On the side of the earth he made eight semicircles, where normally the signs of the seven planets are found, and around the last of these he wrote OCTAVA SPHAERA MOBILIS,35 and in the margin PTOLEMEUS. Meanwhile, the Nolan asked him what he was doing this for, as even schoolchildren knew that much? Torquatus replied: “Vide, tace et disce: ego docebo te Ptolomeum et Copernicum.”36
SMITHUS. Sus quandoque Minervum.37
THEOPHILUS. The Nolan observed that when someone writes out the alphabet, he shows bad judgment if he is trying to teach grammar to those who know more than him. Torquatus continued drawing. Around the sun in the middle, he formed seven semicircles with the same signs, writing around the last one SPHAERA INMOBILIS FIXARUM,38 and in the margin: COPERNICUS. Then he fixed his attention on the third circle, and in a point on its circumference placed the centre of an epicycle, and, after he had drawn its circumference, in that centre he depicted the globe of the earth.39 Then, so that nobody should make any mistake by thinking that it was not the earth, he wrote in fine handwriting: EARTH; and in a place on the circumference of the epicycle as far as possible from the centre, he drew the symbol of the moon. When the Nolan saw this, he said: “Now look here, this man is trying to teach me Copernicus by saying something which Copernicus himself never taught. He would rather have had his throat cut than say or write this. For even the greatest ass in the world understands that from that position one would always see the sun with the same diameter; and many other conclusions would follow which can never be the case.” “Tace, tace,” said Torquatus, “tu vis me docere Copernicum?”40 “I am not particularly interested in Copernicus,” said the Nolan, “and it does not interest me much if you or others understand him. However, I would like to warn you that before you try to teach me another time, you must study your subject better.” The gentlemen who were present were diligent enough at this point to have Copernicus’s book brought in, and, looking at the illustration, they saw that the earth is not described on the circumference of the epicycle as the moon is. That was why Torquatus had claimed that the point in the middle of the epicycle on the circumference of the third sphere stood for the earth.41 [Figure 7]
[Fig. 7 © The British Library Board, C.37.c.14.(2.) p. 98.]
SMITHUS. The reason for the mistake was that Torquatus had looked at the illustrations to that book without reading the chapters: or, at least, if he had read them, he had failed to understand them.
THEOPHILUS. The Nolan began to laugh. He said that that point was only the mark made by the foot of the compass during the drawing of the epicycle of the earth and the moon: the epicycle being the same for them both. “Now,” he said, “if you really want to know where the earth lies according to Copernicus, read his words.” They read, and found that he said “that the earth and the moon were contained as if by the same epicycle,” etc. And they went on murmuring in their language, until Nundinius and Torquatus took leave of the others and went away, ignoring the Nolan completely, so that he sent somebody after them with his greetings. The knights, with the most courteous greetings, went their own ways, but not without first entreating the Nolan not to be upset by the uncivilized and arrogant ignorance of those doctors. They hoped he would have pity on the poverty of this deprived and unlettered country, bereft particularly in the field of philosophy and a true mathematics. Such studies are totally uncultivated, allowing asses like these to come along claiming to be experts, and selling false goods for true.42 Together with the Nolan, we returned home very late, without experiencing the usual harassment, for the night was dark, and the horned and hoofed animals, who had retired to their rest in their pens and their stables, no longer molested us as they had on our coming.
PRUDENTIUS.
Nox erat et placidum carpebant fessa soporem
corpora per terras, sylvaque et saeva quierant
aequora, cum medio volvuntur sidera lapsu,
cum tacet omnis ager, pecudes, etc.43
SMITHUS. Come now, enough has been said today. Theophilus, I hope you will be good enough to return tomorrow, because I want to look more closely at some aspects of the Nolan’s doctrine. For Copernicus’s reasons, although they are useful for calculations, are not so valid and secure in the field of natural philosophy, which is the most important of all.
THEOPHILUS. I shall be glad to come back another time.
FRULLA. Me too.
PRUDENTIUS. Ego quoque. Valete.44
End of the Fourth Dialogue.
