Descartes: A Biography

P: PHU
c CUNYB/Clarke     December, :

Death in Sweden 

Condemnation by Rome

In, exactly thirty years after he had suppressed publication ofThe

World, Descartes was accorded the dubious accolade that he had success-

fully evaded during his lifetime. He thereby joined those whom he had ear-

lier described as ‘innovators’, including Bruno, Campanella, Vanini, and

Galileo. During his life, he had not only withheldThe Worldfrom publi-

cation but he had also officially denied the motion of the Earth. Given the

theory of vortices defended inThe Principles of Philosophy, Baillet thought

that this denial of the Earth’s motion might look like dissimulation to

later generations, had Descartes not taken the trouble to anticipate sus-

picions and to clarify his intentions.However, Descartes had explained

his apparently persuasive resolution of this dilemma in reasonably clear

terms in a letter in.

As regards Rome’s censure concerning the Earth’s movement, I see no likelihood of

that because I very explicitly deny such a movement. I accept that, initially, I might

seem to deny only the word ‘movement’ in order to avoid censure since I retain the

Copernican system. But once my reasons are examined, I am confident that they will

be found to be serious and solid, and that they will show clearly that it is more necessary

to say that the Earth moves, if one adopts the system of Tycho, than if one accepts the

Copernican system when it is explained as I explain it. If one cannot adopt either of

those two systems, it would be necessary to go back to that of Ptolemy. I do not think

that the Church ever requires us to do that, since that system is manifestly contrary

to experience. All the scriptural passages that are contrary to the Earth’s motion have

nothing to do with astronomy; they concern only a manner of speaking. Thus, since I

prove that, if one speaks accurately, one must say that the Earth does not move when

oneadopts the astronomical system that I explain, I comply fully with those scriptural

passages.

This had been Descartes’ defence against incurring a censure from Rome

since. During the following seventeen years, he carefully avoided

endorsing the Copernican system without the qualifications just men-

tioned. Thus, if the Bible suggests that the Earth does not move, such

texts should be understood as meaning that, when described from the

perspective of people who live on the Earth, it does not move in relation to

its immediate environment. However, the Bible was not intended to teach

astronomy. If we have reason to believe that the Earth does move (in some

technical sense of the term ‘move’ that is defined by natural philosophers),

the traditional interpretation of the Bible (expressed in the language of