Saturn and Jupiter are the greatest planets and with the sphere of the fixed stars move more slowly; (4) Mars belongs with the sun because of their related movements; and (5) because it is likely that one of the planets would have much in common both with Saturn and Jupiter and with Mercury and Venus also.[332] [Footnote 330: _Cath. Ency._: "Riccioli," and Walsh: Catholic Churchmen in Science: 200. (2nd series, 1909.)] [Footnote 331: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.] [Footnote 332: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 288-289; see frontispiece.] Then he takes up the attack upon the Copernican doctrine. M. Delambre summarizes and comments upon 57 of his arguments against it,[333] and Riccioli himself claims[334] to have stated "40 new arguments in behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him." But these sound somewhat familiar to the reader of anti-Copernican literature: as, for instance, "which is more natural, straight or circular movement?" Or, the Copernican argument that movement is easier if the object moved is smaller involves a matter of Faith since it implies a question of God's power; for to God all is alike, there is no hard nor easy.[335] Although diurnal movement is useful to the earth alone and so, according to the Copernicans, the earth should have the labor of it, Riccioli argues that everything was created for man; let the stars revolve around him. The sun may be nobler than the earth, but man is nobler than the sun.[336] If the earth's movement were admitted, Ptolemy's defense would be broken down through the elimination of the epicycles of the superior planets: here, if ever, the Copernicans appear to score, as Riccioli himself admits,[337] but he calls to his aid Tycho Brahe and the Bible. "To invoke such aids is to avow his defeat" is M. Delambre's comment at this point.[338] There are many more arguments, of which the foregoing are but instances chosen more or less at random; but no one of them is of especial weight or novelty. [Footnote 333: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 674-680.] [Footnote 334: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 2.] [Footnote 335: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 313, 315.] [Footnote 336: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 330-351.] [Footnote 337: Ibid: II, 339-340.] [Footnote 338: Delambre: _Op. cit._: I, 677.] To strengthen his case, Riccioli listed the supporters of the heliocentric doctrine throughout the ages, with those of the opposite view. If a man's fame adds to the weight of his opinion, the modern reader will be inclined to think the Copernicans have the best of it, for omitting the ancients, most of those opposing it are obscure men.[339] [Footnote 339: Ibid: I, 673.] In favor of the Copernican doctrine [references omitted].[340]