Copernicus Rheticus Mæstlin Kepler Rothman Galileo Gilbert (diurnal motion) Foscarini Didacus Stunica (_sic_) Ismael Bullialdus Jacob Lansberg Peter Herigonus Gassendi,--"but submits his intellect captive to the Church decrees." Descartes "inclines to this belief." A.L. Politianus Bruno Against the hypothesis of the earth's movement. Aristotle Ptolemy Theon the Alexandrine Regiomontanus Alfraganus Macrobius Cleomedes Petrus Aliacensis George Buchanan Maurolycus Clavius Barocius Michael Neander Telesius Martinengus Justus-Lipsius Scheiner Tycho Tasso Scipio Claramontius Michael Incofer Fromundus Jacob Ascarisius Julius Cæsar La Galla Tanner Bartholomæus Amicus Antonio Rocce Marinus Mersennius Polacco Kircher Spinella Pineda Lorinis Mastrius Bellutris Poncius Delphinus Elephantutius [Footnote 340: Riccioli: _Alm. Nov._: II, 290.] Riccioli nevertheless viewed the Copernican system with much sympathy. After a full statement of it, he comments: "We have not yet exhausted the full profundities of the Copernican hypothesis, for the deeper one digs into it, the more ingenious and valuable subtilties may one unearth." Then he adds that "the greatness of Copernicus has never been sufficiently appreciated nor will it be,--that man who accomplished what no astronomer before him had scarcely been able even to suggest without an insane machinery of spheres, for by a triple motion of the earth he abolished epicycles and eccentrics. What before so many Atlases could not support, this one Hercules has dared to carry. Would that he had kept himself within the limits of his hypothesis!"[341] [Footnote 341: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 304, 309.] His conclusions seem to show that only his position as a Jesuit restrained him from being a Copernican himself.[342] "I. If the celestial phenomena alone are considered, they are equally well explained by the two hypotheses [Ptolemaic and Copernican]. II. The physical evidence as explained in the two systems with exception of percussion and the speed of bodies driven north or south, and east or west, is all for immobility. III. One might waver indifferently between the two hypotheses aside from the witness of the Scriptures, which settles the question. IV. There are in addition plenty of other motives besides Scriptural ones for rejecting this system." (!) But with the Scriptural evidence he adduces the decree of the Index under Paul V against the doctrine, and the sentence of Galileo, so that "the sole possible conclusion is that the earth stands by nature immobile in the center of the universe, and the sun moves around it with both a diurnal and an annual motion."[343] [Footnote 342: Delambre: _Astr. Mod._: I, 680.] [Footnote 343: Riccioli: _Op. cit._: II, 478 (condensed), 500.]