8
Quoted by Ernst Zinner, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Copernicanischen Lehre ( Erlangen, 1943), p. 49.
9
Loc. cit.
10
Op. cit., p. 52 f.
11
Ibid., p. 50.
12
Loc. cit.
13
De facie orbe lunae, ch. 6, quoted by Heath, op. cit., p. 169.
14
The Ionian philosophers had been suspected of atheism and brought astronomy into somewhat ill repute; but that had been centuries before, and even then they had not come to harm. Plutarch reports in the Life of Nicias, the sixthcentury Greek general, that he was afraid of eclipses, that the people were equally superstitious, and that "in those days there was no tolerance for the natural philosophers or 'babblers about things in heaven' as they were called. They were charged with explaining away the divine and substituting for it irrational causes, blind forces, and the sway of necessity. So Protagoras was banished, Anaxagoras was gaoled and it was all that Pericles could do to get him out; and Socrates, though he had nothing to do at all in the matter, was put to death for being a philosopher. It was only much later, through the brilliant repute of Plato, that the reproach was removed from astronomical studies and access to them opened up for all. This was on account of the respect in which his life was held and because he made natural laws subordinate to the authority of divine principles." (Quoted by Farrington, op. cit., p. 98 f.).
Now neither Socrates, nor Protagoras, had anything to do with astronomy, and the only instance of persecution throughout antiquity is the imprisonment of Anaxagoras, in the sixth century B.C., though, according to another source, he was merely fined and temporarily exiled; he died at seventy-two.
In the light of this one can hardly agree with Duhem's comment:
"The obstacles by which, in the seventeenth century, the Protestant, and later the Catholic church, obstructed the progress of the Copernican doctrine, can only convey to us a feeble idea of the charges of impiety incurred, in pagan antiquity, by the mortal who dared to shake the perpetual immobility of the Hearth of the Divinity (sic), and to put those incorruptible and divine beings, the stars, on the same footing as the earth, humble domain of generation and decay" (op. cit., I, p. 425).
The only support for this statement is again Plutarch's anecdotical remark about Cleanthes. It should be noted that in Duhem's version Aristotle's metaphysics is treated as if it had become the pagan equivalent of Christian dogma; at the same time Aristotle himself becomes a heretic, for he, too, had laid hands on "the Hearth of Divinity". The reasons for this slip-up, and for the inflated importance given to the Cleanthes story, become evident when Duhem proceeds to quote with approval Paul Tannery (whose religious convictions he shares), to the effect that though Galileo was mistakenly condemned by the Inquisition, "he would probably have incurred much more serious dangers if he had to fight against the star-worshipping superstitions of antiquity." Owing to Duhem's authority, the Cleanthes legend has found its way into most of the popular histories of science (as a twin to the equally apocryphal "eppur si muove"); and is quoted in support of the view (which was certainly not Duhem's intention) that an innate and irreconcilable hostility always existed, and must always exist, between religion, in any form, and science. A notable exception is Dreyer (cf. op. cit., p. 148), who comments simply that in Aristarchus' days "the time was long past when a philosopher might be judicially called to account for proposing startling astronomical theories", and that "the accusation of 'impiety', if it was really brought forward, can hardly have done the theory much harm."
15
One other attempted explanation must be briefly discussed. Dreyer sees the reason for the abandonment of the heliocentric system in the rise of observational astronomy in Alexandria. Aristarchus could explain the retrograde motions of the planets and their change of brilliancy, but not the anomalies arising from the ellipticity of their orbits; and "the hopelessness of trying to account for them by the beautifully simple idea of Aristarchus must have given the death blow to his system" (p. 148). Duhem's explanation is the same (pp. 425-6). But this seems rather to beg the question, for the so-called "second anomaly" could just as well be saved by epicycles in the heliocentric as in the geocentric system; and this is indeed what Copernicus did. In other words, either system could serve as a starting point for building a "Ferris wheel"; but with Aristarchus as a starting point the task would have been incomparably simpler, because the "first anomaly" was already eliminated. On second thoughts, Dreyer seems to have realized this, for he subsequently (p. 201 f.) says:
"To the modern mind, accustomed to the heliocentric idea, it is difficult to understand why it did not occur to a mathematician like Ptolemy to deprive all the outer planets of their epicycles, which were nothing but reproductions of the earth's annual orbit transferred to each of these planets, and also to deprive Mercury and Venus of their deferents and place the centres of their epicycles in the sun, as Herakleides had done. It is in fact possible to reproduce Ptolemy's values of the ratio of the radii of epicycle and deferent from the semi-axis major of each planet expressed in units of that of the earth... Obviously the heliocentric idea of Aristarchus might just as well have sprung out of the epicyclic theory as from that of movable eccentrics..."
He further points out that the Ptolemaic system failed to save the phenomena even more drastically than the Aristarchian in the case of the moon, whose apparent diameter ought to vary, according to Ptolemy, to an extent contradicted by the simplest observation (p. 201).
16
Almagest III, ch. 2., quoted by Duhem, p. 487.
17
Ibid., II, quoted by Zinner, p. 35.
18
In a later and shorter work, Hypotheses concerning the Planets, Ptolemy made a half-hearted attempt to give his system a semblance of physical reality by representing each epicycle by a sphere or disk, gliding between a convex and a concave spherical surface, ball-bearing fashion. But the attempt defeated itself. Cf. Duhem, II, pp. 86-99.
19
Quoted by Dreyer, p. 168.
20
Alwagest, I.
21
Cf. Zinner, op. cit., p. 48.
22
Joh. Kepler. Letter to D. Fabricius, 4.7.1603, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. XIV, p. 409seq.
23
Quoted by R. H. Wilenski, Modern French Painters ( London, 1940), p. 202.
24
Ibid., p. 221.
PART TWO DARK INTERLUDE
Part II Chapter I. THE RECTANGULAR UNIVERSE
1
Edmund Whittaker, Space and Spirit ( London, 1946), p. 11.
2
The Confessions of St. Augustine, transl. F. J. Sheed ( London, 1944), p. 111.
3
Ibid., p. 113.
4
Ibid., p. v f.
5
Dr. Th. A. Lacey on "Augustine", Ency. Brit. II-685c.
6
Ibid., II-684a.
7
Christopher Dawson, quoted in Preface to The Confessions, p. v.
8
The City of God, quoted by Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p. 381
9
Ibid., VII, 5.
10
Whittaker, op. cit., p. 12.
11
The Confessions, p. 197 f.
12
Quoted by Russell, op. cit., p. 362.
13
Dreyer op. cit., p. 210.
14
Ibid., p. 211.
15
Ibid.,p. 213.
16
Ibid., p. 212; Duhem II p. 488 f.
17
Dreyer, p. 211.
Part II Chapter II. THE WALLED-IN UNIVERSE
1
Comment in Somnium Scipionis, I, 14, 15. Quoted by A. O. Lovejoy , The Great Chain of Being ( Cambridge, Mass., 1936), p. 63.
2
The Primum Mobile no longer was an unmove
d mover, since Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes. Its task was now to account for that motion, whose slowness – one revolution in 26,000 years – was explained by its desire to share in the perfect rest of the adjoining tenth sphere, the Empyrean.
3
Dante, Convito, ii. 6; quoted by Dreyer, p. 237.
4
De animalibus historia viii, i, 588b; quoted by Lovejoy, op. cit., p. 56.
5
Summa contra gentiles, II, 68.
6
Lovejoy, op. cit., 102.
7
Essays, II, 2.
8
The Faerie Queene.
9
An Essay on Man.
10
History of the World, quoted by E. M. W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture ( London, 1943), p. 9.
11
Olivier de la Marche, L'Etat de la Maison du Duc Charles de Bourgogne, quoted by J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages ( London, 1955), p. 42 f.
12
H. Zinsser, Rats, Lice and History ( 1937), quoted by Popper, II, p. 23.
13
Troilus and Cressida.
14
Cf. Duhem, op. cit., III, pp. 47-52.
15
There exist, i.a., two manuscripts written in the name of the Venerable Bede, but clearly long after his death, expounding the Herakleidian system. The first is known as the "Pseudo-Bede" and dates from the ninth century or later; the second is now attributed to William of Conches, a Norman, who lived in the twelfth century. Cf. Dreyer, pp. 227-30; Duhem III, p. 76seq.
16
Duhem III, p. 110.
17
The earliest preserved Portolano maps date from the thirteenth century, but show a long-established tradition, whereas the circular Hereford map (c. 1280), and the "T and O" maps of the fifteenth century show that "theoretical" and "practical" maps of the world must have overlapped for several centuries.
18
Huizinga, op. cit., p. 68.
19
Ibid., pp. 45, 50.
Part II Chapter III. THE UNIVERSE OF THE SCHOOLMEN
1
The Categories and the De Interpretatione.
2
Whitehead, Science and the Modern World ( Cambridge, 1953), p. 15.
3
De Caelo; De Generatione et Corruptione, quoted by Whittaker , op. cit., p. 27.
4
There were of course notable exceptions: Bacon, the Franciscan school, and the Parisian school of the fourteenth century. But the anti-Aristotelian physics of Ockham, Buridan and Oresme bore no immediate fruit; Copernicus and Kepler, for instance, knew nothing of their revolutionary theory of impetus (though Leonardo did); and their triumph over Aristotle came only three centuries later, through Galileo – who never acknowledged his indebtedness to them.
5
Because a thing cannot be both in act and in potency at the same time and in the same respect. But "potency" and "act", as applied to a moving body, are meaningless terms.
For a simple exposition of the Aristotelian-Ockhamist controversy on motion see Whittaker, op. cit., appendix.
6
H. Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science ( London, 1949), p. 14.
7
See above note 4. But even in antiquity, this blindness was not a total one. Thus Plutarch argues in On the Face of the Moon that the moon is of earthy, solid stuff, and that in spite of its weight it does not fall down on the earth, because:
"...The moon has a security against falling in her very motion and the swing of her revolution, just as objects put in slings are prevented from falling by the circular whirl; for everything is carried along by the motion natural to it if it is not deflected by anything else. Thus the moon is not carried down by her weight because her natural tendency is frustrated by the revolution." ( Heath, op. cit., p. 170; my italics.)
The translation is by Heath, who comments: "This is practically Newton's first Law of Motion." ( Heath, op. cit., p. 170.) It is curious that this passage has aroused so little comment. The context makes it clear that Plutarch did not hit on the idea of momentum by a lucky chance, but that he had the "feel" of it, as it were. So, of course, had every spear-thrower (and his victim).
8
Butterfield, op. cit., p. 7.
9
Morias Enkognion, Basilieae, 1780, p. 218seq.
10
Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion ( London, 1935), p. 144.
11
Science and the Modern World, p. 7.
PART THREE
THE TIMID CANON COPERNICUS
1
The standard biography of Copernicus is still Leopold Prowe's Nicolaus Copernicus ( Berlin, 1883-4).
The most important recent work about the Copernican theory, its origins and repercussions, is Ernst Zinner Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Coppernicanischen Lehrehung und Ausbreitung der Coppernicanischen Lehre (Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-medizinischen Sozietaet zu Erlangen, 74 Band, Erlangen, 1943).
Concise summaries of the Copernican system are given in Angus Armitage Copernicus the Founder of Modern Astronomy ( London, 1938), and in Dreyer op. cit.
Prowe's work was published in two volumes, the first consisting of two parts separately numbered. References to Volume I are accordingly marked Prowe I, 1 and I, 2. The first volume contains the biography, the second, documents in Latin, Greek and medieval German. All references to Prowe Vol. II refer to the Latin originals.
Part III Chapter I. THE LIFE OF COPERNICUS
1
The surname is variously spelt in documents as Coppernic, Koppernieck, Koppernik, Koppernigk, Kopperlingk, Cupernick, and Kupernick. The most usual is Koppernigk (the spelling which Prowe also adopted). He himself signed his name on different occasions as Copernic, Coppernig, Coppernik, Copphernic, and in later years mostly Copernicus.
2
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, Libri VI ( Nuremberg, 1543). In the text the work will be referred to either as Book of the Revolutions, or Revolutions for short.
3
De Revolutionibus, Lib. V, Cap. 30.
4
Ibid., Lib. IV, Cap. 7.
5
Wagner's Staats Lexikon ( 1862) Vol. II, describes Frauenburg "as a small town on the Vistula".
5a
Prowe I, 2, p. 4 n.
6
There is only one other case known of a similar geographical displacement of Frauenburg by one of its citizens: Tiedemann Giese in 1536 dated a letter to Erasmus of Rotterdam "From the shores of the Vistula" – and Canon Giese was Canon Koppernigk's closest friend. Cf. Prowe I, 2, p. 4.
7
Rheticus, Ephemerides novae ( Leipzig, 1550), p. 6, quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 58.
8
Prowe I, 2, p. 314.
9
Prowe I, 1, p. 111.
10
Thus, for instance, in 1943, the "Copernicus Quatercentenary Celebration Committee, London" published a monograph Nicolas Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) by Dr. Jozef Rudnicki, which, in describing Copernicus' studies in Italy, omits the fact that he appears on the register of the German natio in Bologna and then says about Copernicus' next university, Padua: "... the Polish 'nation' was one of the largest in the university. There, according to the historian of Padua, N. C. Papadopoli, ' Copernicus devoted himself to the study of philosophy and medicine for four years, as is known from the entries in the register of Polish students.'"
Now Copernicus would have been quite capable of joining the German natio in Bologna and the Polish natio in Padua, but the fact is that documentary evidence exists for the former, but none for the latter, and that the Papadopoli quoted as a source has been exposed as a fraud by his Italian compatriots who had no stake in the PolishGerman dispute. (Cf. Prowe I, 1, p. 297.) The feud is also waged in the field of spelling; thus Rudnicki turns the Tyrolean Georg Joachim yon Lauchen into a Slav, by translating his Latin nom de plume Rheticus into Rety
k (p. 9). It must be noted, though, that the booklet was written during the war. See also notes 28 and 89.
11
Carlo Malagola, Della Vita e delle Opere di Antonio Urceo detto Codro ( Bologna, 1878).
12
Rheticus, Narratio Prima, transl. Edward Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises ( Columbia, 1939), p. 111.
13
Prowe I, 1, p. 266.
14
Prowe I, 1, p. 89.
15
Zach Monatliche Korrespondenz, Vol. II, p. 285, quoted by Prowe loc. cit.
16
ProweI, 2, p. 313.
17
Prowe I, 1, p. 359
18
See note 33.
19
Ency. Brit. XX-696d.
20
Bernhardy, Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur, I, p. 583, quoted by Prowe I, 1, p. 393.
21
Prowe II, pp. 124-7, which also contain the Greek original.
22
Prowe II, p. 51.
23
Ency. Brit. IX-732b, 13th edition, 1926. (All other references are to the 1955 edition.)
24
Quoted by Prowe I, 1, p. 402.
25
H. R. Trevor-Roper, Desiderius Erasmus (Encounter, London, May 1955).
26
See below note 20 to ch. II.
27
Known as the Letter against Werner. See p. 200.
28
The treatise was originally written in German and submitred to the Prussian Diet of 1522, then rewritten in Latin for the Landtag of 1528. Its aim was to remedy the debasement of the Prussian coinage (which had been aggravated by the war), by means of state monopolies in the minting of coins, the control of the amount of coins in circulation and of the quantity of base metal in the alloy. It is sometimes claimed that Copernicus anticipated Gresham's Law that "bad money drives out good"; in fact the principle seems to have been first enunciated two centuries earlier by Nicolas of Oresme, whose economic teachings formed the basis of the monetary reform of Charles V.
Both versions of Copernicus' treatise are printed in Prowe II, pp. 21-29, and analyzed in Prowe I, 1, pp. 139-152 and 193-201.
It is amazing to note that even this subject has been dragged into the Polish-German controversy. Thus Rudnicki (op. cit., p. 24), in spite of Prowe's exhaustive treatment of the matter, flatly states, "it is noteworthy that the Germans pass over Copernicus' economic treatises in silence", and considers the treatise as further proof that Copernicus' "outlook is Polish to the core" (p. 26) because he suggested that the new coins of Polish Prussia should bear as crest the royal crown of Poland; but he omits to mention the fact that the treatise itself was written in German.