Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

SEQUEL TO COPERNICUS. THE RECEPTION AND DEVELOPEMENT OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY.

Sect. 1.-First Reception of the Copernican Theory. THE theories of Copernicus made their way among astronomers, in the manner in which true theories always obtain the assent of competent judges. They led to the construction of tables of the motion of the sun, moon, and planets, as the theories of Hipparchus and Ptolemy had done; and the verification of these doctrines was to be looked for, from the agreement of these tables with observation, through a sufficient course of time. The work "De Revolutionibus" contains such tables. In 1551 Reinhold improved and republished tables founded on the principles of Copernicus. "We owe," he says in his preface, "great obligations to Copernicus, both for his laborious observations, and for restoring the doctrine of the Motions. But though his geometry is perfect, the good old man appears to have been, at times, careless in his numerical calculations. I have, therefore, recalculated the whole, from a comparison of his observations with those of Ptolemy and others, following nothing but the general plan of Coperni

cus's demonstrations." These Prutenic tables were republished in 1571 and 1585, and continued in repute for some time; till súperseded by the Rudolphine tables of Kepler in 1627. The name Prutenic, or Prussian, may be considered as a tribute to the fame of Copernicus, for it shows that his'discoveries had inspired his countrymen with the ambition of claiming a place in the literary community of Europe. In something of the same spirit, Rheticus wrote an "Encomium Borussiæ," which was published along with his "Narratio."

The tables founded upon the Copernican system were, at first, much more generally adopted than the heliocentric doctrine on which they were founded. Thus Magin published at Venice, in 1587, " New Theories of the Celestial Orbits, agreeing with the Observations of Nicholas Copernicus." But in the preface, after praising Copernicus, he says, "Since, however, he, either for the sake of showing his talents, or induced by his own reasons, has revived the opinion of Nicetas, Aristarchus, and others, concerning the motion of the earth, and has disturbed the established constitution of the world, which was a reason why many rejected, or received with dislike, his hypotheses, I have thought it worth while, that, rejecting the suppositions of Copernicus, I should accommodate other causes to his observations, and to the Prutenic tables."

This doctrine, however, was, as we have shown, received with favour by many persons, even before

"Thus,"

its general publication. We have already seen the enthusiasm with which Rheticus, who was his pupil in the latter years of his life, speaks of him. says he, "God has given to my excellent preceptor a reign without end; which may he vouchsafe to guide, govern, and increase, to the restoration of astronomical truth. Amen."

Of the immediate converts of the Copernican system, who adopted it before the controversy on the subject had attracted attention, I shall only add Mæstlin, and his pupil, Kepler. Mæstlin published in 1588 an "Epitome Astronomiæ," in which the immobility of the earth is asserted; but in 1596 he edited Kepler's "Mysterium Cosmographicum," and the "Narratio" of Rheticus; and in an epistle of his own, which he inserts, he defends the Copernican system by those physical reasonings which we shall shortly have to mention, as the usual arguments in this dispute. Kepler himself, in the outset of the work just named, says, "When I was at Tübingen, attending to Michael Mæstlin, being disturbed by the manifold inconveniences of the usual opinion concerning the world, I was so delighted with Copernicus, of whom he made great mention in his lectures, that I not only defended his opinions in our disputations of the candidates, but wrote a thesis concerning the First Motion which is produced by the revolution of the earth." This must have been in 1590.

The differences of opinion respecting the Coperni

This con

can system, of which we thus see traces, led to a
controversy of some length and extent.
troversy turned principally upon physical considera-
tions, which were much more distinctly dealt with
by Kepler, and others of the followers of Copernicus,
than they had been by the discoverer himself. I
shall, therefore, give a separate consideration to this
part of the subject. It may be proper, however, in
the first place, to make a few observations on the
progress of the doctrine, independently of these phy-
sical speculations.

Sect. 2.-Diffusion of the Copernican Theory.

THE diffusion of the Copernican opinions in the world did not take place rapidly at first. Indeed, it was necessarily some time before the progress of observation, and of theoretical mechanics, gave the heliocentric doctrine that superiority in argument, which now makes us wonder that men should have hesitated when it was presented to them. Yet there were some speculators of this kind, who were attracted at once by the enlarged views of the universe which it opened to them. Among these was the + unfortunate Giordano Bruno of Nola, who was burnt

as a heretic at Rome in 1600. The heresies which led to his unhappy fate were, however, not his astronomical opinions, but a work which he published in England, and dedicated to Sir Philip Sydney, under the title of " Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante,"

and which is understood to contain a bitter satire of the Catholic religion and the papal government. Montucla conceives that, by his rashness in visiting Italy after putting forth such a work, he compelled the government to act against him. Bruno embraced the Copernican opinions at an early period, and connected with them the belief in innumerable worlds besides that which we inhabit; as also certain metaphysical or theological doctrines, which he called the Nolan philosophy. In 1591 he published "De innumerabilibus Mundis et infigurabili, seu de Universo et Mundis," in which he maintains that each star is a sun, about which revolve planets like our earth; but this opinion is mixed up with a large mass of baseless verbal speculations.

Giordano Bruno is a disciple of Copernicus on whom we may look with peculiar interest, since he probably had a considerable share in introducing the new opinions into England'. He visited this country in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and speaks of her and of her councillors in terms of praise, which appear to show that his book was intended for English readers; though he describes the mob which was usually to be met with in the streets of London, with expressions of great disgust: "Una plebe la quale in essere irrespettevole, incivile, rozza, rustica, selvatica, et male allevata, non cede ad altra che

1 See Burton's Anat. Mel., Pref. paradox of the earth's motion," &c.

VOL. I.

"Some prodigious tenet or "Bruno," &c.

2 C

« PreviousContinue »