ments. Still, the claims of Scripture and of ecclesiastical authority were asserted as paramount on all subjects; and it was obvious that many persons would be disquieted or offended, with the new interpretation of many scriptural expressions, which the true theory would make necessary. This evil Copernicus appears to have foreseen; and this and other causes long withheld him from publication. He was himself an ecclesiastic; and, perhaps by the patronage of his maternal uncle, was prebendary of the church of St. John at Thorn, and a canon of the church of Frawenburg, in the diocese of Ermeland. He was a student at Bologna, a professor of mathematics at Rome in the year 1500, and afterwards pursued his studies and observations at Fruemburg, at the mouth of the Vistula. His discovery of his system must have occurred before 1507, for in 1543 he informs Pope Paulus the Third, in his dedication, that he had kept his book by him for four times the nine years recommended by Horace, and then only published it at the earnest entreaty of his friend Cardinal Schomberg, whose letter is prefixed to the work. "Though I know," he says, "that the thoughts of a philosopher do not depend on the judgment of the many, his study being to seek out truth in all things as far as that is permitted by God to human reason yet when I considered," he adds, "how 6 Rheticus, Nar. p. 94. 7 Riccioli. absurd my doctrine would appear, I long hesitated whether I should publish my book, or whether it were not better to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and others, who delivered their doctrines only by tradition and to friends." It will be observed that he speaks here of the opposition of the established school of Astronomers, not of Divines. The latter, indeed, he appears to consider as a less formidable danger. "If perchance," he says at the end of his preface, "there be uaTaιλóyo, vain babblers, who knowing nothing of mathematics, yet assume the right of judging on account of some place of Scripture perversely wrested to their purpose, and who blame and attack my undertaking; I heed them not, and look upon their judgments as rash and contemptible." He then goes on to show that the globular figure of the earth (which was, of course, at that time, an undisputed point among astronomers,) had been opposed on similar grounds by Lactantius, who, though a writer of credit in other respects, had spoken very childishly in that matter. In another epistle prefixed to the work (apparently from another hand, and asserted by Keplers to be by Andreas Osiander), the reader is reminded that the hypotheses of astronomers are not necessarily asserted to be true, by those who propose them, but only to be a way of representing facts. We may ob See the motto to Kepler's De Stella Martis. serve that, in the time of Copernicus, when the motion of the earth had not been connected with the physical laws of matter and motion, it could not be considered so distinctly real as it necessarily was held to be in after times. The delay of the publication of Copernicus's work brought it to the end of his life: he died in the year 1543, in which it was published. His system was, however, to a certain extent, promulgated, and his fame diffused before that time. Cardinal Schomberg, in his letter of 1536, which has been already mentioned says, "Some years ago, when I heard tidings of your merit by the constant report of all persons, my affection for you was augmented, and I congratulated the men of our time, among whom you flourish in so much honour. For I had understood that you were not only acquainted with the discoveries of ancient mathematicians, but also had formed a new system of the world, in which you teach that the earth moves, the sun occupies the lowest, and consequently, the middle place, the sphere of the fixed stars remains immoveable and fixed." He then proceeds to entreat him earnestly to publish his work. The book appears to have been written in 15399, and is stated to have been sent in 1540 by Achilles P. Gessarus of Feldkirch to Dr. Vogelinus of Constance, as a Palingenesia, or New Birth of Astronomy. At the end of the De Revolutioni 66 bus is the Narratio of Rheticus, already quoted. Rheticus, it appears, went to Copernicus for the purpose of studying his theory, and speaks of his Preceptor" with strong admiration, as we have seen. "He appears to me," says he, "more to resemble Ptolemy than any other astronomer." This, it must be recollected, was selecting the highest known subject of comparison. CHAPTER III. SEQUEL TO COPERNICUS. THE RECEPTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY. Sect. 1.-First Reception of the Copernican Theory. HE theories of Copernicus made their way THE among astronomers, in the manner in which true astronomical 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 the 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, DD VOL. I. 66 |