Interpretation of Copernicus in the 16th Century - Research Paper Example

of the May 20, Interpretation of Copernicus in the 16th Century The drastic changes in arts and sciences that occurred in the Renaissance period had outstanding consequences for the further development of Western civilization. The overturning of traditional views on nature led to the emergence of modern scientific outlook that was perhaps best portended in the work of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), a prominent representative of the Renaissance astronomy that for the first time laid a solid mathematic base for heliocentric cosmology. This essay will deal with the interpretations of Copernican cosmology among his contemporaries, with special attention being paid to views on Copernican theory exhibited by leading theologians of the epoch, both Catholic and Protestant. In addition, an account of interpretations of Copernicus in non-European historical environment will be presented, with Ottoman Empire serving as a case study. It will be argued that the dominant interpretations of Copernican astronomy in the 16th century were far from overwhelmingly hostile, as might be inferred from the treatment of Giordano Bruno and later Galileo Galilei, and that established ecclesiastical authorities in most cases lacked a coherent policy towards Copernicans until the 17th century. THE EARLY LUTHERAN RESPONSE TO THE COPERNICAN THEORY. MELANCHTHON, RHETICUS AND THE WITTENBERG INTERPRETATION Although the notion of existential hostility of Lutheran thinkers towards Copernican astronomy, presented by White in his famous account of Luther’s alleged derisory remark on Copernicus (White 1:126-7), is widespread, it seems that such a conclusion would be premature. While Kuhn asserts that Luther and Melanchthon viewed Copernican theory as contravening the Scripture and constituting near blasphemy (Kuhn 191), Barker and Westman strongly oppose such a view, instead suggesting that the attitude of Lutherans to Copernicanism was more nuanced (Barker; Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches”). First of all, it is significant that the presentation of Copernican heliocentric theory itself was conducted not by Copernicus himself, but by Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574), a young mathematician from the University of Wittenberg, which was the spiritual centre of Lutheran current in the Reformation (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 81). In fact, Rheticus was entrusted by Copernicus with publishing Narratio Prima, the draft version of the Copernican master work, De Revolutionibus, in 1540. Together with another Lutheran scholar, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), Rheticus published De Revolutionibus itself in 1543, with a special notice that the latter was an astronomical and mathematical, rather than philosophical, work. It is assumed that this notice was added in order to prevent possible backlash by conservative theologians and scholastics against Copernican theory (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 81). Such interpretation of Copernicus’s work, i.e. not as a work aimed at uncovering physical truth, but as a mathematical treatise that was merely to provide mathematically consistent observations was to become a basis for the so-called Wittenberg Interpretation of Copernicus. It is interesting to note that Melanchthon seems to have been initially critical of Copernicus’s ideas, but later acknowledged their validity, especially with regard to Copernican planetary parameters and theory of moon movements (Westman, “The Melanchthon Circle”). Although Melanchthon never recognized the claims of Copernican heliocentrists with respect to cosmological issues, he obviously regarded Copernicus’s mathematical calculations on celestial body movements as superior to the Ptolemean ones. Melanchthon dismissed Copernican observation on the earth’s motion, finding it to be incompatible with the Scripture and the Aristotelian idea of simple motion, according to which each simple body has only one type of motion inherent in it (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 83). Yet he was willing to accept Copernicus’s rejection of Ptolemean equants in explaining planetary motion, as he may have felt that such an interpretation is more compatible with Aristotelian doctrine of uniformity of celestial motions. In total, Melanchthon viewed Copernicus more as a conservative reformer than as a dangerous radical, and his preoccupation with astronomy and mathematics was a major, if unintended, factor in popularization of Copernican ideas in North German universities of the 16th century. Together with such scholars as Erasmus Reinhold (1515-1553) and Caspar Peucer (1525-1604), Melanchthon distinguished between physical claims of Copernicus, which he ignored or rejected, and his mathematical achievements, which he thought to integrate within a framework of traditional geocentric astronomy (Westman, “Three Responses to the Copernican Theory” 287). Reinhold praised Copernicus’s corrections to Ptolemean deviations from strict circularity of planetary movements but seems to have completely ignored heliocentric essence of Copernican theory. Reinhold did not comment on Copernican assumption of the earth’s motion as well, leaving this matter aside as inconsequential from the standpoint of his more orthodox scholarly pursuits (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 84). In contrast to the moderate interpretation of Copernican achievements as mere incremental improvement to the body of Ptolemean astronomy, Rheticus became the most enthusiastic supporter of Copernicus’s ideas of heliocentrism, being in fact the only known member of Wittenberg School who wholeheartedly embraced this aspect of Copernicus’s work (Westman, “The Melanchthon Circle”). Rheticus tried to draw analogies between supposedly harmonious character of Copernican astronomical model and the notion of harmony of spheres that was widespread in the Renaissance cultural atmosphere (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 84). He claimed that Copernican unification of formerly separate hypotheses represented a unique achievement in the history of astronomy, rectifying the errors inadvertently made by previous authorities in the sphere of astronomy, including Ptolemy (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 83). Nevertheless, this does not mean that Rheticus followed increasingly progressive interpretation of Copernicus’s work. Rather than ultimate rupture with the previous conventional wisdom, the Copernican heliocentrism was for Rheticus a return to veritable, ancient Egyptian astronomy which he alleged was overturned by Ptolemean geocentric mistakes (Blumeberg 350). Thus Copernicus was for Rheticus a true heir to the mantle of legendary Babylonian and Egyptian astronomers, whose wisdom was diluted by later inclusion of epicycles and hypotheses that deformed supposedly pristine models of ideally circular orbits that, according to Rheticus, were restored by Copernicus (Blumeberg 348). Thus, as in the of Wittenberg Interpretation, Rheticus did not view Copernicus as radical; on the contrary, for him the former was a restorer of ancient wisdom suppressed by Ptolemean interlopers. Therefore it is evident that Lutheran astronomers did not view Copernicanism as the teaching that was in existential hostility to the Reformation or the Scripture as such. Rather they seemed to ignore heliocentric implications of Copernican astronomy, viewing them as of little consequence to more pressing issues of corrections to Ptolemean models of planetary motion. The only major representative of early Wittenberg astronomical school, Rheticus, drew more radical conclusion from the Copernican doctrine, being one of the closest followers and associates of Copernicus during his lifetime. Yet even he apparently failed to grasp the full scale of the challenge Copernicanism presented to traditional model of the Universe, regarding the teaching of Copernicus of natural correction to distorted Ptolemean doctrine. It is significant that Rheticus found it necessary to turn to traditional Humanist interpretation of the Renaissance cultural transformations as mere renovation of the lost Ancient tradition. Nevertheless, by tracing the origins of Copernicanism to ancient Egyptians and Plato (Blumeberg 348), Rheticus implicitly acknowledged the validity of Copernican challenge to prevailing Aristotelian – and scholastic – orthodoxy in natural sciences. THE CATHOLIC REACTION TO COPERNICAN ASTRONOMY – DISREGARD AND REJECTION In contrast to Melanchthon’s and especially Rheticus’s attention to Copernican insights, the Catholic scholars and theologians seem to have paid remarkably little attention to the significance of Copernicus’s teachings in the years that immediately followed the release of De Revolutionibus. In fact, the absence of large-scale reaction of Catholic intellectuals to the release of De Revolutionibus could be attributed to their preoccupation with the proceedings of the Council of Trent, which was launched in December 1545, and was to enact the program of Counter-Reformation as the response to the Protestant challenge. Nevertheless, one of the major thinkers of the incipient Counter-Reformation trend did respond to Copernican work with the blistering critique, and his response may be regarded as a kind of precursor to official rejection of Copernicanism by the Catholic Church in 1616. Giovanni Maria Tolosani (1470/1-1549), a Florentine Dominican that had an interest in astronomy, authored a treatise On the Truth of Sacred Scripture in 1544. While this work was not concerned with astronomy as such, being a collection of reflections on various issues that were to be debated during the Council of Trent, it still included quite extensive critique of Copernican theory. Unlike the Lutheran astronomers that followed the Wittenberg Interpretation, Tolosani completely ignores the strictly technical issues of mathematics. Instead, he strives to demonstrate the incompatibility of Copernican vision of planetary motions and cosmos as such with the received vision of Aristotelian cosmology and the Scripture itself (Goddu 415). Tolosani attacks Copernican doctrine from two points. Firstly, he raises objection to Copernicus’s breach of conventional hierarchy of natural sciences, as the latter clearly relied more on mathematical, rather than physical and theological, explanations (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 88). Tolosani accuses Copernicus of ignoring the precepts of theology and Aristotelian logics (Goddu 276), claiming that Copernicus disregarded some important principles of the Scripture. Secondly, he lambasts Copernicus for ignoring the explicit arguments about geocentric character of cosmos presented by authoritative figures of the Ancient and Medieval times, with Aristotle, Ptolemy Thomas Aquinas and others being used to refute Copernican arguments by referring to the principle of authority (Goddu 416). In this case Tolosani’s appeal to past authority and the Scripture as the evidence that as supposedly higher than mathematical calculations of Copernicus, reveals the former’s apologetic and traditionalist tendency. Tolosani clearly regarded Copernican subtle disregard to the established superiority of theology and (Aristotelian) physics within the system of natural sciences as a clear affront to the venerable tradition of these disciplines. Therefore it may be pertinent to conclude that he clearly interpreted Copernicanism as a subversive doctrine that bordered on heresy in its claims. His remark about the intentions of Bartolomeo Spina, a major official at the Papal curia, to publicly condemn Copernican theory before the former’s premature death in 1547 (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 89), is an important evidence of the possible reaction of the Church elite towards Copernican teachings. Nevertheless, it is important to note that neither Spina nor Tolosani himself appear to have attained the Papal condemnation of Copernicanism, and therefore the exact degree of Catholic hostility to Copernican theory in the 16th century is still open to questioning. The important exception to generally anti-Copernican mood that seemed to prevail among Catholic authors of the period was the attempt of Diego de Zuniga (1536-1597) to accommodate Biblical account of Divine power in the Book of Job, where God literally “shaketh the earth out of her place”, with the Copernican theory by claiming that this image seems to suggest that the earth does move indeed (Westman, “The Copernicans and the Churches” 92). Nevertheless, the later condemnation of de Zuniga’s views on compatibility of the Scripture and Copernican theory showed that the Catholic Church was still very much unprepared to relinquish traditional views on the model of the Universe, as it was even more evidently demonstrated in the course of Galileo’s trial. THE CALVINIST ATTITUDE TO COPERNICAN ASTRONOMY While Luther is reputed to reject Copernican teachings, there exists a significant controversy around the reception of Copernican theory by Calvin and his followers. While Russell claimed that Calvin viewed Copernicus’s views as contrary to the Scripture (Russell 528), Rosen observed that the documental evidence to such anti-Copernican stance of the founder of the Reformed Christianity is conspicuously absent (Rosen 431), and therefore the version of ingrained hostility of Calvin and Calvinists toward Copernican astronomy, just as in the case of Luther, seems to be a product of rhetorical exaggeration. While it is certain that Calvin followed Aristotelian vision of cosmology that was fairly commonplace at the time of his religious and political career (Eisenstein 655), he specifically argued against referencing the Scripture in purely scientific arguments, which would later be used by Kepler and the Dutch Copernicans in dealing with anti-Copernican upsurge among more conservative Calvinist theologians (Hooykaas 234-5). One of the examples of Calvinist scholars’ accommodation of their theological views with the Copernican cosmological theory was basically Copernican heliocentric system developed by Philips Lansbergen (1561-1632), who was both prominent Calvinist minister and enthusiastic astronomer (Vermij 73-97). Even though Lansbergen began his astronomical observation in 1588 (Vermij 74), his mature cosmological books date from the first third of the 17th century. Nevertheless, it should be important to note that Lansbergen’s Considerations on the Daily and Annual Rotation of the Earth drew attention of the contemporaries by its vigorous defense of Copernican system and the rejection of both Ptolemean and compromise Tychean models of planetary motions (Vermij 84). In this book, the spirit of more scientific, as opposed to theological, view of the Universe is evident, as Lansbergen justifies his preference for Copernican system not by its conformance with the Scripture, but by observations stemming from physical and mathematical hypotheses. According to Herwart von Hogenburg, who reported this fact to Kepler, already in 1598 Lansbergen viewed daily rotation of the earth as a proven fact (Vermij 83). This may be interpreted as a more scientific approach that prefigured the insights of the 17th century. Simon Stevin’s (c. 1548 – 1620) works are even more indicative of the fairly secular character that Copernican astronomy attained in the Dutch Republic of the late 16th century. A teacher of Maurice of Nassau, the future stadtholder of the Netherlands, Stevin elaborated a complex, but distinctively heliocentric doctrine of the earth’s motion that both contradicted and followed Copernican insights. As may be judged from Stevin’s astronomical lectures published in 1605-6, he clearly regarded the theory of circular and uniform planetary orbits as deficient, and proposed instead the assumption of eccentric orbits as more natural (Vermij 64). While this theory did not achieve the level of clarity later attained by Kepler, it is significant that Stevin seems to have moved beyond idealized Ancient models of planetary movements basically inherited from Aristotle. In addition, Stevin rejects the aesthetic arguments for heliocentrism so prominent in Copernicus and Rheticus’s thinking, preferring instead to turn to strictly mathematical explanations (Vermij 67). Therefore, it may be inferred that the 16th century Calvinists, including the Dutch ones, did not have a consistent attitude to the Copernican doctrine. While Calvin himself remained basically an orthodox Aristotelian on cosmological issues, some of his followers favourably viewed Copernican ideas and indeed contributed to their further development. THE REVISION OF WITTENBERG INTERPRETATION IN THE 1570S The Wittenberg Interpretation remained a dominant discourse of German astronomy up to the 1570s, when both the momentous astronomical events (the 1572 supernova and the 1577 comet) that contravened to Aristotelian orthodoxy of celestial bodies’ behavior and the growing doubts on the validity of purely mathematical reading of Copernicus’s master piece led the group of young astronomers to turn to Rheticus’s, rather than Melanchthonian, interpretation of Copernicus. From Johannes Pretorius’s (1537-1616) proto-Tychean model of planetary epicycles, through Tycho Brahe’s attempted synthesis of Ptolemean and Copernican cosmologies, and finally to Michael Maestlin’s (1550 – 1631) more consistent Copernicanism (Westman, “Three Responses to the Copernican Theory”), the cosmological models that significantly deviated from Ptolemean orthodoxies became the norm, rather than an exclusion, Despite differing views of all of these authors on Copernicus’s work, which ranged from Brahe’s skepticism to Maestlin’s orthodox Copernicanism, it is significant that all of them accepted the necessity for revision of Ptolemean system, and no longer questioned the deficiency of dogmatic Aristotelianism. In this, the first glimpse of the 17th century scientific outlook may already be glimpsed. THE INTERPRETATION OF COPERNICAN WORK IN THE EAST: THE CASE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE One of the often overlooked aspects of the influence of Copernican model is its impact on non-European scientific thought. While Ben Zaken asserts that the introduction of heliocentric model in Ottoman astronomy took place in the 1660s, after the translation of the Frenchman Noel Duret’s work on heliocentrism by Ibrahim Efendi al-Zigetvari Tezkireci, a prominent Ottoman scholar and Sufi order member, and that its perception was strongly informed by Sufi mysticism (Ben Zaken, “The Heavens of the Sky”), it is important to note that rationalist ideas that were favourable to heliocentrism were present in the Ottoman cultural milieu much earlier, and that, as noted by Ragep, Ottoman astronomer Ali Kuscu (1403-1474) expressed the idea of independence of observational astronomy from theology and philosophy much earlier than on the West (Ragep, “Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy”, 49-64). Kuscu also seemed to reject the idea of stationary earth and instead followed an idea of its moving nature, basing this view on empiric (observational) developments (Ragep, 66-71). Therefore, the basis for acceptance of heliocentrism in Ottoman Empire existed long before the publication of Copernican work. Still, it is important to note that Ibrahim Efendi’s translation marked a stepping stone in history of Ottoman astronomy. As Ben Zaken notes, by combining Copernican insights with spiritual tradition of Sufi orders, such a reading of Copernicus presented a way toward the combination of Occidental and Oriental cultural tradition, and by all means contributed to better perception of Western thought in Turkish society. CONCLUSION Therefore it is pertinent to conclude that Copernican theory was perceived in rather ambiguous way in the 16th century. While the first decades after the publication of De Revolutionibus were marked by either attempts to confine Copernican insights to strictly mathematical interpretation of celestial phenomena within the framework of Ptolemean system, or by outward rejection, the final decades of the century witnessed the increase in interest to unambiguously cosmological aspects of Copernicus’s doctrine, with the result that Copernican heliocentrism gradually became more acceptable. Later this opened the way towards full-scale acceptance of Copernicanism in scientific circles that finally found its way even in Oriental cultural milieu. Works Cited Barker, Peter. “The Role of Religion in Lutheran Response to Copernicus.” Rethinking the Scientific Revolution. Ed. Margaret J. Osler, 59-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print Ben Zaken, Avner. “The Heavens of the Sky and the Heavens of the Heart: The Ottoman Cultural Context for the Introduction of Post-Copernican Astronomy.” The British Journal for the History of Science 37.1 (2004): 1-28. Blumeberg, Hans. The Genesis of the Copernican World. Trans. by Robert M. Wallace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. Print. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Print. Goddu, Andre. Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition: Education, Reading, and Philosophy in Copernicus's Path to Heliocentrism. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Print. Hooykaas, Reijer. “Science and Reformation.” Journal of World History III.1 (1956): 109-139. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Print. Ragep, F. Jamil. “Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy: An Aspect of Islamic Influence on Science.” Osiris 16 (2001): 49-64+66-71. Rosen, Edward. “Calvin’s Attitude Toward Copernicus.” Journal of the History of Ideas 21.3 (1960): 431-441. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1946. Print. Vermij, Rienk. The Calvinist Copernicans: The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1535-1750. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002. Print. Westman, Robert S. “The Copernicans and the Churches.” God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Eds. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers. 76-113. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. Print. Westman, Robert S. “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.” Isis 66.2 (1975): 164-93. Westman, Robert S. “Three Responses to the Copernican Theory: Johannes Praetorius, Tycho Brahe, and Michael Maestlin.” The Copernican Achievement. Ed. Robert S. Westman. 285-345. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975. Print. White, Andrew Dickson. A History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896. Print. Read More