A Comparison Of Nicolaus Copernicus’ And Galileo Galilei’s Greatest Works
The Scientific Revolution arose in Europe at the end of Renaissance period, a time where many scientific advances would lay the basis for modern day science. Many scientists contributed to this portion of history, but two prominent figures are Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), a mathematician and astronomer accredited with displacing the geocentric model of Ptolemy with his heliocentric model; and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an astronomer often referred to as the “father of modern day physics”, known for his astrological discoveries that provided substantial evidence in support of the Copernican theory. Both of these astronomers published their findings in now highly appraised journals, Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543) and Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632). Both Copernicus and Galileo were integral in our understanding of science as it is known today, but they each presented their ideas in differing ways, received varying reception, and reached different audiences. Copernicus lived during a time where the Ptolemaic system was unanimously accepted and had been for the last 1,500 years. This system, as proposed by Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100-170), stated that the Earth is fixed at the centre of the universe, while all other planets rotate around it. Ptolemy’s system enabled calculations of planetary positions which was important for navigation, making astrological divinations, and calendrical purposes. What the Ptolemaic scheme lacked was an emphasis on the physical structure of the world system – it could not assign a fixed order to the planets. Copernicus not only wanted to define accurate calculations of planetary positions and movements, but also establish the true structure of the world, as was the basis of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato’s research. This was an ambitious feat at this time.
Cosmology was considered a science, characterized as philosophical; meanwhile astronomy, which is what Copernicus had a basis in, was considered an art, and characterized as mathematical. There was a distinct separation between mathematics and natural philosophy. Mathematics, as said by Aristotle, could not explain natural phenomena in terms of physical causes. Copernicus’s heliocentric model puts the earth and other planets revolving around the sun, with the sun sitting at the centre of the solar system. He also said the earth rotated on its axis once every 24 hours, rectifying the illusion that made philosophers claim it was the stars that moved. Copernicus privately began to circulate an outline of his thesis on planetary movements in 1514, but his actual publication was not released until 1543. Although many of those years were spent drafting a final copy, part of the delay was due to Copernicus being indecisive about publishing a work that went against modern day thinking so greatly. Copernicus’s preface indicates he was aware that his work would be met with scepticism and disbelief, as he seems to reassure Pope Paul III that is writing is just a hypothesis. His tone respectful, leaving what he accomplished “to the judgement of Your Holiness in particular and all other learned astronomers”. Despite this preface the Catholic Church outright ignored his theory. It was not until 1616 did they make an official pronouncement against his model, and that was because Galileo’s public disputes about the matter were becoming ‘embarrassing for the church’. Although Copernicus’s publication proved to be useful is calculating planetary positions, most people did not seriously consider his heliocentric model. His theory just deviated too much from what was accepted at the time and had no tangible evidence. What more, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), a churchman tasked with the publication of Copernicus’s work, took it upon himself to add a preface to Copernicus’s book, leaving it unsigned so that readers would think Copernicus himself wrote it. It warned the reader that all of what they were about to read could not genuinely tell us how the universe is arranged and should be used solely for calculating planetary movements. He reminded readers of the separation between mathematics and natural philosophy, which insinuated that Copernicus, as a mathematician, not a philosopher, could not offer a true understanding of the world system. Copernicus died shortly after publication, so even though there was a small group of people who took his writing seriously and believed the earth to be the centre of the universe, he was not alive to defend his viewpoints. While Copernicus went about sharing his theories in a more restrained manner, Galileo was less cautious. He made enemies of many, most notably an important group within the Dominican Order and the Pope Urban VIII.
An official ruling was called for on Copernican theory by the Pope because the public disputes between Dominicans and Galileo and his followers were becoming disruptive. Galileo was even warned by friends and colleagues to not make enemies, such his friend Francesco Stelluti who in a letter warned Galileo against makes enemies with Jesuits. Galileo’s recklessness may in part have been due to his time period, as at this point the Copernican theory had been around for some time. Although initially predominately disregarded, over the years it had attracted the attention of scientists, some of which even lectured on it all over Europe. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), a German astronomer, had discovered major laws of planetary motion years before Galileo, such as that the planets move in elliptical orbits. Although not immediately accepted as with Copernicus, this demonstrates that there were people actively seeking alternatives and having doubts about Aristotelian ideologies. Therefore, Galileo’s ideas were not as outlandish at in Copernicus’s time. Like Copernicus, Galileo believed mathematics could be used to explain the physical world. The invention of the telescope in Galileo’s time period led to him building his own between 1609 and 1610. His discoveries provided great circumstantial evidence to support Copernican theory, and soon led Galileo to propose the idea that the earth’s motion best explains why tides occur. Following the banning of Copernicus’s book, Galileo asked for permission from Pope Urban VIII to write a book discussing the Copernican theory, which would later become his famous Dialogue. The Pope said Galileo could not outright say the tides were proof of earth’s motion, but he could discuss the pros and cons of Ptolemaic and Copernican theories, as long as he concludes his discussion by saying nature is never 100% known for sure as God can do as he pleases. Galileo agreed to these terms, yet upon publication, it was clear that his Dialogue was very certainly not unbiased, as it clearly favored the ideas of the character defending Copernicus. He had three speakers: Salviati, a Copernican; Sagredo, an openminded character that grows to agree with Salviati; and Simplicio, a defender of the Polemic system who is portrayed unintelligent. To follow through with the Pope’s request to end the book about God’s omnipotence, Galileo had the character, Simplicio, the one defending Ptolemy and made out to be unintelligent in the dialogue, say it. Aditionally, Galileo’s Dialogue criticized his already established enemies, the Jesuits. He referred to one Jesuit, Father Christopher Scheiner, as ‘vain and foolish’. Upon reading the publication, the Pope is said to have responded, “He has put my words in the mouth of a fool”, in reference to Simplicio’s closing statement.
The book was banned, and Galileo went on trial for deceiving the Pope and going against the 1616 ruling that prohibited support of the Copernican theory. He was condemned and sentence to house arrest indefinitely, where he would go on to live out the remaining years of his life. It is important to note that Galileo’s Dialogue was published in Florence – before this, he had lived in Padua for years where he received great fame and admiration for his findings. Although well-known, he did not have the same all-around admiration in Italy as he did in Padua. As Galileo and the Scientific Revolution states, “It seems plausible to assume that if he Gaileo had stayed in Padua, the rest of his life would have been much more calm and secure”. In addition, many historians agree that Galileo may not have had to face so many trials and tribulations had he been more cautious, more tactful, and taking things slowly.
<> Bibliography
- Copernicus, N. , Dobrzycki, J. (1978). Nicholas Copernicus on the revolutions (E. Rosen, Trans. ).
- Galilei, G. , Drake, S. , Sobel, D. , & Einstein, A. (2013). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican. London: Folio Society.
- Henry, J. (2012). A short history of scientific thought. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. McKeon, R. (1947).
- Aristotle's Conception of the Development and the Nature of Scientific Method. Journal of the History of Ideas, 8(1), 3-44. doi:10. 2307/2707440
- Principe, L. M. (2011). The scientific revolution: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
