Celestial Revolutionary

Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) is one of the intellectual giants of modern science and arguably the father of modern astronomy.  He was the first writer of Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks to espouse a heliocentric picture of the cosmos.  Although, fearful of the inevitable opposition of the established Church, he did not publish his theory until just before his death, his view ultimately prevailed among all scientists.

John Feely has written a biography that seeks to describe the pre-existing science that Copernicus overthrew, the social atmosphere in which he lived, and the precise mathematical calculations he asserted in defense of his position.  Feely’s account of pre-Copernican astronomy is quite lucid, particularly in light of the extreme lengths to which Ptolemy and other early astronomers went to describe planetary motions as composites of perfectly circular motions.  Their accounts required the use  of deferents and epicycles to give an accurate account of their observations.  Copernicus also needed some pretty fancy footwork to make the observations fit his theory because unbeknownst to him, the planets move in elliptical, not circular, orbits.  Feely’s account of Copernicus’ calculations is accurate, if a bit challenging.  Feely also shows how Copernicus relied (without attribution) on some mathematics developed by Arab and Persian astronomers.  

The book is less successful in describing the medieval world in which Copernicus lived.  It is not because of inaccuracy, but rather because the author spends an inordinate time relating the myriad changes in the dynastic houses that ruled various German and Polish principalities.  Moreover, Feely’s writing is not particularly sprightly or vivid.

I also have a complaint about the format of the e-book version of the work.  The author frequently quotes from the writings of Copernicus, but the e-book does not put the quotations in quotation marks or indent them from the rest of the page.  The effect is that the only way to tell whether the author of what we are reading is Feely or Copernicus is their substantial difference in diction.  I assume (and hope) that defect is not present in the printed version.

One reviewer, Peter Barker, complained that Feely relied too heavily on Edward Rosen’s “badly flawed translation” of Copernicus.  I don’t have the expertise to comment on that assertion.  

In conclusion, I would say this book is not an easy read, but it covers important ideas and is worth the effort. 

 3.5 stars