Such is the miniature biography given by Dr. Hipler of the great reformer of astronomy. We would gladly have learned more about his political career, which Hipler only notices in passing. It is to be hoped that he will some day present us with a full-sized portrait of his great countryman.
Dr. Hipler has, however, succeeded in establishing, on documentary evidence, drawn from archives, the chronology of the life of Copernicus, which rested before on the unsustained authority of Gassendi. He has, likewise, exhibited in a clear light, and with that certainty which results only from the study of reliable sources, the education, teachers, friends, and offices of Copernicus, the origination of his system, and the attitude he assumed in regard to the Reformation.
We have seen that his attitude was decidedly unfriendly. Hence, it naturally occurred to his biographer to show how the reformers were affected toward Copernicus. Protestant writers generally indulge in the strange fancy that all the great minds of the period of the Reformation belong to their ranks; and it is almost a subject of surprise that Copernicus escaped an inscription on the monument raised to Luther, at Worms. No doubt, however, at Luther's feet would have been an uncomfortable place for the man of whom we read in Luther's Table-Talk: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer, who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens, or the firmament, the sun and moon.... But such is now the state of things. Whoever wishes to appear clever, must devise some new system which of all systems is, of course, the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy. But sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Later on, Melancthon wrote in a work entitled, De Initiis Doctrinæ Physicæ: "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty or to make a display of their ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves, and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves. Now, although these clever dreamers find many ingenious things wherewith to recreate their minds, it is, nevertheless, a want of honesty and decency to assert such absurd notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God, and to acquiesce in it."
Both reformers condemned the system of Copernicus, as opposed to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures.
How differently did Rome deal with the doctrine of Copernicus! From an entry made in the Codex Græcus, CLI., in the State Library of Munich, it appears that as early as 1533, Clement VII. had the learned Widmanstadt to explain the system to him in the gardens of the Vatican, and that he recompensed Widmanstadt for his services with the gift of the Greek work above mentioned. The entry in the book, setting forth these facts, was made by the hand of the recipient of the gift.
Paul III. accepted the dedication of the work of Copernicus. The sentence pronounced on Galileo by the Congregation of the Index was never ratified by the pope, and was actually afterward revoked. The Catholic Church has always ignored that extravagant notion of inspiration, so justly censured by Lessing, according to which the Bible is to be received as a text-book even of astronomy, geography, and other natural sciences.
The importance of the system of Copernicus cannot be over-rated. It was a bold and successful attempt to explain the mechanism of the world. According to his theory, the world was no longer to be considered the centre of the universe, but merely a wandering planet of an inferior order. Its rôle in the economy of the spheres seemed to be that of the lost sheep which the Good Shepherd came to find. The system of Copernicus contained also a caution against trusting over-much to those appearances which are made known to us by the senses, and against attending to the dead-letter of the Bible merely. Hence it was calculated to exert an influence in other departments of science, as well as in that of astronomy. At first it met with no sympathy. The inhabitants of Elbing, who had refused the university with which Lucas Watzelrode felt disposed to present them, were the first to exhibit a burlesque play directed against Copernicus. The people of Nuremberg had a medal struck, whereon were ironical inscriptions directed against him. Nevertheless, his discovery gradually won the recognition of the intelligent scientific world.
In searching the archives of Ermland, Dr. Hipler has met with two pictures, the one of Luther, the other of Copernicus—both from the pen of Dantiscus, the last spiritual superior of the latter—between which there exists so great a contrast that he has thought it worth while to give them to the public. As has been already observed, Dantiscus was at one time the ambassador of Sigismond of Poland at the court of Charles V. He had travelled over nearly one half of the globe, had been at all the European courts, and also in Asia and Africa. He was a great admirer and patron of literary and scientific accomplishments, and he corresponded with many statesmen and men of learning, among whom were Wicel, Thomas Cranmer of Canterbury, Melancthon, Cochlæus, and others. In 1523, happening to be in the neighborhood of Wittenberg, a desire to see Luther, rather inordinate, as he himself acknowledges, took possession of him. Luther consented to see him. The following is Dantiscus's account of the interview: "We sat down and entered upon a conversation which lasted four hours. I found the man witty, learned, and fluent; but I also noticed that he uttered scarce any thing but sarcasm and invectives against the pope, the emperor, and several other princes. Were I to attempt to write it all down, the day would pass before I would have done. Luther's countenance resembles his books. His eyes are sharp, and sparkle with the weird fire to be noticed in lunatics. His manner of speaking is violent, and full of irony and ridicule. He dresses so as not to be distinguished from a courtier. He seems like a first-rate boon companion. So far as holiness of life is concerned, which some have attributed to him, he differs not at all from the rest of us. Haughtiness and vanity are very apparent in him; in abusing, slandering, and ridiculing he observes no moderation whatever." The comparison between Luther and Copernicus which then follows is indeed very instructive:
"It would be difficult to imagine a more decided contrast than exists between these two men, the dates of whose birth and death differ but by a few short years. For indeed, to say nothing of the striking dissimilarity in talents, disposition, and other particulars, what could be more unlike than the character and destiny of the great revolutions in the sphere of intellect which were originated by the gigantic powers of these men? On the one hand, we behold reason, through an excessively mystic tendency, enslaved to a blind faith—in fact, stifled; and faith itself, as a consequence, deprived of its foundation, lifeless and powerless. On the other hand, we behold reason in a wisely adjusted harmony with faith and science, triumphing over the dead-letter of the Bible, the deceiving testimony of sense, and every other illegitimate influence, and thereby imparting firmness to faith in the suprasensible, and in all real authority.