Please note that three stars means that I thought that the book was OK, not that I disliked it, and the following explains why I was not more enthusiastic about it.
I must apologize for the length of this review, but I find that it requires more space for detailed criticisms than simple praise. I have read two of the author's previous books and was looking forward to this one, but found that it did not meet with my high expectations. My major complaint was that the book was very superficial and I was hoping for more. The aim of this review is to tell a prospective reader about this book and why they might, or might not, like it. My overall review is mixed, but this is because the book is likely to be embraced by some readers, but many others will be turned off by its format and style. The format of this book is somewhat unorthodox as the middle third of the book consists of a short two-act play about Copernicus's life and how his book, "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres", came to be published. At the beginning of Dava Sobel's book she explains that it was her original intention to have the play stand alone, but was then convinced by her editor to ".... plant it in the broad context of history by surrounding the imagined scenes with a fully documented factual narrative of Copernicus's life story ...". Thus, first and foremost this book was meant to be of literary interest - a play, but one surrounded by a factually historical narrative. I will thus review the book in terms of its literary merit and then in terms of its historical and scientific merit.
AS A WORK OF LITERATURE - Dava Sobel is a gifted writer whose prose is always quite interesting. She utilizes this skill to bring historical subjects of a scientific nature to life. The prose of this book is no exception. The play, which occupies the middle third of the book, is historical fiction concerning interactions of Copernicus and his Bishop, and with George Joachim Rheticus a Protestant scholar who came to a Catholic land, at some personal risk, to see and learn from Copernicus. The first act of the play is mostly concerned with the conflict between Catholics and Protestants and to a discussion of Copernicus's model of the heavens. The second act also deals Copernicus's model for the heavens and with Rheticus's successful attempt at convincing Copernicus to allow him to assist in getting the manuscript that Copernicus had been working on for 30 years ready for publication, and finally to be allowed to take it away for publication. I found the play to be mildly interesting and for the most part the action was based on the historical record. It did add some to the presentation of Copernicus's ideas and the conflicts surrounding his life, but much of the play was low farce, with a considerable amount of the action concerning Copernicus's relationship with his housekeeper and Rheticus's relationship with a 14-year-old boy. While there is some historical justification for both (but not as depicted in the play), they did not add to my scientific or historical understanding of Copernicus. I also found that Sobel took some liberties with the science portrayed in the play. She has Copernicus explaining the motion of the earth using the ideas proposed by Galileo about one hundred years later. The idea that Copernicus did not want to publish his ideas because he was afraid of the Church's reaction is also more suited to Galileo's time than that of Copernicus. Copernicus's early presentation of his ideas brought ridicule rather than condemnation. In fact, "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" did not attract the censure of the Catholic Church until more than 70 years after its first publication. I would give Sobel's book 3 stars for the play and 4 for the rest of the text.
AS A WORK OF HISTORICAL NARATIVE - The first third of the book is concerned with Copernicus's and the historical events that he was party to. However, I found that there was little in-depth discussion of these events and their impact on Copernicus's scientific contributions. There is a lot of material regarding the conflicts with the Teutonic Knights that I found of historical interest, and quite a bit of the book is taken up with descriptions of Copernicus's duties as a civil administrator (he was a church canon). However, several pages consist of sentences such as "Stenzel Zupky took possession of a parcel which Matz Slander with my permission sold to him for 33 marks." While interesting at first, I found that the amount of space devoted to this sort of material eventually became distracting. This part of the book is somewhat interesting, but superficial and I found that it presented a far from complete historical picture and that very important facts were omitted. For instance:
1) One gets the impression from her text that being a church canon was a completely secular office, which is not the case. As a canon, in addition to his numerous secular administrative duties, Copernicus also assisted the priest with the Mass, and more importantly was required to be celibate. This is important because it explains the conflict that he had with his bishop over his live-in housekeeper, who was also accused of being his mistress. The letters regarding his housekeepers are quoted from, yet the critical fact of Copernicus's required celibacy is not mentioned. This omitted fact explains the several references to concerns about canons and housekeepers and explains why Copernicus never married. The requirement for a canon to be celibate is also important because several other canons left to become Protestants, so that they could marry and the accusation that Copernicus was not celibate left him open to the suspicion that he would likewise flee to marry. According to other books, this conflict over his personal behavior weighed heavily on Copernicus and was an important aspect of his life.
2) His first brief communication regarding the idea of a sun-centered universe is discussed. A few pages later, a book called Commentariolus is mentioned, but it is not explained that this is the name given to his brief communication, but many years after Copernicus's death. It was not known by this title during his lifetime. Another, more important feature of this communication that is not mentioned is that in it he promised to subsequently publish a fuller account of his idea. In fact, it was this promise that led to the events depicted in the play.
3) The book contains some discussion of astrology, including the fact that this was part of Copernicus's medical studies. However, there is almost no discussion of the importance of astrology and the fact astrology was the main, and for most people the only, reason why they studied the positions of the planets against the background of the stars. Astrology was not an just a sort of "elective" that Copernicus took while studying medicine. Rather it was central to it, as astrology was required to determine the most propitious times for treatment. Sobel states that Copernicus did not cast horoscopes, a statement that is at variance with the other books that I have read, especially since astrology would have been an important part of his medical work. The question of astrology is central to the scientific aspects of Copernicus's work, which is mentioned below.
4) There is little or no discussion as to why Copernicus's writings were not suppressed during his lifetime and how the Protestant Reformation and subsequent Catholic Counter Reformation influenced this.
These examples point to omissions and a lack of the in-depth analysis that I was hoping for, particularly why Copernicus buried his manuscript for more than 30 years. In terms of history, I rate this book 3.5 stars. If your want a clear, straightforward, description of Copernicus's life and times I recommend Jack Repcheck's "Copernicus' Secret". It is not written is quite as literary a manner, but I think that it does present a clearer picture.
The last third of the book discusses the final publication of Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and some of the history of the science that followed it. I liked this final third of the book and it was this portion that raised impression of the history in the book to 3.5 stars. This part of the book describes the publication of "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" in some detail and added to my knowledge of this subject. It was followed by two chapters that discuss the work of Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. The final chapter, which I found to be perhaps the most interesting in the book, was a discussion of an annotated census of the extant copies of "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres". It contains a discussion of Johannes Kepler's copy of the book and the fact that a previous owner had added the word ellipse in Greek in a section concerning a correction to the a circular orbit that Copernicus had to make. It is tempting to think that when Kepler was struggling to explain the orbit of Mars, that this might have been the clue that led him to conclude that it was elliptical, along with that of the other planets.
AS A WORK THAT DESCTIBES WHAT COPERNICUS DID SCIENTIFICALLY - This is the weakest aspect of the book, and I feel that the book is highly deficient in this area. A few paragraphs are devoted to the Ptolemaic theory that Copernicus was trying to overturn, but I felt that the presentation was very unclear. A few simple diagrams would have been very helpful in explaining epicycles, eccentrics and equants. Of even more concern is the fact that Copernicus did not develop the theory that we recognize today. Because he assumed that the orbits were circular he was forced to still require epicycles and eccentrics in his theory, although he was able to eliminate the need for equants.
Read more ›
