A Note on Luther and Copernicus

JF Ptak Science Books  Post 2106

Like many religious leaders and clerics, Martin Luther in 1539 took a dim and critical view of Copernicus and his new and substantiated theory of planetary motion and placement--he was also among the earliest important criticisms of the work, unable to provide any harmony between the new ideas and the overwhelming authority of the Bible. How did Luther come to say these things about a work that wasn't published until 1543 (as De revolutionibus orbium coelestium  or On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres)?  As it turns out Copernicus' book was largely finished a decade or so before it was finally published, being constantly revised and amended and corrected, with parts of the work presented for review and comment to such people as Pope Clement VII (who came to believe in the book and who volunteered to pay for its printing but dying before this could be set into place). 

The work was discussed for ten years before publication, with part of the theory finding its way into a small but select circulation in Copernicus' 40-page summary of his major work, Commentariolus¹,  which would have been passed hand-to hand and which itself would not see publication for another 400 years (as the De Revolutionbus was the mature version of what the Commentariolus summarized)--though few copies existed, people did lecture on the work, which is probably where Pope Clement came into contact with its ideas. So it is entirely plausible for Luther to have come into contact with these ideas before publication.

Luther stated:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." And there was more.²

Even still Luther never did issue  a retraction for his statement, and the Catholic Church designated the book to its list of prohibited books, in spite of a vetting element that took place prior to publication--it should also be noted that the book was also respectfully dedicated to Pope Paul III, leader of the Catholic Church, which was somewhat ambivalent to the work for several decades.

Notes

1. According to a handy Wiki list (which sources Goddu, André (2010), Copernicus and the Aristotelian tradition,  Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. pp. 245–6) the seven postulates of the Commentariolus include:

1. Celestial bodies do not all revolve around a single point
2. The centre of Earth is the centre of the lunar sphere—the orbit of the moon around the Earth
3. All the spheres rotate around the Sun, which is near the centre of the Universe
4. The distance between the Earth and the Sun is an insignificant fraction of the distance from the Earth and Sun to the stars, so parallax is not observed in the stars
5. The stars are immovable; their apparent daily motion is caused by the daily rotation of the Earth
6. Earth is moved in a sphere around the Sun, causing the apparent annual migration of the Sun; the Earth has more than one motion
7. Earth's orbital motion around the Sun causes the seeming reverse in direction of the motions of the planets.

2. As Dorothy Stimson finds in her The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe (1917) : "Informally in a letter to a friend he-40- implies the absurdity of the new teaching, and in his Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ he goes to some pains to disprove the new assumption not merely by mathematics but by the Bible, though with a kind of apology to other physicists for quoting the Divine Witness. He refers to the phrase in Psalm XIX likening the sun in its course "to a strong man about to run a race," proving that the sun moves. Another Psalm states that the earth was founded not to be moved for eternity, and a similar phrase occurs in the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. Then there was the miracle when Joshua bade the sun stand still. While this is a sufficient witness to the truths there are other proofs: First, in the turning of a circumference, the center remains motionless. Next, changes in the length of the day and of the seasons would ensue, were the position of the earth in the universe not central, and it would not be equidistant from the two poles. (He has previously disposed of infinity by stating that the heavens revolve around the pole, which could not happen if a line drawn from the center of the universe were infinitely projected).Furthermore, the earth must be at the center for its shadow to fall upon the moon in an eclipse. He refers next to the Aristotelian statement that to a simple body belongs one motion: the earth is a simple body; therefore it can have but one motion. What is true of the parts applies to the whole; all the parts of the earth are borne toward the earth and there rest; therefore the whole earth is at rest. Quiet is essential to growth. Lastly, if the earth moved as fast as it must if it moves at all, everything would fly to pieces."

3. ``Sun stand still over Gibeon,
and, moon, you also, over the Vale of Aijalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon halted,
till the people had vengeance on their enemies.''--Joshua 10:10-15

Dorothy Stimson also records the short 1667 catechism of the arguments for and against the Copernican system of Johann-Henrich Voight, "explaining for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his reade, free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of which he carefully explained. He made an interesting summary in parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common people were taught:"

Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless:	Reasons for the belief that the earth is moved:
1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be moved.	1. The sun, the most excellent, the greatest and the midmost star, rightly stands still like a king while all the other stars with the earth swing round it.
2. Joshua bade the sun stand still—which would not be notable were it not already at rest.	2. That you believe that the heavens revolve is due to ocular deception similar to that of a man on a ship leaving shore.
3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at rest.	3. That Joshua bade the sun stand still Moses wrote for the people in accordance with the popular misconception.
4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why should not the whole earth itself be at rest?	4. As the planets are each a special created thing in the heavens, so the earth is a similar creation and similarly revolves.
5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and especially if it declined to the north and south....	5. The sun fitly rests at the center as the heart does in the middle of the human body.
6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its starting point.	6. Since the earth has in itself its especial centrum, a stone or an arrow falls freely out of the air again to its own centrum as do all earthly things.
7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps.	7. The earth can move five miles in a second more readily than the sun can go forty miles in the same time.
8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of dizziness.

• 1543, Nuremberg, by Johannes Petreius
• 1566, Basel, by Henricus Petrus
• 1617, Amsterdam, by Nicolaus Mulerius
• 1854, Warsaw, with Polish translation and the authentic preface by Copernicus.
• 1873, Thorn, German translation sponsored by the local Coppernicus Society, with all Copernicus' textual corrections given as footnotes.