Module 3: Science Revolution Part 1

The Renaissance: Artists and Technology The Renaissance, a period of European history from mid-15th century to early 17th century, first took place in Italy and gradually in all Europe. The Renaissance was an age of rebirth (re-naitre) of interest in classical antiquity and humanism that brought to an end the role of religion in society and intellectual matters so typical of the Middle Ages. Renaissance scholars sought to recreate the life of the ancient world, the Greek world in particular. It was also an age of revival of the humanistic spirit, great discoveries, and important inventions such as printing and gunpowder. Technology became bigger in general but with the exception of printing, gunpowder and architecture it was still Medieval technology. The supply of power or energy which was already a problem in the late Medieval world, became particularly acute during the Renaissance. The increased use of steel and copper required more powerful smelting furnaces and techniques. For this reason forests disappeared and coal was the only alternative for metallurgical smelting. Coal mines, however, because they were getting deeper into the ground, raised several problems. The ores had to be raised to the surface, water to be pumped, and the galleys ventilated. The problem of pumping water from the mines was later addressed by the steam engine which was in part responsible for the making of the Industrial Revolution. More about this in the next course of the history of science and technology two courses sequence (Hist 4020: History of Science and Technology since Newton, will be offered next semester). Printing was a significant technical achievements of the Renaissance. Johann Gutenberg of Mainz, Germany, in 1450 developed a type cast in an adjustable mold that printed multiple copies. The perfection of paper and ink technologies were also important elements related to printing. Paper arrived in Europe by mid-12th century via Egypt. It was first introduced in Baghdad around the 8th century. Renaissance agriculture remained the main source of European economy with little or no significant improvements except for the introduction of the American potato, tobacco, and sweet corn. Water and wind mills became bigger and were now used for powering everything: grinding grain, moving saws, crushing stone and ores of metals, venting mines and blowing smelting furnaces. The water and wind mills were built of heavy timber. Iron was used only for ties and bearings. But because timber has a low power breaking limit, the increase in output required a heavier material such as iron. Metallurgical knowledge, however, was still rudimentary. The rising of living standards was a prominent feature of Renaissance life. It included the perfection of textiles, tools, shoes, bottled beer, wheat and barley, silverware, smoking and portable watches. All these developments, of course, implied the expansion of trade, and trade implied better boats. The "art" or "crime" of warfare also saw significant improvements with the introduction of gunpowder. Known to the Chinese and Muslims, gun power was introduced to Europe in the 14th century. The most primitive canons dated from around 1325, mechanical artillery from 1370, the hand gun from 1450, and heavy guns and mortars from 1500.

Characterized by their individualism, humanism and versatility, Renaissance intellectuals sought to gratify the senses, enjoy life with little or no concern for death and the after death. Humanism thus placed humanism not religion at the center of life. Humanists believed on the inner strength of human will and capabilities. Their versatility included eclecticism, broad education, and interest in everything of an intellectual nature. Leonard DaVinci (1452-1519) was a true Renaissance person. He was a painter, engineer, architect, military engineer, inventor, artist, and scientist. He foresaw modern helicopters, airplanes, tanks, gliders, submarines, cars, telephones, and tapes. DaVinci also foresaw the holocaust. He described a technological monster engineering the extermination of the human race. At odds with his conscience, he was as humane as militaristic. Like most humanists of his time he believed in the goodness of human nature. He enjoyed purchasing caged birds in order to set them free. But he also sold his military skills to the Duke of Milan. As a military engineer, he designed canals with locks, fortifications, paddlewheel boats, a wind turbine, the tank, and developed poisoning gas. The Age of Revolution (17th-18th centuries) Following the Renaissance we have the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution. The Scientific Revolution (late 16th and 17th centuries) gave birth to modern science, e.g., a new way of studying nature by the experimental method. The Scientific Revolution began with Copernicus' The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), or in short, De Revolutiones, where he advocated heliocentrism and culminated with Newton's statement of the laws of motion in The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), or in short, the Principia. The Enlightenment (18th century) was the age of the philosophers and the "salones" whereby intellectuals aimed to overthrow the yoke of religion. They were interested in philosophy and accepted science as the salvation to the problems of the age. They recognized the need to reorganize society on rational and scientific grounds. Well known philosophers of the Enlightenment were John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Auguste Comte, and Immanuel Kant. The French Revolution (1781-1799) set a chain of overthrow of the Ancient Regime in the Continent. Political turmoil took place in the Europe of the absolutist kings and as a result of the French revolution Europe was never again the same. The American Revolution (1776) made the ideal of democracy a reality, setting a chain of independence wars on the American continent against European colonialism. Finally, the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century drastically changed the social order of England first and then gradually of Europe and most of Western civilization from an agricultural and semi-feudal society to the modern industrial world. The Scientific Revolution was the first in this chain of revolutions. We shall next examine the making of this important historical event that gave birth to modern science. The Copernican Revolution Copernicus was not the radical he is often portrayed as. He was trained in the medieval astronomical tradition. He practiced astronomy as well as or better than any of his predecessors. He did not consciously set out to create a cosmology radically different from what had gone before. Rather, his goal was to purify mathematical astronomy. Putting the earth in motion was an unavoidable consequence of this search for greater simplicity and unity. Nor did the

revolution come about on account of any new empirical evidence--at least as far as Copernicus is concerned. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in 1473 in Torun, Poland. His family was a wealthy merchant family from Krakow. Copernicus' mother, Martha Watzelrode, was from a patrician family. The family name, Copernicus, comes from a small village in southwestern Poland called Koperniki, which Copernicus himself latinized to the form we know. Copernicus' father died when Nicolaus was 10 years old and he and his brother, Andreas, were raised by their maternal uncle, Lucas Watzelrode, a high church official living in Frauenberg near the Baltic coast. In 1491, Nicolaus and Andreas matriculated in the faculty of arts at the University of Krakow (uncle Lucas' alma mater). The University ranked among the best of eastern European Universities in astronomy and several other disciplines. Nicolaus and Andreas were given a very good education. The curriculum was probably not very different from that of the medieval universities we have already discussed. Copernicus received a traditional education in the liberal arts. However, the arts faculty also contained a considerable amount of opportunity for a technical mathematical training. By the end of the 15th century there had been a hundred-year tradition at Krakow of critical mathematics, astronomy and astrology. There were two chairs: one in mathematical astronomy and one in astrology (which at the time may be thought of as "applied astronomy"). There is every indication that Copernicus received his education in mathematical astronomy at the University. Part of this education was also a critical appraisal of Ptolemaic astronomy. A number of problems had emerged in Ptolemaic astronomy and these problems were discussed at Krakow. In addition to these studies, Copernicus was also a member of a secret learned society called the "Brotherhood of the Vistula" (the Vistula is the river that flows through Krakow). This society was extracurricular and dedicated to neo-Pythagorean philosophy. In the 16th century there was a revival of neo-Platonic and neo-Pythagorean philosophy (the two are often difficult or impossible to differentiate). The "Brotherhood" to which Copernicus belonged is evidence of this revival. In 1495, Copernicus completed his course of studies and the following year he left Poland to begin studies in canon law at the University of Bologna, perhaps the best law school in all of Europe. Copernicus studied, in addition to law, the philosophy of Plato, and worked with a well-known astronomer as an assistant making planetary observations. After four years he returned to Poland (to Frauenberg where his uncle Lucas was a bishop--a very powerful position for he was a military as well as a spiritual leader) to assume his ecclesiastical duties which carried with it an income (mostly from rents of church-owned lands) and administrative duties. He was soon afterwards granted permission to return to Italy to complete his law degree. But, instead, he went to the University of Padua to study medicine (Padua was then the finest medical school in Europe). He remained there for two years without obtaining a degree. He then went to the University of Ferrara where, in 1503, he finally received a degree in law. He returned to Frauenberg and performed the duties of secretary and physician. This he did until 1512 when his uncle died. Copernicus continued as a church administrator until the end of his life in 1543. He led a very active life writing a treatise on money, overseeing matters of military fortification and defense. It was during this busy life that he formulated the astronomical reforms. Now that we know something about Copernicus' biography, let's turn to what he did. What was the general astronomical background against which he worked? Ancient astronomy was based on

three premises. First, that the earth is at rest in the center of the universe. Second, that heavenly bodies move with perfectly uniform circular motion. And, third that the universe is finite. The systems of Eudoxus, Aristotle, and Ptolemy were all based on these three premises. In mathematical astronomy Ptolemy's system dominated until the 17th century. But even in the 16th century, it came under criticism. Why? There are two basic reasons. One, it was becoming increasingly evident that the Ptolemaic system did not make accurate predictions, it was not working perfectly. Two, it seemed to some that the Ptolemaic system relied on models that were physically implausible. For example, to claim that (in the epicycle-on deferent construction) a planet orbits an empty point in space as that point orbits the earth did not make sense to some critics. Against this background and criticism Copernicus (the Copernican system) postulated three motions for the earth. One, a diurnal (daily) rotation about the earth's polar axis to account for the daily motion of the heavens.Two, an annual revolution of the earth about the Sun to account for the Sun's motion through the ecliptic. And, three an (almost) annual precession of the earth's axis in order to maintain the observed fixed orientation of the earth's axis. In regard to this last point, if one assumes the earth is rigidly mounted on a sphere, then, as that sphere rotates once a year to carry the earth around the Sun, the direction in space toward which the earth's axis points will change. But of course this is not observed. The earth's axis always has the same orientation in space. To compensate for the reorientation imposed by the sphere, Copernicus introduced the third motion. A conical precession of the earth's axis will continuously realign the axis to keep it pointing toward the north star (the "pole" star) as it should. (This third motion is rendered superfluous through the modern concept of inertia; the axis will of itself maintain the correct orientation). Did Copernicus really believe that the earth was embedded in a sphere? It is a difficult question to settle unambiguously and historians continue to debate the issue. But the growing consensus is that yes, he did, but the sphere was made of a fluid. Thus, it was a physical as well as mathematical concept. Putting this all together one obtains a seemingly much simpler picture of the universe. That is, much simpler than Ptolemy's multiple epicycle-on-deferent constructions. However, by the time Copernicus works out all the details necessary to make his system predictively accurate it becomes just as complicated as Ptolemy's, if not slightly more so. He must not only employ epicycles, but epicycles on epicycles. Though the epicycles are now small and serve only to "fine tune" the system, the total number of epicycles is greater in Copernicus' system than in Ptolemy's. Moreover, the orbits are not perfectly concentric. No two orbits have precisely the same centers and the Sun lies at none of the centers. What has he achieved? Has he overthrown ancient astronomy? No, for he is doing ancient astronomy. Except for putting the earth in motion, he has preserved the aims and techniques of ancient astronomy. Instead of the earth, he puts the Sun at the center of the stellar sphere. Thus, the same general pattern is preserved. The universe is still finite. And he adheres to the ancient premises of uniform circular motion even more strictly than Ptolemy for he rejects the equant construction as a violation of that premise. The equant, for Copernicus, violated the Pythagorean conception of uniformity. It had to go. And as a consequence of this rejection the earth was put

in motion. Thus, Copernicus' motivation was essentially a conservative one. He wished to return to the purity of ancient astronomy. If he has not overthrown ancient astronomy, what has he done? Has he improved the accuracy of astronomy? Not really. Computer studies of both Ptolemy's system and Copernicus' indicate that it would have been very difficult to observationally distinguish between the predictions of the two systems. Has he made astronomical calculations easier? Perhaps a little. But those simplifications could have been accomplished without devising an entirely new system. The use of trigonometry that made calculations easier in the Copernican system could certainly have been applied to the Ptolemaic constructions. What then is the advantage of Copernicus' system? It is this: constructions that had seemed arbitrary in the Ptolemaic scheme now become intelligible in the Copernican system. Instead of asking "what," Copernicus was asking "why." Also, there were cosmological implications to his work that could not be ignored. But for Copernicus, putting the earth in motion around the Sun was the price he had to pay in order to achieve the sort of "purity of plan" he sought, e.g., the purity of ancient astronomical principles. In conclusion, Copernicus assigned to the earth, three motions: a diurnal rotation, an annual revolution about the Sun; and an (almost) yearly precession of the earth's axis (in order to maintain the observed orientation of the axis toward the "pole" star). He has gotten rid of the equant because he felt that it violated the ancient astronomical premise of uniformity. However, he has kept the epicycle, movable eccentric, and the strict meaning of uniform circular motion. It is difficult to see this as an overthrow of ancient astronomy. As a mathematical astronomer, Copernicus was conservative. He was playing the same astronomical game as Ptolemy. There was perhaps a little improvement in the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of Copernicus' system, but not much improvement. Perhaps some simplification in the calculations, but nothing that could not have been directly applied to Ptolemy's system. What are the advantages of the Copernican system? Constructions that appear arbitrary in the Ptolemaic system are rendered intelligible in the Copernican system. Copernicus offers greater intelligibility for planetary phenomena. What is meant by this? Here are four illustrations of intelligibility: the problems of Mercury and Venus, retrograde motion of the planets, parallelism of radii, and the order of the planets. The problem of Mercury and Venus. Observations tell us that Mercury is never found further than approximately 22o from the Sun and Venus never more than 44o. Why is this so? Ptolemy accounts for this by placing the centers of the epicycles of Mercury and Venus on the line connecting the earth and Sun. The sizes of these epicycles are such that when observed from the earth, Venus is never seen further from the Sun than 44o (and similarly for Mercury). But why should the centers of the epicycles be placed between the earth and Sun? Why not centered on the Sun, or beyond the Sun? Ptolemy could not explain why. This choice contained an arbitrary element. Click this link for a great animation of Ptolemy's epicycles and comparison with the Copernican system: http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm

Copernicus, on the other hand, can explain the observations by simply pointing to the fact that all the planetary orbits are centered on the Sun and, since Mercury and Venus lie closer to the Sun that the earth, they can never be more than the prescribed distance from the Sun. The problem of parallelism of radii. In the composite Ptolemaic system one notices that there is a shared feature among the motions of the Sun and the superior planets (those that lie further from the earth than the Sun). These planets all have epicycles the same size as the Sun's orbit, these epicycles all turn at a rate of once a year, and the lines connecting the planets to their respective epicyclic centers always remain parallel to the line connecting the Sun and earth. Why should it be so? Again, if pressed Ptolemy could only say that, if you choose these constructions, it works. He cannot explain why these motions should be shared in this fashion. Copernicus could explain this common feature in terms of his heliocentric model. One way of seeing this is to think of Ptolemy as having misplaced the true center of the solar system by having the Sun orbit the earth. In order to compensate for this "mistake" he had to introduce annual epicyclic motion. Or, to think about it in a different way, we know that the planets revolve around the Sun in approximately circular orbits. Thus the distance of a given planet from the Sun does not change substantially. Though Ptolemy clearly did not see it this way, he nevertheless had to achieve this one way or another. The co-parallelism of the epicyclic radii can thus be explained by envisioning a "tie rod" connecting the Sun to a superior planet. This forces the planet to remain at a fixed distance from the Sun and it also makes the radii remain co-parallel. The problem of retrograde motion. If asked why retrograde motion occurs Ptolemy could only say that observation tells us that it happens. He cannot say why it happens. Copernicus, however, could say that retrograde motion occurs because the earth catches up to and then passes another planet, and, when judged against the background of distant stars, the other planet appears to be going backward. Copernicus can explain why it happens. The problem of the order of the planets. There had been a debate among ancient astronomers concerning the order of the planets. Since Mercury and Venus are always found near the Sun it was difficult to decide where they were in relation to the earth; nearer than the Sun or further? As we have seen, Ptolemy had somewhat arbitrarily placed the epicycles of Mercury and Venus on the line connecting the Sun and earth. He could have placed them beyond the Sun, or even centered on the Sun. In the system of Copernicus the order of the planets is in harmony with their increasing periods of revolution. The periods of revolution increased in a natural way as one goes further and further from the Sun. This renders the order of the planets intelligible and not arbitrary. The Copernican (and true) order of the planets is, Sun (at the center), Mercury, Venus, Earth (and its satellite, the Moon), Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The trans-Saturnian planets unknown to Copernicus are Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. These were the advantages of the Copernican system. What were the disadvantages? Clearly the greatest objection to Copernicus had to be the motion of the earth. It violated Aristotelian physics. Central to Aristotle's physics was the doctrine of natural place. The earth, being composed of "earth," naturally tended to remain at rest at the center of the universe. Motion toward an object's natural place constituted natural motion; motion in any other direction was forced motion. If the earth were now in orbit around the Sun, what does it mean to talk about "natural place" or "natural motion?" If there can be no motion without a force, what is the force

that keeps the earth in motion about the Sun? If you take Aristotelian natural philosophy seriously it becomes difficult to accept Copernicanism. What Copernicus was asking his contemporaries to do was to give up the only system of physics there was--Aristotle's--in favor of the greater "intelligibility" of his heliocentric astronomy. In conclusion, Copernicus was educated by astronomers who were critical of Ptolemaic astronomy. They were not satisfied with Ptolemy for technical reasons. The predictions made on the basis of Ptolemaic constructions had, by the end of the 15th century, clearly become inaccurate. For example, the Ptolemaic prediction for the equinox was off by nine or ten days. There was also the problem of the moon's diameter. According to the Ptolemaic lunar theory the moon should show a two-fold increase in diameter. This clearly is not observed. Copernicus and Copernicus' teachers knew the Ptolemaic system was in need of reform. There was a second motivation and this was more uniquely Copernicus. Copernicus recognized, as none of his predecessors had, that the Ptolemaic constructions violate Pythagorean criteria of uniformity, harmony, and perfection. Copernicus had come under the influence of the neo-Pythagorean revival of the latter 15th century. He imbibed the Pythagorean esthetic sensibility and applied this to mathematical astronomy. The Pythagorean tradition stressed conceptual unity, harmony, perfection, and intelligibility. It also demanded the reality of these qualities in the workings of nature. The true structure of the world, they believed, embodies these esthetic-mathematical principles. Copernicus was committed to these ideals and his reformation of ancient astronomy was largely motivated by his strict and genuine adherence to these principles. It is not enough for a theory simply to make accurate predictions; it must also embody these Pythagorean ideals. In Copernicus' "Commentariolis" (or "little commentary"), circulated among friends in 1512, he makes explicit his reasons for rejecting the equant; it violated the Pythagorean principle of uniformity. Moreover, Ptolemy employed different combinations of geometrical constructions for different planets. This was unacceptable to Copernicus. There was no harmony of composition, it was like a monster with parts taken from here or there with no sense of esthetic beauty. One must also ask,where did Copernicus get his inspiration for the new system? The answer is easy because Copernicus himself tells us--from the ancients. He knew antique references to Cicero, Plutarch, and Aristarchus all of whom had discussed a heliocentric system. Copernicus got the idea of a heliocentric astronomy from reading the ancient authorities. An alternative to Ptolemy's ancient astronomy came from other ancient astronomers (or from literary references to ancient astronomers). From his readings Copernicus probably knew as much about the heliocentric system of Aristarchus of Samos as has been presented in this manuscript. But is this to say that Copernicus merely borrowed his ideas and did nothing original himself? No, it is not. The heliocentric system of antiquity was, at least for Copernicus, nothing more than a vague notion. Copernicus needed to make it into a mathematical system capable of generating accurate predictions. What Ptolemy had done for a geocentric astronomy Copernicus now had to do for a heliocentric one. In this sense Copernicus can be considered a modern (i.e., a 16th century) Ptolemy, but for a heliocentric system. He created a mathematical heliocentric astronomy predictively competitive with Ptolemy's geocentric astronomy. Therefore, although Copernicus returned to antiquity for the criteria against which he judged Ptolemy, and also for the alternative system, he alone is responsible for the technical mathematical detail necessary to make heliocentrism a predictive model.

What of the cosmological implications of Copernicus' work? Was that not revolutionary? Perhaps his astronomy can be considered "conservative" but certainly his cosmology was something new, something radical. Heliocentrism put the earth in motion and putting the earth in motion destroys the sense and coherence of Aristotelian physics. Putting the earth in motion was the price Copernicus had to pay in order to achieve the harmony and unity he sought in planetary theory. It was the price of intelligibility. And certainly to the eyes of most this cosmology was a disadvantageous by-product. Did his system do what he wanted it to do? Copernicus' heliocentric system brought him a conceptual unity lacking in the planetary theory of Ptolemy. Copernicus was deeply impressed by the fact that in his system the ordering of the planets is in harmony with their increasing periods of revolution. That is, as one moves outward, away from the Sun, the periods of the planets increase. Sun-worship had long been a part of the Pythagorean tradition and Copernicus had imbibed enough of that tradition to have comparable "Sun-worshiping" tendencies. Copernicus speaks of the Sun as representing the power and glory of God, that it is right for the Sun to be enthroned at the center of the universe, etc. He was not being merely metaphorical or using these expressions merely figuratively. There is one final question: his "Commentariolis" was finished by 1512 or 1514, where the basic notions of his heliocentric system were laid out. He did not have On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (De Revolutiones) published until 1543, though the work was finished by 1531. Why did it take him so long to publish his ideas? Why was he so hesitant? Fear of church censorship was not the only reason. Copernicus himself tells us that it was his sense of "Pythagorean secrecy" that made him wait so long. True knowledge should only be passed on to kindred spirits who are capable of fully understanding and approaching the beauty of such knowledge. In summary, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was born in Torun, Poland to a wealthy merchant family. Educated at the University of Krakow in the traditional curriculum, he came in contact with the revival of neo-Pythagoreanism. Moreover, the astronomical tradition at Krakow was not only one of the best in Europe, it was fluent in and critical of Ptolemaic astronomy. In his reform of astronomy Copernicus assigns three motions to the earth: a diurnal rotation; an annual revolution about the Sun; and a conical precession of the earth's axis to keep it properly aligned (i.e., pointing toward the pole or North Star). Schematically, this produced a very simple and esthetically pleasing model of the solar system. But when worked out in all its detail it is just as complex as Ptolemy's system. Copernicus' dissatisfaction with Ptolemaic astronomy stemmed from his adherence to Pythagorean ideals of harmony, unity, perfection, and intelligibility. He felt that Ptolemy's use of the equant violated the Pythagorean sense of uniformity, that Ptolemy's system lacked an internal consistency and harmony, that too many of Ptolemy's constructions seemed arbitrary and unintelligible. Examples of the superior intelligibility of the Copernican system concern the placement of Mercury and Venus in relation to the earth and the Sun, retrograde motion, the parallelism of the epicyclic radii of the superior planets, and the harmonious relation between the period of the planets' revolutions and the sizes of their orbits. Copernicus gained his esthetic criteria and the basic features of an alternative model to Ptolemy's from ancient sources, but the hard work of making a heliocentric model predictively accurate was his alone.

Reception of Copernican & Cosmology As we have seen, Copernicus was a neo-Pythagorean who demanded intelligibility, unity, harmony, and perfection in astronomy. His focus on new (or "re-newed") values gave him new insights into the problems of astronomy. But how were his ideas received? Copernicus died within weeks of the publication of De Revolutiones. (The work had been seen through the press by a young Lutheran named Rheticus who had come to study the new astronomy of the Polish cleric in 1539). In general, the reception of De Revolutiones was cold. Few read it and fewer still understood it. Of the approximately 500 copies of De Revolutiones printed in 1543 roughly 200 survive. In the first fifty years after its publication, it was largely ignored. During that time perhaps no more than 25 people read and understood it. Those who did understand the work were members of the scientific community. Let us take a look at their response. Philip Melancthon (1497-1560) was a professor of Greek at the recently established Lutheran University in Wittenberg. He was very influential in the establishment of the new Protestant curriculum in Lutheran universities. He was one of the leaders of the Protestants in Germany and was considered Luther's "right-hand man." He pioneered a number of educational reforms. He was interested in astronomy and mathematics and gathered about him a circle of bright, talented mathematicians which we will call the Melancthon circle: they were George Joachim Rheticus (the one who went to Frauenberg to learn first-hand about the Copernican system), Casper Peucer (Melancthon's son-in-law), and Erasmus Reinhold. Rheticus not only encouraged Copernicus to go ahead with the publication of De Revolutiones but he also was responsible for igniting the interest of other Lutheran astronomers in Copernicanism. In the late 1530's Rheticus heard of Copernicus' "Commentariolis" and began to correspond with him. He visited Copernicus in 1539 and stayed for two years, mastering the details of the new system and becoming increasingly enthusiastic about it. He published, in 1540, his Primo Nuncio, the "first narration" or "first account" of the Copernican system. This served to excite other astronomers at Wittenberg. However, they saw the system as a mathematical description, an improved calculating device and not as a model representing physical reality. They were much pleased with the elimination of the equant. Reinhold developed a set of astronomical tables on the basis of Copernicus' heliocentric model. These tables supersede the 13th century Alphonsine Tables. They are called the Prutenic Tablets. In part, this first generation of Lutheran astronomers were led to their interpretation of the Copernican system on account of an anonymous preface attached to De Revolutiones written by Andreas Osiander, a Protestant reformer who, in the last stages of publication, took over from Rheticus. In this preface Osiander argued that the reader should not be critical of Copernicus' heliocentric claims for his is a mathematical scheme that should not be taken to represent physical reality. The preface was intended to shield Copernicus from undue criticism. The second generation of Lutheran astronomers (mostly students of the Melancthon circle), nevertheless, began to see the cosmological implications of Copernicanism. They saw that it clearly impinged on disciplines outside mathematical astronomy. And they began to understand that Copernicus himself meant his system to represent physical reality; that it was no mere mathematical fiction. These astronomers (Johannes Praetorius, Michael Maestlin and Tycho Brahe) could not give their full

support to the Copernican system because its cosmological implications seemed too inconsistent with other well-established areas of knowledge, particularly with Aristotelian physics. Copernicanism was not rejected out of blind prejudice and superstition, but for good, solid hardheaded reasons. There was also a third generation of Lutheran astronomers, the most important of whom was Johannes Kepler. The possibility of the rotation of the earth had been discussed for centuries among church officials. Oresme, a bishop, and Nicolas of Cusa (early 15th century theologian and cardinal), for example, had discussed such a possibility at length. The 16th-century Catholic Church was largely silent on the matter of the earth's motion. One cannot read the affairs of Galileo and the counter-Reformation back into the reception of Copernicanism. Similarly, the response from Protestant authorities was muted. It was Lutheran astronomers who first gave the Copernican system a hearing and who first adopted the system. The second generation had doubts about the system, but on physical grounds, not on theological grounds. Luther himself is reported to have made an off-the-cuff remark in his "Table Talk" denigrating the astronomer who would be so foolish as to think that the earth could move (he did not mention any astronomer by name). Calvin seems not to have said anything at all about heliocentric astronomy. Melancthon was initially mildly hostile to Copernicanism, but later he tolerated and, as we have seen, even encouraged its study at Protestant universities. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) Brahe was born into an aristocratic Danish family. He received a liberal education at the University of Copenhagen, but was largely self-educated in astronomy. As a nobleman he had little use for a degree; he had no intention of ever supporting himself by teaching. He traveled about Europe for several years studying at various universities and, upon one occasion, losing his nose in a duel. In 1560 there was a solar eclipse which, to the profound amazement of the young Tycho, was accurately predicted by astronomers. This, he tells us, greatly stimulated his interest in astronomy for it struck him as almost divine that astronomers could make such a prediction. However, in 1563, the prediction of the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was off by several days. This deeply disappointed him. He determined that he should become an astronomer. He acquired books, instruments, and the required astronomical knowledge. In 1572, when Tycho was 26, a new star appeared in the sky. Tycho's parallax measurements proved that the star had to lie in the celestial region and could not be a meteorological phenomenon. Therefore, Aristotelians must be wrong in their assertion that the heavens were a region of changelessness, for here was a clear example of change e.g., the appearance, change in color, and eventual disappearance of a new star in the heavens. Tycho acknowledged that the changing colors of the star had astrological importance. The following year he published his account of his measurements and conclusions in a short work entitled, "On the New Star." It was one of a dozen or so tracts on the new star, but it was the best. It won for him a modest reputation among European astronomers. To keep the young and famous astronomer in Denmark, the Danish king offered Tycho the use of an island (Hveen) off the Danish coast and a handsome stipend to continue his astronomical observations. Tycho accepted the offer and established one of the finest naked-eye observatories ever built, by far the best in Europe. On the island he had built a palatial house; he had

instrument-makers, astronomical assistants, servants, even his own paper-mill and printing press. At Hveen, Tycho compiled a twenty-year record of the best naked-eye observations ever known. He set out to revamp the observational record, and he did. He used new, large and stable instruments to greatly improve the accuracy of determining planetary and stellar positions (he improved the accuracy of both by a factor of two; an error of about 1' of arc for the former and about 4' or arc for the latter). He also observed the planets more frequently in their orbits than had traditionally been done. Instead of recording their positions at four points (at the "quadrants"), Tycho observed them at eight points (at the octants). (As we will see, Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits would have been impossible without these additional observations). Tycho succeeded in providing astronomers with a remarkably complete set of improved observational data. He has broken the tyranny of Ptolemaic data. Until Tycho's observations, the most complete observational record had been that of Ptolemy. Now astronomers have Tycho's data. What did Tycho think of Copernicanism? He rejected it (as a physical system) for three reasons. One, if the earth were rotating then a stone dropped from a tower would fall to the west of the tower. Two, he could observe no stellar parallax, and, since he thinks he can see the body of a star, the stars cannot be as far away as Copernicus needs them to be in order to render stellar parallax unobservable. Third, he argues that it is impossible to reconcile a moving earth with statements in the Bible. Tycho's second point can be understood as follows. If the earth is in motion around the Sun then the angular separation of two stars should change when observed first from one side, then from the opposite side of the earth's orbit. This change is not observed. Copernicus had argued that the reason we don't see this change is because the stars are simply too far away, that the diameter of the earth's orbit is infinitesimal in comparison to the distance of the stars. Tycho, however, argues that since he can see the body of a star, they cannot be as far away as Copernicus claimed. Therefore, in the absence of a detectable stellar parallax, the earth must not be moving. As an alternative to Copernicus' heliocentric system, Tycho proposes a compromise in which the planets revolve around the Sun in the Copernican fashion while the Sun, in its turn, revolves about a fixed and stationary earth. This is called the geo-heliocentric model, and it has the advantage of leaving the earth at rest at the center of the universe, thus preserving Aristotelian physics. Tycho's system preserves the simple and harmonious features of the Copernican system while avoiding the seemingly insurmountable physical objections. Moreover, this system is geometrically equivalent to the Copernican model. In other words, if you had a machine constructed according to the Copernican model, and if you picked it up by the Sun, the planets would be behaving as Copernicus claims they do, e.g., orbiting about the Sun. If, however, you were to pick the same machine up by the earth without changing anything at all about the structure or workings of the machine, the planets would now be behaving as Tycho claims they do, e.g., orbiting the Sun while the Sun orbits the stationary earth. Unlike Copernicus, Tycho never developed his system into a mathematical model capable of making predictions. Tycho wished for Kepler to do this for his geo-heliocentric system (Kepler had his own ideas). There are two other points important in understanding Tycho's contributions to astronomy: the very nature of Tycho's system precludes the notion of crystalline (planetary)

spheres. Aristotle had maintained that the planets were borne on a number of transparent crystalline spheres with the earth at their shared center. Spheres won't work for Tycho because they would intersect one the other: the sphere carrying Mars, for example, would have to intersect the Sun's sphere. But if crystalline spheres can no longer account for the orbits of the planets then what does? This raises one of the central problems of 17th century astronomy, e.g., the problem of the planets. Secondly, we must realize that Tycho's compromise was the dominant astronomical model until at least 1650. It seemed to most astronomers to be the perfect compromise. As we have seen, Tycho proposed a geo-heliocentric model as the perfect compromise. However, he did not develop this system into a mathematically sophisticated model (he could not make predictions using this scheme), it was obvious to Tycho that there could be no crystalline spheres since the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersect (this sets the stage for the "problem of the planets"), and Tycho's system becomes the most widely held system for at least the first half of the 17th century. In 1588, the King of Denmark, Frederick II died. The new king was less sympathetic to Tycho's enterprise on Hveen and there ensues a number of legal and financial problems between the king and Tycho. Finally, in 1597, the king revokes Tycho's subsidy, and Tycho left Hveen. Tycho takes with him as much of the large observational equipment as he can. He wanders about Europe for a brief time searching for a new patron. Eventually he moves to Prague under the patronage of Rudolph II, eccentric King of Bohemia with an interest in astronomy. Despite his new-found security, Tycho's health begins to fail. Kepler's first book, the Cosmographic Mystery (1596), attracts his attention and he invites Kepler to come to Prague and work with him. This is most convenient for Kepler who has just been driven out of Catholic Graz for being a Protestant. Kepler accepts the offer and moves to Prague in 1600. Tycho, hoping that Kepler will be the one to work out the mathematical details of his geo-heliocentric model, sets Kepler to work on the difficult orbit of Mars. Tycho soon dies (1601) and Kepler seizes Tycho's data and is free to pursue his own course. In conclusion, few scholars read and understood De Revolutiones. Perhaps during the first 50 years after its publication approximately 25 persons understood the details of the Copernican system. Among the most enthusiastic were the members of the Melanchton circle, a group of young mathematicians (or mathematical astronomers) under the protection of Philip Melanchton, a leading Protestant Reformer and pioneer in educational reform in the newly-established Protestant universities. Among this first generation of Lutheran astronomers the consensus was that Copernicus had provided an excellent mathematical model for calculating planetary positions, but they did not accept the physical reality of heliocentrism. The second generation of Lutheran astronomers (students of the first generation) began to realize the cosmological implications of Copernicanism. They understood now that Copernicus had intended his system to represent physical reality. This they rejected for it clearly violated the basis of Aristotelian physics (e.g., the notion of natural place). The 16th century Catholic Church was largely silent about the mobility of the earth. The Protestant Reformers, Luther and Melanchton, were mildly critical of the notion of the earth's motion. Calvin seems to have said nothing about Copernicus. Tycho Brahe, through his efforts in observational astronomy, provides astronomers with data more accurate and more complete than anything hitherto available. For physical reasons

Tychorejects the system of Copernicus and proposes instead his geo-heliocentric model in which the Sun orbits a fixed and stationary earth while the remaining planets orbit the Sun in the Copernican fashion. Tycho rejects also the notion of celestial spheres, thus setting the stage for the chief astronomical problem of the 17th century, namely the problem of the planets. Kepler and the Transformation of Copernican Astronomy Kepler was born in Weil der Stadt in Southwestern Germany in 1571. He was frail and sickly as a child but did well in school. It was determined that he should be prepared for the Lutheran ministry, and with this settled he was sent to the University of Tubingen (a recently-established Lutheran university). He studied in the faculty of arts taking courses in the traditional curriculum (the seven liberal arts) as well as Greek and Hebrew. He also studied mathematics and astronomy, the latter under Michael Maestlin, the second generation Lutheran astronomer whom we have seen before. Maestlin taught both the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, and Kepler was familiar with the latter very early on. In disputations with fellow students, he would take the side of Copernicus. Shortly before completing his degree, Kepler was invited to teach high school mathematics in the Austrian town of Graz. Kepler was reluctant to go for this would mean abandoning advanced study in theology. With time and the urging of his teachers he decided to accept the offer. (Kepler's beliefs were held to be mildly unorthodox; he did not believe in the omnipresence of Christ, and for this reason his teachers were reluctant to see him continue in the ministry. It might be added that Kepler was always a man of great integrity--he did not compromise or hide his beliefs). At the school in Graz, Kepler had much free time. (He was a poor teacher, demanding and unsympathetic to the students' low level of mathematical ability). The fruit of this leisure was his first book, the Cosmographic Mystery, published under the care of Michael Maestlin in 1596. Kepler is passionately committed to the Copernican system. He wants very much to proclaim its beauties to all the world and also to perfect it. Kepler, no less than Copernicus, seeks to establish the order, unity, and intelligibility of the universe. But Kepler goes beyond Copernicus in his search for intelligibility and asks, "Why are there six and only six planets?" This may seem like a strange question to ask, but not to Kepler. For he is convinced that God is a geometer, that He/She constructed the world according to geometrical principles, and that it is his task to discover those underlying principles. Therefore, the number and spacings of the planets must be as they are for a reason--for a geometrical reason. Kepler found the answer to this question in the five regular solids. Euclid had shown that there can be five and only five convex solids the faces of which are composed of regular polygons. Kepler takes these five regular solids and nests them one inside the other in such a way that a sphere circumscribing one solid is itself "circumscribed" by the next regular solid. That is, the concentric nesting of five regular solids defines the radii of six (one for each of the solids plus one on the very inside of the innermost solid) circumscribing spheres. Kepler discovers that the proper sequence of solids will give spheres whose radii correspond almost exactly to the mean orbital radii of the Copernican system. The scheme works quite well except in the case of Jupiter. There the data is off from the radius predicted by his scheme. The agreement of the other radii is too close to be merely coincidence. The data for Jupiter must be wrong. He seeks better data, and the only place he can get that is from Tycho. It happened that Tycho had read the Cosmographic Mystery and was interested, not in all the geometrical mysticism, but in Kepler as the human calculator to mathematize his geo-

heliocentric system. He wants Kepler to come to Prague. Kepler, however, sees Tycho as a man with data he doesn't know how to use. Kepler, under extreme pressure from Catholic authorities in Graz, leaves Austria and joins Tycho at Prague. They get along poorly. Tycho treats Kepler like a servant and Kepler is expecting to be treated like a colleague. The personal tensions are soon relieved by Tycho's death (1601) and Kepler makes off with Tycho's lifetime record of astronomical observations. Tycho had set Kepler to work on the Martian orbit, a problem which Kepler pursues even after Tycho's death. Of all the planets then known, Mars had the greatest eccentricity (about one part in 240 out of round. Mercury has an even greater eccentricity but its orbit is so close to the Sun that it is difficult to observe and much of its orbit is obscured by the Sun). Had Kepler chosen any other planet to work on he could not have discovered elliptical orbits because the eccentricity would have been too small to "show through" the observational error. Initially, Kepler is committed to uniform circular motion. But he rejects epicycles because he thinks they are physically implausible. Moreover, since Copernicus himself employed epicycles only as small, "fine-tuning" adjustments to the circular orbit, Kepler was convinced that Tycho's improved data will eliminate all need for such "adjustments." Kepler bases his physical arguments against the epicycles on the following grounds: he argues that a force emanating from the rotating Sun is what causes the planets to revolve about the Sun. A single force can cause only a single motion. There is no force available to account for epicyclic motion, therefore the motion is fictitious. On the assumption that the Martian orbit is perfectly circular and that Mars travels that orbit with uniform motion, Kepler must establish three geometrical features of the Martian orbit: the size of the orbit, the placement of the center of the orbit in relation to the Sun, and the speed of the planet in its orbit. But he finds that if he assumes a circular orbit Mars cannot be moving uniformly. He reintroduces the equant in order to find some type of uniformity but is forced to the conclusion that there is no equant point either within or outside the Martian orbit. He must admit that Mars' motion is non-uniform. Kepler is a Copernican; he knows the earth is in motion about the Sun. Perhaps it is the motion of his "observation platform"--the earth--that is responsible for Mars' non-uniform motion. He proceeds to calculate the earth's orbit and finds that the earth too moves with non-uniform motion. The predictions for Mars' position on the basis of the corrected orbit of the earth were off by 8'(about 1/6 of a degree). Any astronomer before Tycho would have been overjoyed at such good agreement. But Kepler knew that Tycho's data was good to half that value (about 4'). Kepler sees astronomy as the highest expression of God's geometry. The match between prediction and observation must be as good as possible. And, Kepler says, if God has given Tycho to us in order to provide us with the best observational data ever, then he (Kepler) knows that in the case of Mars he has failed. Until this point, Kepler has been doing mathematical astronomy. And this has led him to a dead end. He can find uniformity neither in the orbit of Mars nor the earth. Not even the equant can help him. Kepler decides to look at the physics of the situation, to examine the forces causing these motions. He has this idea of a force emanating from the Sun that causes the planets to revolve about the Sun as the Sun rotates on its axis. This could explain why all the planets move in the same direction and, perhaps, why the earth and Mars move irregularly. He assumes that this force behaves in a lever-like fashion, e.g., its effectiveness diminishes with distance.

He notices that when a planet passes through the line of apsides (the line through the Sun connecting the planet's nearest and furthest distance to the Sun) the planet's velocity is inversely related to its distance from the Sun. This suggests to him a "distance law." It says that the (tangential) force pushing a planet along in its orbit is inversely proportional to the distance of the planet from the Sun at that point. The distance law is extraordinarily difficult to use. It requires literally hundreds of calculations in order to figure the speed of the planet over part of its orbit. Kepler hit upon an "area law" that will make the calculations easier. He thinks that the area somehow "contains the distance." Near the apsides the distance from the Sun to the planet at point two is twice that to position one (in this diagram the eccentricity of the Sun is greatly exaggerated). Since velocity is proportional to distance, the length of the arc traveled at point two is just half that traveled at point one. But the areas of the two "triangles" involved are the same. Thus Kepler's distance law is restated in terms of areas: the line connecting the Sun and the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. (Do not confuse this law with the definition for uniform circular motion: the line connecting the Sun and the planet sweeps out equal angles in equal times). Kepler now has a new weapon in his war on Mars. With it he hopes to deal successfully with Mars' non-uniformity. He applies the area law to the Martian orbit and it fails. The positions of Mars calculated according to the area law do not agree with the positions given by Tycho's data. Kepler is driven to the point where he is now willing to surrender the most basic principle of mathematical astronomy--circular orbits. This is the one assumption he has not challenged. But now he has little choice. In conclusion Kepler has discovered that the earth and Mars both move non-uniformly in their orbits. There is not even an equant point for either that can render their motions in any way uniform. He has taken mathematical astronomy as far as he can. He then considered physical causes and came up with a "distance law" on the basis of his notion that the planets were swept along in their orbits by a force emanating from the rotating Sun. This force decreased in proportion to the distance of the planet from the Sun. Cumbersome and tedious to apply, Kepler restated the sense of the distance law in terms of the area law (that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times). With this new physical argument and calculational device Kepler again tried to account for the irregularities of the Martian orbit, and again met failure. His only option-short of giving up--was to abandon circular orbits. His calculations with the area law had shown that the area swept out by the line connecting Mars and the Sun (in the circular orbit) was more than it should be. The planet's position as calculated according to the area law put it ahead of the position recorded in Tycho's data. The circular orbit placed "too much area" in the region near the quadrature (the points 90 from the line of apsides). Kepler trusted his area law (or more precisely, the distance law upon which it was based). The problem he faces is how to get rid of area at these points and still have a mathematically treatable curve. He first tries an oval-shaped orbit. Although not a defined, geometrical curve, it suggested itself to Kepler probably for symbolic reasons. The oval- or egg-shape was part of the neoPlatonic symbolism of the cosmos, the "world-egg." In any event, he tries the egg-shaped orbit despite the mathematical difficulties it presents. He uses ellipses to approximate the egg-shape.

Finally, he finds one ellipse that gives him the proper distribution of area about the orbit; just the right amount at the apsides and just enough less area at the quadratures to place the planet in its observed position. That is, the ellipse and area law together are able to give the positions of the planets in excellent agreement with Tycho's data. For each segment of the planet's orbit the ellipse given the proper amount of area to keep the planet's predicted position in line with its observed position. The point here is that the area law and the law of ellipses work (and can only work) together. There is no independent check on either of them. Kepler, however, is not quite done with the problem. As ever, he asks "Why should the planets orbits' (after his conquest of Mars he successfully applies the area law and the law of ellipses to the remaining planets) ingress as they do?" Why are the orbits "squeezed" into ellipses? Again, he tries to supply a physical argument for this. There must be a force responsible for the ingression. It can't be the force from the Sun that causes the planets to move along their orbits (that force is tangential, it can neither attract nor repel the planet). He borrows the idea of magnetic attraction from William Gilbert's treatise on magnetism. Gilbert, an Englishman who died in 1603, published an extensive investigation of the properties of magnets in 1600. Kepler considers the Sun to be a magnetic monopole which alternately attracts and repels the earth as the earth orbits the Sun. The inclination of the Earth's axis first brings the southern then the northern magnetic pole slightly closer to the Sun. This alternating attraction and repulsion, in Kepler's mind, was to account for the ingression of the planetary orbits. (In fact, the scheme could not work in the way Kepler describes it). Kepler published his work in a book called the New Astronomy in 1609. In it he details the steps he took that led to the rejection of circles in astronomy. Here Kepler has broken with the 2000year tradition of mathematical astronomy. He has given up what everyone before him had thought essential to doing any type of astronomy; whether Aristotelian, Ptolemaic, or Copernican. This took tremendous courage on the part of Kepler. Uniform circular motion is no longer required in order to make astronomical calculations. The area law and the law of ellipses provide new techniques for performing calculations. Secondly, Kepler has discovered new harmonies in the heavens. God could have chosen any shape He/She wanted--whether geometrically defined or not--but chose one that was welldefined and workable. There is a unity of plan in the Keplerian system lacking even in Copernicus. For now all the planets share the same orbital shape. e.g., the ellipse. Thirdly, he introduced physical arguments into astronomy in a significant way. It is the force emanating from the Sun that suggested the distance law upon which the area law was based. And, of course, the ellipse was the curve that gave the proper distribution of area about the orbit. The area law and the law of ellipses rest directly on Kepler's notion of a solar force. Fourthly, Kepler places new emphasis on the importance of the Sun. Not only did he discover that the planes of all the planetary orbits pass through the Sun, but that the Sun lies at a geometrically significant point in the ellipse--at the focus of the ellipse. Thus the Sun becomes the center of action for the entire system of planets. The Sun's rotation accounts for the fact that all the planets orbit in the same direction. This also provides support for Kepler's theological

views. For Kepler the Sun was the symbol of God the Father ruling the universe from a central throne. Finally, predictions calculated on the basis of the first two laws (the area law and the law of ellipses) provide Kepler with the most accuracy ever obtained. His predictions fit Tycho's data. This does not end Kepler's search for celestial harmony. It began of course with his scheme of five regular solids. He is interested to find even more mathematical harmonies. Since the planets vary in speed over the course of their orbits. Kepler takes the ratio of each planet's minimum speed to its maximum speed. When he does this he finds the following relations: Saturn 4/5 Jupiter 5/6 Mars 2/3 Earth 15/16 Venus 24/25 Mercury 5/12 (major third) (minor third) (fifth) (semi-tone) (diesis) (octave + minor third)

In a word, Kepler's search for cosmic harmony culminates in the music of the spheres. Buried in his book, HarmonicesMundi, is his third law of planetary motion: T2R3 (or, the square of the period of a planet in its orbit is proportional to the cube of the mean radius of its orbit). The area law and the law of ellipses apply to each planet individually. The third law relates all the planets together in one system, it connects the size of planetary orbits with the period of revolution. Kepler now has the completeness and harmony he sought. Galileo and the Inquisition Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was born in Pisa to an impoverished patrician family. His early schooling was at a monastery school near Florence. In 1581 he began, under the urgings of his parents, medical school. His real interest, however, was in mathematics which he pursued on his own with the assistance of Ostilio Ricci, a family friend. He did not complete his medical training, nor did he receive a degree. He withdrew from the university in 1585 to pursue full-time his interest in mathematics. He studied on his own as a gentleman who hoped not to have to work for a living. He was able to demonstrate his mathematical talents through a number of original but not major proofs and discussions. On the basis of these efforts and the assistance of a family friend, Guidobaldodel Monte, he was given a professorship at the University of Pisa in mathematics in 1589. Pisa, however, was not to the young Galileo's liking, and he left three years later for a position at the University of Padua (near Venice). He remains at Padua for a number of years until he succeeds in winning the patronage of the Grand Duke of Tuscany and returns to Florence as the court mathematician of the Medici family. Galileo's involvement with Copernican astronomy before 1609 is difficult to trace with any precision or certainty. In 1608 the telescope was invented in Holland. Galileo soon learned about this amazing "toy", and set out to make one of his own. By virtue of his manual skill and motivation to make the telescope into a scientific instrument he succeeded in producing a

telescope of good quality (approximately 30 times). He then used the telescope to make a number of startling astronomical observations. Among the most important of these were; the apparent existence of mountains, valleys, and craters on the moon, the phases of Venus, and the discovery of moons orbiting Jupiter. How do these observations play into Galileo's Copernicanism? Do they provide compelling proof of the Copernican system? Or do they simply render it more plausible? There are two points here. The first and most serious objection to Copernican astronomy is that it requires the massive earth to be in motion. How can that be? Galileo's observation of earth-like features on the moon at least suggest that if a massive object like the moon can be in motion, then why not the earth? A second objection to Copernicanism was that in this system the earth is the only planet with a satellite (the moon). Galileo's discovery of four moons orbiting Jupiter greatly weaken this objection. Now there is at least one other planet with satellites. This, of course, does nothing to prove the earth really moves, it merely removes an objection. What does Galileo have? He has arguments and not proof. He can provide Copernicanism with considerable rhetoric and propaganda but he cannot provide it with proof. Galileo's role was that of a propagandist for Copernicanism. And this was what got him into trouble with the Church not merely his choice of astronomical theories. Copernicus himself had received no hassles from the Church for his astronomical ideas seventy-five years before. What had changed by the time of Galileo was the climate of opinion dominating the highest levels of the Church hierarchy. The Protestant Reformation had its beginnings in the first quarter of the 16th century (traditionally it is dated from the year 1519 when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the doors of the Wittenberg Church). Over the course of the 16th century Protestantism posed a constant threat to the stability and power of the Catholic Church. What had been tolerated was now restricted; where the Church had valued open discourse and criticism, it now valued obedience and conformity; once liberal, it now became much more narrowly traditional. Evidence of this increasingly conservative trend comes from an examination of the changes in Biblical hermeneutics (theories of how the Bible should be interpreted). After the middle decades of the 16th century there is an increased emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible comes to be seen as the source for true statements about the natural world. This contrasts with previous hermeneutical traditions (within the medieval Catholic Church) treating the Bible in a more figurative, allegorical, or even symbolic manner. According to these methods of interpretation, the chief end of the Bible is to save souls. Therefore, statements concerning the nature and structure of the natural world need not (should not) be taken literally. However, in the midst of the Counter Reformation (the Catholic Church's response to the Protestant Reformation) the Church was "running scared." The Church maintains that only it can be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Bible. (Luther had argued that each should read the Bible for himself or herself without the need for a priestly cast to interpret the Bible for you). The Catholic Church was concerned to reassert it authority over the way in which the Bible is to be read and understood. Another important episode in the events that led to Galileo's encounter with the Inquisition was the reform program preached by Giordano Bruno, a late 16th century Dominican monk. Bruno

had preached a complete restructuring of political and religious institutions for all of Europe. He sought to convince various European kings and princes of the imminence of this social revolution. Moreover, he held a number of heretical views concerning the Eucharist. Along with this program Bruno espoused Copernican astronomy. Thus Copernicanism came to be associated, in the minds of some, with the dangerous reform or revolution preached by Bruno. Bruno was eventually imprisoned and burned at the stake (1600). To some, Galileo looked like another Bruno. Like Bruno he wrote in the vernacular rather than in Latin (thus becoming more accessible to a wider audience). Like Bruno he wrote in dialogue form, a popular literary style. Like Bruno he spoke glowingly of Copernicanism. Whatever the reasons, Galileo soon encounters opposition from local clergy. His "Letters on Sunspots" (1612) provokes additional criticism. Galileo defends himself through an "open letter" addressed to his friend Benedetto Castelli. (Although not published, such letters were written in multiple copies and circulated among intellectuals). In this letter Galileo argues that we should not take the Bible literally, that it cannot be taken as a scientific text describing and explaining the natural world. This, of course, serves only to fuel the fires of his critics. A Dominican by the name of Lorrini obtains a copy of this letter, forges a copy to make Galileo out to be worse than he actually was, and sends the doctored letter to the Inquisition. Now once charges are brought to the Inquisition, which is the judiciary arm of the Catholic Church, the machinery of the Inquisition is set into motion and must grind to its completion. Galileo is now in a touchy situation. But he remains naive and confident. He thinks he has arguments to convince anyone of the truth of the Copernican system. Also, Galileo is witty and very articulate. He enjoys engaging opponents in discussions about Copernicanism, taking their objections to it and making them even stronger, and then demolishing both their criticisms and his own strengthened ones. Although highly entertaining, it also won Galileo a number of enemies. He alienated a number of people who later could have been valuable allies. The Inquisition reaches its decision about the charges brought before it in 1616. As part of this decision the two central claims of the Copernican system, that the Sun is at rest and the earth is in motion around the Sun, were declared "foolish, absurd, and heretical." Copernicus' De Revolutiones was put on the list of suspended books and was not to be read until corrected. However, the decision did not mention Galileo. What was at stake here was authority. We have seen this before in the context of the medieval debate between reason and revelation. Now, in the first quarter of the 17th century, reason teaches the mobility of the earth (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo), and revelation (the Bible) teaches the fixity of the earth: in Joshua the Sun is commanded to stand still. This is taken literally to mean that it is the Sun that moves and not the earth. Similarly in the Psalms one reads that the world (earth) shall never be moved and in Ecclesiastes that it is the Sun that rises and sets and hastens back to the place of its rising. Literally interpreted these passages seem to assert the fixity of the earth and the mobility of the Sun. Against this Galileo can only offer plausible arguments, not compelling proof. There was not proof of the earth's motion. Thus it was not a question of Biblical certainty against scientific certainty but of Biblical certainty against scientific possibility.

The Inquisition's decision censured Copernicus' book, not Galileo. He did, however, have to appear before Cardinal Bellarmine, who read the decree to Galileo. Bellarmine then asked Galileo if he believed Copernicanism to be the true system of the world. Galileo obligingly said "no." The Church's concern was not what Galileo thought but what he said. In some sense it was a formality. Galileo was in no personal danger. Nevertheless, this was a serious blow to Galileo's Copernican campaign. There is one final detail of Galileo's first encounter with the Inquisition that will have devastating consequences for Galileo in the future. Sometime after 1616 and before 1629 a forged document (it lacked the proper notarization of the Inquisition) was inserted to the file of the first proceedings. The document claims that Galileo was enjoined to neither teach, hold, or defend in any way the Copernican hypothesis. Of course Galileo knew nothing of this document until later. He thought that he had simply agreed not to believe the Copernican system. Three years later there are a series of spectacular comets. A leading Jesuit astronomer publishes his ideas on these comets. Galileo brutally attacks these ideas in public, and humiliates their author. Until now Galileo's chief enemies had been Dominicans. This automatically meant that Jesuits would be on his side (there had been a rivalry between these two orders). But now Galileo has even succeeded to alienate his strongest supporters. The Jesuits turn against Galileo. In 1623 Pope Paul V dies, and the new Pope, MaffeoBarbarini, becomes Pope Urban VIII. This is a great stroke of good luck for Galileo because Barbarini is a personal friend of Galileo, an educated, open-minded man who enjoys ideas. This is just the sort of man Galileo would want as Pope were he to pursue his campaign for Copernicanism. Galileo obtains permission to have an audience with the Pope. In 1624 Galileo has six audiences and receives the Pope's permission to write a book defending the Copernican system. The only stipulation is that Galileo must make it clear to his readers that the Copernican system is only a hypothesis and cannot be taken as the true description of the world. Galileo agrees and happily sets off to write his defense of Copernicanism. But the work goes slowly. By this time Galileo is growing old and his health is failing. Finally, after many delays, the book is ready to be licensed by the Church (1629). After further delays the book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1629) is licensed and published. It is a literary hit. However, in the book, which is in the form of a dialogue, the Aristotelian dunce, "Simplicio," is made to utter the Pope's warning that the Copernican system is only a hypothesis. Galileo's enemies in the papal court are able to convince the Pope that Galileo has betrayed him by putting his words in the mouth of the fool. The Pope, now older, crustier, and less tolerant of such things, orders the Inquisition to "get" Galileo. Charges are made, the proceedings commence, the forged document is produced, and things look bad for Galileo. Galileo counters with an affidavit signed by Cardinal Bellarmine (in 1616) stating that Galileo had merely agreed not to believe the Copernican system to be true. It is of no avail. Galileo realizes this. He claims to be astonished at the content and tone of his book upon rereading it. He claims he had no intention of making the Copernican argument the stronger one, etc. Sentence is passed and Galileo is forced to recant. The sentence is life-long house arrest. Galileo, old, sick, and becoming blind, is to be confined to his villa outside Florence. More a humiliation than a punishment, Galileo obediently accepts the decision.

Has Galileo "sold out" in the fight for freedom of thought? Some have maintained this. But the fact is Galileo was not involved in any fight for the freedom of thought or of speech. The proceedings of the Inquisition were a recognized formality; a means to defeat and humiliate Galileo. The issue was Galileo's obedience to Catholic (or papal) authority. After the sentencing Galileo stayed for awhile with the Archbishop of Sienna (not in a dungeon). In his remaining years Galileo resumes his work on mechanics. Galileo has been taken as the symbol of the conflict between science and religion. And this conflict has usually been seen as a conflict between scientific theory and Christian theology. But in the case of Galileo and the Inquisition there are clearly political forces at work as well as personalities and egos to be placated or bruised. Had Galileo cultivated (rather than alienated) the right friends; had he been more of a diplomat and less of an intellectual pugilist, had he not had friends among the pro-Spanish faction purged from the papal court, had any of a number of political or personal factors in the equation been changed Galileo might well have accomplished what he had set out to do. He might have succeeded in presenting his case for Copernicanism to the world without having to endure the defeat and humiliation. This was not simply an episode--a skirmish--in the great war between science and religion. All the "contestants" acknowledged the final authority of the Bible. The conflict took place within Christianity. On the one hand, the Church was asserting its role as the authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. Galileo had adopted for the purpose of defending Copernicanism, a hermeneutical position then out of favor. He was arguing a liberal, figurative interpretation at a time when the Church was deep into a theological (as well as military) battle with Protestant forces. The Church's conservative position was a matter of deeply held beliefs, not of blind bigotry. In summary, Galileo established his European reputation with the perfection and use of the telescope as an astronomical instrument. The startling observations of the earth-like appearance of the moon, the phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter increased the probability of the Copernican system but they could not provide compelling proof. Galileo's ill-advised venture into Biblical hermeneutics was at least part of the explanation of his first encounter with the Inquisition (1616). As a result of this first episode the two central claims of Copernicanism (that the earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun is at rest) were declared heretical and Copernicus' book is placed on the Index of the Inquisition. The conservative and defensive climate of opinion dominating the Catholic Church's thinking during the Counter-Reformation and the unhappy episode with Giordano Bruno's ill-fated reform program provided a difficult setting for Galileo to pursue his defense of Copernicanism. Despite having received permission from Pope Urban VIII to write such a defense, Galileo's book provoked a sharp response from the Pope. The second trial before the Inquisition issued in Galileo's recantation of Copernicanism and life-long house arrest. Care should be taken in viewing this simply as a "conflict" between science and religion. Galileo's Recantation I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against heretical depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy Gospels -- swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by God's help will for the future believe, all that is

held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But whereas -after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves, and that I must hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre and moves: Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises, protestations, and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands. I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633. I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand. Galileo and the New Mechanics The myth of Galileo's contribution to modern science concerns the alleged experiment he performed as a young man in Pisa. The story has it that he dropped two cannon balls of different weight from the leaning tower of Pisa and thereby conclusively demonstrated that weight has no effect on rate of fall and that experience triumphs over ignorance. There are a number of things wrong with this story: there are no claims from Galileo himself substantiating it (and Galileo was not one to be modest about his achievements), and when Galileo was in Pisa he held a theory of free fall that would have been clearly disconfirmed had he performed such an experiment (he then believed that the speed of free fall was proportional to density). Besides, people had already performed the experiment (Simon Stevin and Johann de Groot had dropped balls from a tower in 1586 in Holland and found that the balls struck the ground at about the same time). Well, if Galileo's mechanics did not issue from bold new experiments where did it come from? Two points are clear when answering this question.

One, Galileo was familiar with the 14th century tradition of Merton College, Buridan, and Oresme. He knew and adopted several of the key concepts and laws from this tradition; impetus, velocity, acceleration, the mean speed theorem, etc. He was part of this tradition, he did not reject it. Two, he was also motivated by his commitment to Copernicanism. By placing the earth in motion Aristotelian physics (natural place, natural motion, etc) no longer made sense. What was needed was a system of physics compatible with a moving earth. This was a conscious goal of Galileo to supply just such a system of physics. His mechanics derived not simply from observation but from a need to defend Copernicanism. Finally, Galileo's major contribution, the one that was truly revolutionary was not the problem of free fall but that of projectile motion. But first his study of free fall. Early on in his career Galileo wrote, while in Pisa, a treatise entitled De Motu (On Motion). His approach was dynamical; he was concerned with the causes of motion. Moreover, the dynamical explanation he expressed was largely that of Nicole Oresme; the variations in speed of a stone thrown upward is accounted for in terms of the stone's weight and an upward directed, dissipative impetus deposited by the thrower. The only difference is that Galileo worried about relative densities and not total weights. In his later works he entirely gives up the dynamical approach in favor of the kinematic. Henceforth, he wishes to provide only a mathematical description of motion. His chief contribution here is that he restates, clarifies, and organizes medieval conclusions. For example, he distinguishes between dynamics and kinematics. He restates the definition of uniformly accelerated motion in the following terms: equal increments of speed are added in equal increment of time (not all that much different from the medieval formulation). And he restates the mean speed theorem and the odd-numbers law. He does, however, make one small extrapolation from the latter. By considering the total distance (and not simply the increased distances) he comes to the relation ST2. This of course is not a very profound extension of the odd-numbers law. If this is all he has done, how original could he have been? Was he the revolutionary figure that he is so frequently made out to be? To systematize, clarify, and extend medieval arguments is not, perhaps, revolutionary but it is nonetheless significant. Galileo segregated the useful from the extraneous. One must keep in mind that there really was no such thing as "medieval mechanics", only a number of variously stated definitions, rules, and laws that related to Aristotelian categories of motion. Kinematics in the 14th century was entirely abstract. No one in the 14th century had identified an instance of uniformly accelerated motion, for example. Not only has Galileo performed the crucial and difficult task of sorting out the essential from the irrelevant, he has also applied kinematical notions to actual examples in nature. In the mid-16th century Domingo de Soto had suggested that free fall might be a case of uniformly accelerated motion, but he did nothing to prove it. Galileo devised a clever way to actually measure the successive increments of distance traveled for an object undergoing "free fall" to see whether it was in fact moving according to the odd-numbers law. What he did was to roll a ball down a very gradually inclined plane. This had the effect of "diluting" the effect of gravity and allowing him to take measurements within the means available to him. Using a water clock as a timing device, he determines that the ball rolls four times further in two units of time than it does in one unit of time. This, of course, is in

accordance with the odd-numbers law. Since the odd-numbers law holds, the ball rolling down the incline (and thus an object in free fall) must be undergoing uniformly accelerated motion. Thus Galileo has taken the abstract 14th century notion of acceleration and the odd-numbers law and applied them to a concrete case. Now one characterization of the experimental method claims that Galileo is the founder of this method. The trick is to pose a question to nature in such a way that it is bound to answer unambiguously. This is just what Galileo has done in the case of the ball rolling down the inclined plane. He has so arranged the experiment that only one of two outcomes are possible: the ball rolls out distances according to the odd-numbers law, or it doesn't. This is significant. It was concerning projectiles, however, that Galileo said something truly new and revolutionary. Aristotle had answered the question, "what keeps a projectile in motion once it leaves the projector?" by claiming that the air behind the projectile is stirred up and thus keeps it moving. Without an external force the object will come to rest. That is, his explanation of projectile motion depended on his notions of natural place, natural motion, and forced motion. And it depended on the assumption that an object's natural state was rest. In other words, the question he had to answer was, why does it move? And this question issues from his presuppositions about the nature of motion. But if you argue, as Galileo did, that an object is indifferent to motion, then you don't have to explain what it is that keeps an object in motion. Galileo argues that there are two equally "natural" states for an object, rest and motion. Objects are indifferent to motion; they don't care if they're moving or not. One is as good as the other. Therefore, motion does not need a cause. Does Aristotle have to ask why a body remains at rest? No. That is a silly question for Aristotle because rest is the natural state of an object; it doesn't need explaining. Galileo simply inverts the framework of the question: he doesn't see the need to explain why an object remains in motion: it does it "naturally." Another way of understanding this distinction between Galileo and Aristotle is this: for Aristotle rest and motion were categorical opposites. For Galileo they are points along the same continuum. Rest is simply "infinitely slow" motion. Or, rest is a velocity of zero. In conclusion, Galileo provided a new conception of motion and a new conception of inertia. For Aristotle one had to explain what it was that caused an object to move. What was the force or agent responsible for keeping the object in motion? Galileo inverted the question by asserting that a body is indifferent to rest or motion. We do not need an explanation for motion because motion is as natural to an object as rest. In Aristotle's view motion was repugnant to a body; in Galileo's the body was indifferent to motion or rest. Also, we have seen how Galileo took many of the ideas from the 14th century tradition of mechanics restated, clarified, and applied them. He is able to demonstrate that a ball rolling down an inclined plane (and hence an object in free fall) undergoes uniformly accelerated motion. Thus the odd-numbers law applies to its motion. Further, in the problem of projectile motion, Galileo is able to combine both his new conception of inertia with his kinematic analysis of free fall. About the middle of the 16th century an Italian philosopher by the name of Tartaglia described the path of a cannonball as a combination of violent motion (for the first part of its flight) and natural motion (the final part of its flight). Thus the path of a cannonball was thought to be rather

hook-shaped with the cannonball descending almost vertically once the violent part of its motion was completed. There was only a very little mixing of violent and natural motion at the "angle" of the hook. About ten years later Tartaglia revised his analysis and stated that the path was evenly curved throughout its flight. However he was not able to give the precise shape of the curve. Interestingly, his first analysis was taken more or less directly from what gunners thought they saw. The second analysis came about only after he thought about the problem. Galileo applies himself to the same problem with one slight simplification. Instead of having the cannon at an angle, he considers an horizontal shot. He analyzes the path of the projectile (cannonball) into two independent, though simultaneous, motions: In the horizontal direction the projectile executes simple uniform motion. Thus it travels equal increments of distance in equal increments of time. Secondly, he assumes that the cannonball falls in its flight just as though it were in free fall, that is, as if it lacked the horizontal component of its motion. Since the cannonball is assumed to be in free fall, Galileo knows that it is falling with uniformly accelerated motion. Thus it falls one unit of distance in the first unit of time, three additional units in the second time interval, and so on in accordance with the odd-numbers law. Thirdly, Galileo argued that both motions occur simultaneously without interfering with one another. This superposition of motions results in a parabolic trajectory for the cannonball. By resolving the motion into horizontal inertia (uniform velocity) and vertical free fall (uniformly accelerated) he is able to give a precise description of the curve traced by a projectile. His discovery of the parabolic trajectory of a projectile becomes the outstanding example of mathematical physics. It becomes the paradigm for all subsequent work in mathematical physics. Galileo goes on to use this analysis to argue for the validity of the Copernican system. To see how this relates to his defense of Copernicanism consider a ship with a tall mast. If the ship were moving as a stone is dropped from the top of the mast, then Galileo argues that the stone will drop straight down the mast as seen by some one standing on the ship. As seen from the shore, however, it is obvious that the ship is moving while the stone is falling. But, in perfect analogy with the cannonball, the two motions, the constant horizontal motion of the ship and the uniformly accelerated motion of the stone in free fall, combine to give the stone a parabolic trajectory. The stone shares the ships horizontal velocity but this in no way interferes with the fall of the stone. Similarly, on a rotating earth a stone dropped from a high tower will, from the vantage point of some one riding with the earth, appear to fall straight down the side of the tower. But when one takes the motion of the earth into account, the "horizontal" motion of the earth combines with the fall of the stone to give it a parabolic trajectory. Galileo has established the foundations for a new system of physics. And it is the first and most important step toward an alternative to Aristotle's system of physics. With inertia as the key concept (a body is indifferent to motion or rest) Galileo is able to construct a system of physics compatible with a moving earth. Newton will build on and complete the work Galileo has here begun. Galileo himself did not complete the job. He did not make a clean conceptual break with what had gone before. For Galileo postulated not rectilinear inertia but circular inertia. He felt that it was necessary to have circular inertia in order to make sense of Copernicanism. His choice of circular inertia can be broken up into three reasons.

One, the only example of continued motion without any visible force acting, i.e. the only instance of inertial motion evident to the senses, is the motion of the moon. It appears to continue in a circular path without any discernible force acting on it. But it moves continuously not in a straight line (as it would if rectilinear inertia were the case) but in a circular motion. The moon executes a great circular orbit around the earth. Two, similarly for the orbits of the earth and the rest of the planets in the Copernican system. Galileo thus thinks that he can best defend the circular orbits of Copernicus with the notion of circular inertia. Three, if, on the other hand, Galileo had adopted rectilinear inertia he would have a problem explaining the closed orbits of the planets. He would need to explain why the planets were bent from their straight-line paths into their circular orbits. That is, he would need to presuppose either a central force of some sort or a gravitational theory. With the notion of a rectilinear inertia one also needs a notion of gravitation. Galileo's successors address themselves to this problem but not There are many myths about Galileo's contribution to scientific method. Some claim (as in the leaning tower of Pisa myth) that Galileo single-handedly discovered and applied the experimental method. His contributions can be summarized in four points. One, Galileo was capable of brilliant experimental work. His experimental verification of the odd-numbers law is an example of this. He posed a question to nature in such a way that forced nature to answer unambiguously. Two, Galileo sometimes lies about his use of experiments. For example, he claims that a pendulum with a cork bob and one with a lead bob remained in step after 1,000 oscillations. Because of air resistance they fall out of step after only a few swings. Similarly, he claims that a pendulum executing a large swing (180 degrees) remains perfectly in step with a pendulum with a small swing, again after 1,000 swings. In fact, the periods of oscillation are not isochronous over such large amplitudes. Galileo has lied about having performed these experiments. Three, Galileo often praises experiment. Or, he is critical of those who do not use experiment. Four, Galileo also frequently deprecates and ridicules experiment. In the case of Copernicanism, he proclaims his admiration for those astronomers who over-came the evidence of the senses and listened instead to the dictates of reason. Your senses cannot tell you that the earth is in motion as Copernicus claims. Only reason can convince you of this. How do we make sense of the varied statements of Galileo on the uses of experiment? First, it is clear that Galileo upon occasion could make excellent use of experiment, but experiment uncontrolled by reason was dangerous. Conversely, reason uncontrolled by experiment could be just as dangerous. Galileo was also using experimentation for polemical purposes. He knew how to exploit the convincing power of sense experience when it suited his purpose. He was not out to convince people of the superiority of one scientific method over another. Rather, he was out to win the argument by fair means or foul. Moreover, Galileo's central achievement was not as a

fact-gatherer but as an interpreter of data already known. He was not primarily an experimental physicist interested in gathering new data. He was first and foremost a theoretical physicist able to erect a new conceptual framework in which to understand the problems of motion. Finally, Galileo became a symbol for the experimental method for later generations. But this symbolism was not necessarily deserved.