What do you think?
Rate this book
Décentrer la Terre. Copernic et les révolutions des sphères célestes
En 1543, l'astronome polonais Nicolas Copernic repose sur son lit de mort, tenant entre ses mains un exemplaire de son livre récemment publié : Des révolutions des sphères célestes.
Jusqu'alors - parce que l'Église l'enseignait et que cela semblait l'évidence même - on était persuadé que la Terre régnait au centre de l'Univers.
En décentrant brutalement la Terre, en décrivant une nouvelle cosmologie où c'est le Soleil qui occupe la position centrale, Copernic accomplit une révolution irréversible, qui infléchit, en même temps que la place de l'homme dans l'Univers, le cours de la pensée humaine.
En cet âge où le télescope n'avait pas encore été inventé, hormis la force de sa pensée, de ses calculs, de quels moyens Copernic disposait-il au juste ? Pouvait-il avoir conscience des fabuleuses conséquences de sa découverte ? Son époque était-elle prête à accepter pareille révolution ?
Ce sont ces questions que le grand romancier américain William T. Vollmann explore dans cet ouvrage, avec l'énergie intellectuelle et l'acuité stylistique qu'on lui connaît.
Il refait pour le lecteur d'aujourd'hui - et avec lui - le parcours qui a permis à Copernic, seul contre presque tous, " d'immobiliser le Soleil et de faire se mouvoir la Terre ".
Des révolutions des sphères célestes est l'un des très rares livres dont on peut affirmer qu'il a " changé le monde ". Et cependant, à l'exception de la première de ses cinq parties, il n'a jamais été traduit en français. En commentant étape par étape le maître livre de Copernic, William Vollmann fait plus que combler une lacune : il rend accessible - aux lecteurs curieux comme aux novices - la plus prodigieuse des Grandes Découvertes.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
19 people are currently reading
484 people want to read
About the author
William T. Vollmann
98 books1,480 followersWilliam Tanner Vollmann is an American author, journalist, and essayist known for his ambitious and often unconventional literary works. Born on July 28, 1959, in Los Angeles, California, Vollmann has earned a reputation as one of the most prolific and daring writers of his generation.
Vollmann's early life was marked by tragedy; his sister drowned when he was a child, an event that profoundly impacted him and influenced his writing. He attended Deep Springs College, a small, isolated liberal arts college in California, before transferring to Cornell University, where he studied comparative literature. After college, Vollmann spent some time in Afghanistan as a freelance journalist, an experience that would later inform some of his works.
His first novel, You Bright and Risen Angels (1987), is a sprawling, experimental work that blends fantasy, history, and social commentary. This novel set the tone for much of his later work, characterized by its complexity, depth, and a willingness to tackle difficult and controversial subjects.
Vollmann's most acclaimed work is The Rainbow Stories (1989), a collection of interlinked short stories that explore the darker sides of human nature. His nonfiction is equally notable, particularly Rising Up and Rising Down (2003), a seven-volume treatise on violence, which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award.
Over the years, Vollmann has continued to write prolifically, producing novels, short stories, essays, and journalistic pieces. His work often delves into themes of violence, poverty, and the struggles of marginalized people. He has received several awards, including the National Book Award for Fiction in 2005 for Europe Central, a novel about the moral dilemmas faced by individuals during World War II.
Vollmann is known for his immersive research methods, often placing himself in dangerous situations to better understand his subjects. Despite his literary success, he remains somewhat of an outsider in the literary world, frequently shunning public appearances and maintaining a low profile.
In addition to his writing, Vollmann is also an accomplished photographer, and his photographs often accompany his written work. Painting is also an art where's working on, celebrating expositions in the United States, showing his paintings. His diverse interests and unflinching approach to his subjects have made him a unique voice in contemporary American literature.
Vollmann's early life was marked by tragedy; his sister drowned when he was a child, an event that profoundly impacted him and influenced his writing. He attended Deep Springs College, a small, isolated liberal arts college in California, before transferring to Cornell University, where he studied comparative literature. After college, Vollmann spent some time in Afghanistan as a freelance journalist, an experience that would later inform some of his works.
His first novel, You Bright and Risen Angels (1987), is a sprawling, experimental work that blends fantasy, history, and social commentary. This novel set the tone for much of his later work, characterized by its complexity, depth, and a willingness to tackle difficult and controversial subjects.
Vollmann's most acclaimed work is The Rainbow Stories (1989), a collection of interlinked short stories that explore the darker sides of human nature. His nonfiction is equally notable, particularly Rising Up and Rising Down (2003), a seven-volume treatise on violence, which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award.
Over the years, Vollmann has continued to write prolifically, producing novels, short stories, essays, and journalistic pieces. His work often delves into themes of violence, poverty, and the struggles of marginalized people. He has received several awards, including the National Book Award for Fiction in 2005 for Europe Central, a novel about the moral dilemmas faced by individuals during World War II.
Vollmann is known for his immersive research methods, often placing himself in dangerous situations to better understand his subjects. Despite his literary success, he remains somewhat of an outsider in the literary world, frequently shunning public appearances and maintaining a low profile.
In addition to his writing, Vollmann is also an accomplished photographer, and his photographs often accompany his written work. Painting is also an art where's working on, celebrating expositions in the United States, showing his paintings. His diverse interests and unflinching approach to his subjects have made him a unique voice in contemporary American literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
June 7, 2019
This is one of a series of books on science written by non-scientists. The series includes David Foster Wallace writing on infinity, amongst others. Vollmann has got Copernicus and seminal work “The Revolutions of the Heavenly Speres”. One of the works which began to place the sun at the centre of the universe, rather than the earth.
The subject is not a straightforward one and you really have to be a fan of astronomy to be captivated by it, but Vollmann throws himself into it with gusto and a good deal of vigour. He examines the links between Copernicus and the classical writers who tackled the same subject, especially Ptolemy. He also examines the role of the Church and the scriptures in all this. Vollmann is quite self-deprecating at times and throws in a few good one-liners, mixing exegesis of the text with the technical stuff. Some of the technical stuff was beyond my mathematical and astronomical competence:
"Now, if we uncenter ourselves in obedience to the compelling circles and angles of 'Revolutions,' we'll come to see that the eccentric radius of any planet equals its relative mean distance from the Sun, while the epicyclic radius corresponds to Earth's relative mean distance from the same point. Never mind the fact that Ptolemy's eccentric radii for all four planets (and the Sun) equal 60 units while the epicyclic radii vary; this is simply an artifact of observations taken from a moving Earth rather than a relatively motionless Sun. The important fact is the ratio itself. For Mars, then, the ratio is 60 divided by 39*, or 1.518, a number which differs by less than 1 percent from the currently calculated mean Martian distance from the Sun of 1.524 astronomical units."
The exegesis is more interesting and typically Vollmann. Who else would check Calvin’s collected works to see if he mentions Copernicus? The discussion is the most interesting part of the work, if you’re interested in the subject. There is some interesting historical analysis too.
The subject is not a straightforward one and you really have to be a fan of astronomy to be captivated by it, but Vollmann throws himself into it with gusto and a good deal of vigour. He examines the links between Copernicus and the classical writers who tackled the same subject, especially Ptolemy. He also examines the role of the Church and the scriptures in all this. Vollmann is quite self-deprecating at times and throws in a few good one-liners, mixing exegesis of the text with the technical stuff. Some of the technical stuff was beyond my mathematical and astronomical competence:
"Now, if we uncenter ourselves in obedience to the compelling circles and angles of 'Revolutions,' we'll come to see that the eccentric radius of any planet equals its relative mean distance from the Sun, while the epicyclic radius corresponds to Earth's relative mean distance from the same point. Never mind the fact that Ptolemy's eccentric radii for all four planets (and the Sun) equal 60 units while the epicyclic radii vary; this is simply an artifact of observations taken from a moving Earth rather than a relatively motionless Sun. The important fact is the ratio itself. For Mars, then, the ratio is 60 divided by 39*, or 1.518, a number which differs by less than 1 percent from the currently calculated mean Martian distance from the Sun of 1.524 astronomical units."
The exegesis is more interesting and typically Vollmann. Who else would check Calvin’s collected works to see if he mentions Copernicus? The discussion is the most interesting part of the work, if you’re interested in the subject. There is some interesting historical analysis too.
Read
November 17, 2014Every damn'd Vollmann angel. Voll=bracht.
March 18, 2021
Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 1473 until 1543.
He was born in Torun now located in Poland and died in Frombork, also in modern day Poland.
Copernicus proposed the following:
1) The planets in our solar system (only Mercury to Saturn had been discovered in Copernicus's life time) have the Sun as the fixed point to which their motions are referred.
2) The Earth is a planet which turns once daily on its own axis.
3) Very slow long-term changes in the direction of this axis account for the precession of the equinoxes - this slow wobbling is due to lunar and solar gravitational pull.
This representation is called the heliocentric system.
Copernicus wasn't the first astronomer to propose this system, for the idea goes back to Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd Century BC. Aristarchus is completely ignored in this book and isn't even mentioned in the chronology - there's no index either another major omission - surely there should be some context for such an important discovery? Ptolemy is mentioned only because he wrote the Almagest that Copernicus referred to constantly.
Copernicus’s theory had important consequences for later thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, including such major figures as Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. The book that contains the final version of his theory, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi (“Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”), did not appear in print until 1543, the year of his death, in fact it's said that the book was placed in his hand as he lay dying.
It's important to realise that Copernicus came up with this idea without the use of a telescope.
I'd like to read more about Copernicus and his discovery, but that book will be written by a scientist or an astronomer and not by a novelist.
He was born in Torun now located in Poland and died in Frombork, also in modern day Poland.
Copernicus proposed the following:
1) The planets in our solar system (only Mercury to Saturn had been discovered in Copernicus's life time) have the Sun as the fixed point to which their motions are referred.
2) The Earth is a planet which turns once daily on its own axis.
3) Very slow long-term changes in the direction of this axis account for the precession of the equinoxes - this slow wobbling is due to lunar and solar gravitational pull.
This representation is called the heliocentric system.
Copernicus wasn't the first astronomer to propose this system, for the idea goes back to Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd Century BC. Aristarchus is completely ignored in this book and isn't even mentioned in the chronology - there's no index either another major omission - surely there should be some context for such an important discovery? Ptolemy is mentioned only because he wrote the Almagest that Copernicus referred to constantly.
Copernicus’s theory had important consequences for later thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, including such major figures as Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. The book that contains the final version of his theory, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi (“Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”), did not appear in print until 1543, the year of his death, in fact it's said that the book was placed in his hand as he lay dying.
It's important to realise that Copernicus came up with this idea without the use of a telescope.
I'd like to read more about Copernicus and his discovery, but that book will be written by a scientist or an astronomer and not by a novelist.
May 31, 2017
(Lightning Review/Ninja Stylee)
I know, I know: The worst Vollmann is like the worst beer in the pack. Still, let's not lick heels so much that we can't say when something doesn't work for us. The writing is Bill, the subject is as boring as fuckall. I hope Bill got a fatty fat check for this, as he clearly worked his ass off on it. I'm sure this is fantastic if you're into this sort of thing, science and math or whatnot. Me? I'm a man of passion and the only number I want is your phone number, honey.
Lightning Review rating: Fuck Science, Let's Dance
I know, I know: The worst Vollmann is like the worst beer in the pack. Still, let's not lick heels so much that we can't say when something doesn't work for us. The writing is Bill, the subject is as boring as fuckall. I hope Bill got a fatty fat check for this, as he clearly worked his ass off on it. I'm sure this is fantastic if you're into this sort of thing, science and math or whatnot. Me? I'm a man of passion and the only number I want is your phone number, honey.
Lightning Review rating: Fuck Science, Let's Dance
Want to read
April 5, 2013A reviewer named Ross Cann (those two sets of twinned letters already make me suspicious) really piqued my interest in this with these statements from his .2. star review of this book: "The style of the prose is a kind of jocular flippancy which was very annoying to me. The author doesn't really understand the material and he as much as says so." Right on.
Read
December 23, 2017حاولت قراءته مرتين ولم أستطع إكماله.
March 2, 2017
"the universe screamed" "the mind shudders"
William T. Vollmann gives himself the task of exhuming Copernicus's The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Along the way, he also attempts to exhume how people in Copernicus's time thought and felt about the cosmos. Through the book, we find out how terribly written The Revolutions is. It doesn't sound like much fun to read. Thankfully Bill does the reading for us, and gives us the gist, meanwhile also telling us more about Ptolemy and his system, about Aristotelian physics and beliefs, about the religious feelings and thoughts of the times, and most of all about just what Copernicus's system (which, although rigidly heliocentric, is also rigidly still Aristotelian) improved upon (and what it didn't (hint: god damn perfect circles)).
Wonderful!
Also, I feel like Feyeranband's Against Method is a nice companion. Not for his scientific anarchism, but for his exegesis of Galileo's work. They really do go well together.
William T. Vollmann gives himself the task of exhuming Copernicus's The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Along the way, he also attempts to exhume how people in Copernicus's time thought and felt about the cosmos. Through the book, we find out how terribly written The Revolutions is. It doesn't sound like much fun to read. Thankfully Bill does the reading for us, and gives us the gist, meanwhile also telling us more about Ptolemy and his system, about Aristotelian physics and beliefs, about the religious feelings and thoughts of the times, and most of all about just what Copernicus's system (which, although rigidly heliocentric, is also rigidly still Aristotelian) improved upon (and what it didn't (hint: god damn perfect circles)).
Wonderful!
Also, I feel like Feyeranband's Against Method is a nice companion. Not for his scientific anarchism, but for his exegesis of Galileo's work. They really do go well together.
October 10, 2015
Subtitle: Copernicus and 'The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres'. Part of the 'Great Discoveries' series.
Copernicus ranks up there with Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Mendel, and Galileo in the Hall of Fame of scientists who overturned the way we think about God, the world, and humanity's place in it. With the possible exception of Mendel, however, he is much less well known as a human being (rather than just an adjective: "Copernican"). This book aims to do what is possible to change this. It also explains simultaneously that:
a) Copernicus did in many ways less than he is given credit for, but
b) what he did was far more difficult than he is usually given credit for.
The first thing that I didn't know about Copernicus was that he reached his conclusions about the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of vice versa, without benefit of a telescope. Galileo could look through his telescope and see moons orbiting Jupiter, and rings around Saturn, to encourage him to believe that the planets were not fixed in heavenly spheres, and they didn't all orbit the Sun. Copernicus had no such help, but it was in large part because of his conclusions that people such as Galileo would later look for evidence in support of his theory.
The second thing I didn't know about Copernicus, is that he developed a theory nearly as bizarrely complex as the geocentric theory he was replacing. The author, William Vollmann, does a masterful job of attempting to demonstrate to us how Copernicus believed this all worked. "His Venusian orbit is immortalized pearls of ghastly syntax", Vollmann says, in excusing his decision to quote a later astronomer's summary instead of Copernicus himself. The diagrams do more than the prose to help us understand what elaborate clockwork Copernicus wanted to use, to replace the even more elaborate clockwork of the Earth-centered model.
The third thing I didn't know about Copernicus, is that he mostly relied upon Ptolemy's observations and measurements. The same Ptolemy whose theories he was overthrowing was, in Copernicus' own view, a masterfully detailed observer, and he had no problem with using Ptolemy's own data in support of his (Copernicus') theory.
Lastly, I didn't know that so little was known about Copernicus, even by historians of science. He was in some ways saved from the flames (which other heretics before and after him were sent to) for the same reason: he lived, worked, and eventually died (of natural causes, in his own bed) in a part of Europe which was not central to the intellectual life of Europe (up until him, anyway). Vollmann does what he can to piece together the scraps of evidence we have about Copernicus' life into a coherent narrative, but one is reminded of the archaeologist who has a piece of femur and three teeth and therefore surmises what the animal looked like.
Reading the story of Copernicus and his time, and how they impacted one another, is a nice example of looking at a revolution in a time so different we can view it with some objectivity. Copernicus was not like Martin Luther, a man who sought out opportunities to shake up the status quo; he was a man who called them as he saw them, more like Darwin, but what he saw caused as great a change in how we see the world as Luther or other intentional revolutionaries.
In his dissection of 'The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres', Vollmann does a masterful job. I are not ever likely to read the work itself, and even if I did I would not understand enough of the context (what came before it, and what was thought of it afterwards). Vollmann has done this with clarity and a wry wit. Bravo.
Copernicus ranks up there with Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Mendel, and Galileo in the Hall of Fame of scientists who overturned the way we think about God, the world, and humanity's place in it. With the possible exception of Mendel, however, he is much less well known as a human being (rather than just an adjective: "Copernican"). This book aims to do what is possible to change this. It also explains simultaneously that:
a) Copernicus did in many ways less than he is given credit for, but
b) what he did was far more difficult than he is usually given credit for.
The first thing that I didn't know about Copernicus was that he reached his conclusions about the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of vice versa, without benefit of a telescope. Galileo could look through his telescope and see moons orbiting Jupiter, and rings around Saturn, to encourage him to believe that the planets were not fixed in heavenly spheres, and they didn't all orbit the Sun. Copernicus had no such help, but it was in large part because of his conclusions that people such as Galileo would later look for evidence in support of his theory.
The second thing I didn't know about Copernicus, is that he developed a theory nearly as bizarrely complex as the geocentric theory he was replacing. The author, William Vollmann, does a masterful job of attempting to demonstrate to us how Copernicus believed this all worked. "His Venusian orbit is immortalized pearls of ghastly syntax", Vollmann says, in excusing his decision to quote a later astronomer's summary instead of Copernicus himself. The diagrams do more than the prose to help us understand what elaborate clockwork Copernicus wanted to use, to replace the even more elaborate clockwork of the Earth-centered model.
The third thing I didn't know about Copernicus, is that he mostly relied upon Ptolemy's observations and measurements. The same Ptolemy whose theories he was overthrowing was, in Copernicus' own view, a masterfully detailed observer, and he had no problem with using Ptolemy's own data in support of his (Copernicus') theory.
Lastly, I didn't know that so little was known about Copernicus, even by historians of science. He was in some ways saved from the flames (which other heretics before and after him were sent to) for the same reason: he lived, worked, and eventually died (of natural causes, in his own bed) in a part of Europe which was not central to the intellectual life of Europe (up until him, anyway). Vollmann does what he can to piece together the scraps of evidence we have about Copernicus' life into a coherent narrative, but one is reminded of the archaeologist who has a piece of femur and three teeth and therefore surmises what the animal looked like.
Reading the story of Copernicus and his time, and how they impacted one another, is a nice example of looking at a revolution in a time so different we can view it with some objectivity. Copernicus was not like Martin Luther, a man who sought out opportunities to shake up the status quo; he was a man who called them as he saw them, more like Darwin, but what he saw caused as great a change in how we see the world as Luther or other intentional revolutionaries.
In his dissection of 'The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres', Vollmann does a masterful job. I are not ever likely to read the work itself, and even if I did I would not understand enough of the context (what came before it, and what was thought of it afterwards). Vollmann has done this with clarity and a wry wit. Bravo.
February 24, 2014
The volubility of William T. Vollman is legendary. For one essay>novel he was he asked to make his sentences shorter: he replied that he couldn't write a short novel, let alone a short sentence. (Or words to that effect.) At least this text is a whisper under 300pg. Very pithy for Vollman. But the less than intellectual voice makes him both approachable and also off-putting for those who want a more scientific tome.
The other reviewers seem to either go slightly insane when praising him, or they admit to flat out hating him. I hope I do not go either way.
He is set a challenging task in this book, to explain the significance of Copernicus to his own volatile times, as well as to lead us through his essential proofs of the heliocentric universe and where this conflicted with the prevailing astronomical, which is to say religious, paradigm (he quotes Kuhn, but I don't think he uses "the word".) Sailors found his tables more accurate, but that for many was it - the heliocentricity didn't matter, so long as they reached port. The church was becoming more and more intolerant of opinions that differed from scripture - god comes first, science, second. Tough times to be a realist.
And certainly it was a tough book to read, as it must have been for Vollman to write while he unravelled Copernicus's opacity for himself, and he often reminds us of the troubles he was having, but we empathise! Certainly the book must contain the eye-glazing details of the geometry of ecliptics, equants, epicycles, deferents, precessions, circles on circles, because that is what Copernicus had to use to explain his position mathematically. But the diagrams are simple and elegant and well-down - they certainly helped me.
In the end, I was happy that I persisted, and I think I can appreciate both the strength of Copernicus's ideas, but also his limitations (he kept with circles!) and his weaknesses (particularly if you consider dying a way of opting out of a fight!).
I am sure I would enjoy reading Vollman's inevitably controversial take on Galileo, but sadly...
The other reviewers seem to either go slightly insane when praising him, or they admit to flat out hating him. I hope I do not go either way.
He is set a challenging task in this book, to explain the significance of Copernicus to his own volatile times, as well as to lead us through his essential proofs of the heliocentric universe and where this conflicted with the prevailing astronomical, which is to say religious, paradigm (he quotes Kuhn, but I don't think he uses "the word".) Sailors found his tables more accurate, but that for many was it - the heliocentricity didn't matter, so long as they reached port. The church was becoming more and more intolerant of opinions that differed from scripture - god comes first, science, second. Tough times to be a realist.
And certainly it was a tough book to read, as it must have been for Vollman to write while he unravelled Copernicus's opacity for himself, and he often reminds us of the troubles he was having, but we empathise! Certainly the book must contain the eye-glazing details of the geometry of ecliptics, equants, epicycles, deferents, precessions, circles on circles, because that is what Copernicus had to use to explain his position mathematically. But the diagrams are simple and elegant and well-down - they certainly helped me.
In the end, I was happy that I persisted, and I think I can appreciate both the strength of Copernicus's ideas, but also his limitations (he kept with circles!) and his weaknesses (particularly if you consider dying a way of opting out of a fight!).
I am sure I would enjoy reading Vollman's inevitably controversial take on Galileo, but sadly...
August 15, 2015
Dry science not stories. Vollmann excels at painting history creatively in his fiction. This is non fiction and non exciting and non engaging. I like science and I like Galileo and Copernicus but I don't get much of a new perspective here. But I did learn some new facts.
October 16, 2007
An absolutely necessarily confusing and heartbreaking account of scientific discovery, that's a great companion to, for example, "The Double Helix."
December 17, 2020
Vollman has done his damnedest trying to read and make sense of Copernicus's unreadable and mathematically arcane paradigm-shattering book so that we can try to understand it without having to confront, ourselves, the complexities of the "most important book that no one has read." Vollman's own effort is not all that easy to cope with either, but I think he makes a few crucial points: The concept – from antiquity through the Renaissance – that a creator God's perfection could only be understood and accepted if we envision the world (by which Copernicus and his predecessors meant the Universe, all of creation) as composed of the most perfect form, which is the sphere, ran into serious trouble as the means of scientific observation and calculation improved. Yet, the concept of the concentrically spherical universe was so well entrenched culturally and philosophically that Copernicus even in his assertion of heliocentrism, could not give it up. In some ways, Copernicus's insights were revolutionary; in others, he strove to bind that insight to the accepted concepts of the Ancients and of the Church, which insisted on celestial movement in terms of concentric spheres. Though Copernicus's calculations improved somewhat on Ptolemaic concepts of epicycles to explain the apparent eccentricities of celestial orbits, it was not until hundreds of years later that Kepler's recognition of planetary orbits as elliptical, and Newton's understanding of gravity when added to Copernican heliocentricity actually made modern scientific astronomy possible. Vollman emphasizes that scientific understanding depends upon improvements in the technology of perception, so that what seems apparent to the naked eye can be refined, expanded and seen from new perspectives.
After reading Argall, I wanted to see what Vollman did with non-fiction. He approaches his topic honestly: Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres is maddeningly difficult to read and to understand. From its first publication, its readers were unsure of what to make of it. Even today, its impact is debated and reassessed. While Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons and sunspot movement on the Sun gave confirmation of many of Copernican insights, it still took centuries for the Church to accept that the sun is stationary (except for its rotation around its own axis) and that the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits, like other planets, the sun.
I will remember that the group most enthusiastic about Copernicus's new calculations were the astrologers, who found his mathematics suited their predictions better than previous ones. I will remember that, for whatever reason (lack of courage, fear of Church retribution, unwillingness to fully discard millennia of received "wisdom," lack of observational tools necessary to confirm ideas), Copernicus never was able to move away from the notion of spherical orbits.
After reading Argall, I wanted to see what Vollman did with non-fiction. He approaches his topic honestly: Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres is maddeningly difficult to read and to understand. From its first publication, its readers were unsure of what to make of it. Even today, its impact is debated and reassessed. While Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons and sunspot movement on the Sun gave confirmation of many of Copernican insights, it still took centuries for the Church to accept that the sun is stationary (except for its rotation around its own axis) and that the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits, like other planets, the sun.
I will remember that the group most enthusiastic about Copernicus's new calculations were the astrologers, who found his mathematics suited their predictions better than previous ones. I will remember that, for whatever reason (lack of courage, fear of Church retribution, unwillingness to fully discard millennia of received "wisdom," lack of observational tools necessary to confirm ideas), Copernicus never was able to move away from the notion of spherical orbits.
June 19, 2020
I had hoped this series would bring talented writers to make a scientific subject shine for the average reader. This is the second in the series I have sampled. I picked up three volumes in a used book store years ago and now I’m finally getting to them given the Covid captivity.
This one I gave up 50 pages in. Tried skimming the rest and just gave up. The writing is snooty and the presentation convoluted.
On to the third.
This one I gave up 50 pages in. Tried skimming the rest and just gave up. The writing is snooty and the presentation convoluted.
On to the third.
July 9, 2018
A little tough going owing to the author’s idiosyncratic style, but I recommend it if your into science writing. The book offered many interesting insights into the history of heliocentrism and the Church’s feelings on the matter. A very fine overview but a little wasted on me.
December 5, 2022
This is one for Vollmann completists.
Astronomy is a visual science and the number diagrams in the text are lacking. Vollmann even admits he can’t explain the calculations better than Copernicus.
Two factoids were gleaned
1) Arthur koestler wrote a book on this too.
2) Bill is an Astro nerd.
Astronomy is a visual science and the number diagrams in the text are lacking. Vollmann even admits he can’t explain the calculations better than Copernicus.
Two factoids were gleaned
1) Arthur koestler wrote a book on this too.
2) Bill is an Astro nerd.
May 21, 2017
Makes you think about what questions to ask and how hard it is to fight largely believed "truths".
Read
August 15, 2023كوبرنيكوس الفأس التي هوت على غرور الانسان الذي كان يعتقد ان الارض مركز الكون وان الانسان محور الوجود
شكرا كوبرنيكوس لانك جعلنا تائهين في ظلام الكون ومازلت تائهين بعد ٥٠٠ سنة من اكتشافك
شكرا كوبرنيكوس لانك جعلنا تائهين في ظلام الكون ومازلت تائهين بعد ٥٠٠ سنة من اكتشافك
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 23, 2020
copernicus is perhaps the quintessential vollmann hero, who struggled obscurely in his difficult tracks and was at massive odds with the authority of his day, but who didnt have a heroic martyrdom like galileo because his work was too obscure to be a threat
July 28, 2016
I was, frankly, a little disappointed with this work on the most pivotal of intellectual inversions. The material is important, and the author obviously very erudite, but I found the writing confused, somewhat passionless and failing to find a central drive. A lot of it relativises Copernicus' achievement. I would not quibble with this, as these historical climacterics are often not as dramatic as legend and introductory textbooks would have us believe, but I did not come away with a sense of grand concept such as that to be had from Kuhn.
Copernicus was quite a cautious scholar, and considering the fate of Giordano Bruno one cannot blame him. Like Darwin, he delayed publishing and thereby deferred the storm, but going further, he first held his printed volume in his hand on his own deathbed. He narrowly avoided having the book placed on the Index and strangled at birth due to the convenient death of a cleric. He was also not actually the first to consider overturning geocentricism, as the idea had been cropping up on and off since Antiquity. Moreover, he seems actively to have sought to preserve much of Ptolemy.
Notoriously, a preface was added to the published work describing it as a mathematical convenience rather than a literal uncentring of the Earth. This was not Copernicus' intent. One could imagine a system of epicycles where all the other planets' epicycles centred around the Sun, but this was not what Copernicus was suggesting: He meant it literally. It is not widely appreciated that Copernicus' system actually accorded less well with observations at the time than Prolemy's, and he is quoted repeatedly as saying he would be happy with an accuracy of conformity to predictions of ten degrees! But the old system was becoming rotten. Ad hoc hypotheses, as Kuhn referred to them, were piling up and there was a clear inelegance in the old system. It took Kepler's ellipses and finally Newton's general theory to nail down just exactly what was going on, but Copernicus took the crucial step severing us from Antiquity, and many of his claims soon seemed prescient.
This is a fascinating and absolutely crucial event in Western intellectual history, and its social context possibly more complex than the relatively simple mathematical concepts, the highest of which at the time was presumably spherical trigonometry. But this work meanders a bit vaguely through this great forest looking at trees almost at random, it seems to me. The brush strokes are there, but the picture has smeared.
Copernicus was quite a cautious scholar, and considering the fate of Giordano Bruno one cannot blame him. Like Darwin, he delayed publishing and thereby deferred the storm, but going further, he first held his printed volume in his hand on his own deathbed. He narrowly avoided having the book placed on the Index and strangled at birth due to the convenient death of a cleric. He was also not actually the first to consider overturning geocentricism, as the idea had been cropping up on and off since Antiquity. Moreover, he seems actively to have sought to preserve much of Ptolemy.
Notoriously, a preface was added to the published work describing it as a mathematical convenience rather than a literal uncentring of the Earth. This was not Copernicus' intent. One could imagine a system of epicycles where all the other planets' epicycles centred around the Sun, but this was not what Copernicus was suggesting: He meant it literally. It is not widely appreciated that Copernicus' system actually accorded less well with observations at the time than Prolemy's, and he is quoted repeatedly as saying he would be happy with an accuracy of conformity to predictions of ten degrees! But the old system was becoming rotten. Ad hoc hypotheses, as Kuhn referred to them, were piling up and there was a clear inelegance in the old system. It took Kepler's ellipses and finally Newton's general theory to nail down just exactly what was going on, but Copernicus took the crucial step severing us from Antiquity, and many of his claims soon seemed prescient.
This is a fascinating and absolutely crucial event in Western intellectual history, and its social context possibly more complex than the relatively simple mathematical concepts, the highest of which at the time was presumably spherical trigonometry. But this work meanders a bit vaguely through this great forest looking at trees almost at random, it seems to me. The brush strokes are there, but the picture has smeared.
October 28, 2023
Uncentering the Earth stands as a monumental exploration into the history of astronomy and cosmology. As someone deeply passionate about the cosmos and the historical unraveling of humanity's understanding of it, I found this work by Vollmann to be nothing short of a masterpiece. This is my second foray into Vollmann's repertoire, my first encounter being The Atlas—a phenomenal introduction by itself, brought to my attention by the discerning tastes of Chris Via (aka Leaf x Leaf).
In Uncentering the Earth, Vollmann doesn't just recount the chronological events of our astronomical past but rather masterfully interlaces the historical milestones of astronomy with a rich narrative of human inquisitiveness, drive, and determination. His ability to tell a compelling story with vibrant language is unparalleled, making the intricate details of complex historical events feel both accessible and intimately personal.
For a reader like myself, to whom astronomy is more than a mere hobby (indeed, I hold a Bachelor of Science in Space Studies concentrated in Astronomy), Vollmann's treatment of the topic was a breath of fresh air. His ability to convey the allure of the stars with eloquence and genuine enthusiasm made me practically giddy. Every chapter felt like an invitation to gaze upon the night sky with renewed wonder.
In comparison to The Atlas, I found Uncentering the Earth even more captivating, largely due to the relevance of the subject matter to my own passions. Vollmann's characteristic depth of research and meticulous detailing further enriched the experience.
For anyone with even a passing interest in the history of astronomy or the nature of our universe, this book is essential. It's not just a chronicle of events, but a tribute to humanity's timeless quest to understand its place in the vast expanse of space. A true literary gem!
In Uncentering the Earth, Vollmann doesn't just recount the chronological events of our astronomical past but rather masterfully interlaces the historical milestones of astronomy with a rich narrative of human inquisitiveness, drive, and determination. His ability to tell a compelling story with vibrant language is unparalleled, making the intricate details of complex historical events feel both accessible and intimately personal.
For a reader like myself, to whom astronomy is more than a mere hobby (indeed, I hold a Bachelor of Science in Space Studies concentrated in Astronomy), Vollmann's treatment of the topic was a breath of fresh air. His ability to convey the allure of the stars with eloquence and genuine enthusiasm made me practically giddy. Every chapter felt like an invitation to gaze upon the night sky with renewed wonder.
In comparison to The Atlas, I found Uncentering the Earth even more captivating, largely due to the relevance of the subject matter to my own passions. Vollmann's characteristic depth of research and meticulous detailing further enriched the experience.
For anyone with even a passing interest in the history of astronomy or the nature of our universe, this book is essential. It's not just a chronicle of events, but a tribute to humanity's timeless quest to understand its place in the vast expanse of space. A true literary gem!
February 14, 2026
It's not bad!
Without his bulletproof layers of rigorous context and journalist's Kevlar to dazzle and/or deflect us, enjoying Vollmann's most "ordinary" non-fiction book really comes down to enjoying his playfully naive, thickly digressive writing style. He would surely be at home in the body of a 17th-century Browne/Burton penning these words at the time (he has their lingo down!) but a modern audience's expectations of "knowing your stuff" and "getting to the point" only barely accommodates him at the best of times. Put simply, it helps to be a fan, but if after a few pages you like the cut of his rhetorical exclamation-laden jib, you'll have a good time no matter what. And he does get to the point! I promise!
Still, for those who want a Real Deal magisterial narrative study of Copernicus and his revolution(s), I'd hit up Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers , then chase it with this (which I did in fact do!). Curiously, Vollmann only seems to cite/critique Koestler's single-page profile of Copernicus in the back of a whole other book, The Act of Creation ��though I can't say he missed too much material, as even The Sleepwalkers's 100-page profile all but tosses out Copernicus's book as an unreadable contradictory abortion not worth the migraine of studying. Well, Vollmann studies it as best he can, and though even he shows signs of a headache by the end, I'm glad one of us could make it there—and even make it fun!
Without his bulletproof layers of rigorous context and journalist's Kevlar to dazzle and/or deflect us, enjoying Vollmann's most "ordinary" non-fiction book really comes down to enjoying his playfully naive, thickly digressive writing style. He would surely be at home in the body of a 17th-century Browne/Burton penning these words at the time (he has their lingo down!) but a modern audience's expectations of "knowing your stuff" and "getting to the point" only barely accommodates him at the best of times. Put simply, it helps to be a fan, but if after a few pages you like the cut of his rhetorical exclamation-laden jib, you'll have a good time no matter what. And he does get to the point! I promise!
Still, for those who want a Real Deal magisterial narrative study of Copernicus and his revolution(s), I'd hit up Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers , then chase it with this (which I did in fact do!). Curiously, Vollmann only seems to cite/critique Koestler's single-page profile of Copernicus in the back of a whole other book, The Act of Creation ��though I can't say he missed too much material, as even The Sleepwalkers's 100-page profile all but tosses out Copernicus's book as an unreadable contradictory abortion not worth the migraine of studying. Well, Vollmann studies it as best he can, and though even he shows signs of a headache by the end, I'm glad one of us could make it there—and even make it fun!
November 3, 2014
I have wanted to read Vollman for quite some time and I found this book, and 'Rising up and rising down' on the shelf in a small ceramic store on the coast of Sagres. Naturally, I had to buy them both (among some other ones (dang! that store had a good collection of cheap English books)). Now I think that I would appreciate his fictitious works more but this was a nice read nonetheless.
I have never been great with geometry so the parts in which Vollman introduces the reader to Copernicus way of deducing what he thought was what in our galactic vicinity leaves me a bit flustered and tired. What I did appreciate was the parts where he put the theories in place in history: Copernican thought connected to Aristotle, Ptolemy and the Church. Seeing as Copernicus was quite at fault in the way he went about things it is still interesting to read about how it all came about, and it is quite astounding that he got quite a few answers right (or was close enough on many occasions). Vollman shows quite a bit of respect for Copernicus and it seems like he has not quite gotten the recognition that he deserved, what with being overshadowed by Galilei, Brahe and Newton. Maybe, had Copernicus been a bit more determined and not as deferent to the Church, his history would have been told a bit differently.
As it is, most parts of this book are – for me – hard to grasp, but there is a lot of beaty in it too. Philosophizing about space tends to bring about many poetic sentences and thoughts.
I have never been great with geometry so the parts in which Vollman introduces the reader to Copernicus way of deducing what he thought was what in our galactic vicinity leaves me a bit flustered and tired. What I did appreciate was the parts where he put the theories in place in history: Copernican thought connected to Aristotle, Ptolemy and the Church. Seeing as Copernicus was quite at fault in the way he went about things it is still interesting to read about how it all came about, and it is quite astounding that he got quite a few answers right (or was close enough on many occasions). Vollman shows quite a bit of respect for Copernicus and it seems like he has not quite gotten the recognition that he deserved, what with being overshadowed by Galilei, Brahe and Newton. Maybe, had Copernicus been a bit more determined and not as deferent to the Church, his history would have been told a bit differently.
As it is, most parts of this book are – for me – hard to grasp, but there is a lot of beaty in it too. Philosophizing about space tends to bring about many poetic sentences and thoughts.
Read
February 5, 2009Though Norton's Great Discoveries series intends to bring science to the general reader, Vollmann's measure of success in that endeavor proves as divisive as the theory he tries to explicate. Fresh from a National Book Award for his omnibus novel Europe Central (***1/2 July/Aug 2005), Vollmann claims amateur status as an astronomer and then busies his pages with intelligent, intricate readings of Copernicus's thought. Critics feeling he has done an admirable job beseech the reader to be patient: his meanings will deepen the more time you spend with them. The dissenters (all science writers of some renown) feel that no amount of persistence will yield a better understanding of Copernicus. Though we have long accepted that our Earth is just another rock around the sun, it might be some time before the average reader can understand how Copernicus came to that staggering conclusion.
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
July 13, 2012
This book is not at all what I was looking for when I picked it off the library shelf, just browsing for a good book to read.
What I wanted was an explanation of how Copernicus managed to reason out that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth. Near the end of the book the author actually apologizes for not delivering what I was seeking.
Doing some research I learn that this book is one of a series written on the great scientific discoveries of history - but get this - written by non-scientists for the benefit of non-scientific readers. I don't know about the rest of the series, but this one doesn't make it.
The style of the prose is a kind of jocular flippancy which was very annoying to me. The author doesn't really understand the material and he as much as says so.
I do give the book 2 stars because there is some interesting coverage of the historical context which the author does understand.
I am going to try to find a better book which will provide what I am interested in learning about Copernicus's enormous discovery.
What I wanted was an explanation of how Copernicus managed to reason out that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth. Near the end of the book the author actually apologizes for not delivering what I was seeking.
Doing some research I learn that this book is one of a series written on the great scientific discoveries of history - but get this - written by non-scientists for the benefit of non-scientific readers. I don't know about the rest of the series, but this one doesn't make it.
The style of the prose is a kind of jocular flippancy which was very annoying to me. The author doesn't really understand the material and he as much as says so.
I do give the book 2 stars because there is some interesting coverage of the historical context which the author does understand.
I am going to try to find a better book which will provide what I am interested in learning about Copernicus's enormous discovery.
January 4, 2008
This is an interesting book, and Vollman gets high marks for actually reading Copernicus (I tried once and gave up quickly). As part of a series of books on scientists by non-scientists, it is written at an appropriate level for someone like me. Vollman isn't interested so much in the science as he is in the place of Copernicanism in history. He notes often that astronomy has advanced so far that Copernicus seems quaint in his insistence on circular motion even with his heliocentric universe. What he finds more interesting is how this is but the opening salvo in the battle that brought down the (always odd) scriptural-Ptolemaic universe alliance. The problem with the book is he never quite gets the balance between the science and the story right. So it's not a great book, but I enjoyed reading it. 3 stars seems about right to me.
August 12, 2013
A weird little book explaining Copernicus's life's work. I admit I skimmed through a lot of the more technical details; if you are not geometrically inclined (I'm not), it's easy to get really lost as Vollmann regales you with all kinds of fun astronomical work - think lots of angles, arcs, and circles mapped against the night sky. Despite the density of that stuff, Vollmann keeps things lively and his sense of craft is as good as usual. If you're expecting a clear explication of the science or a clear recounting of cosmological history you'll probably be disappointed, but if you're OK with a strangely hazy mixture of the two that manages to still strike the right tone befitting such a discovery as heliocentrism, this will suit you all right.
May 3, 2009
This is one in a series about scientific topics written by non-scientists. I thought going in that, because of that, the subject would be approachable and readable. I was very disappointed. Apart from the tone of the writing that I found somewhat smug and condenscending, gleaning anything interesting from the book just took way too much effort. I will take Timothy Ferris or Neil DeGraase Tyson (Real scientists writing about science) anyday.
February 25, 2008
I love Vollmann to death. My rating is honestly more indicative of my own failings than any inherent flaws in the book. I'm not really a science person. Consequently, this was a tough book to get through. I would really only recommend it to Vollmann obsessed people and those who didn't fall asleep in their science classes.
Want to read
January 11, 2009stamped
February 27, 2010
Painful. Glad that I am finished with it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews