This is strictly a historical book. There is precious little science in it. It was a good overview of the Copernican revolution and particularly the role of Rheticus in convincing Copernicus to publish his work: On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. The book also briefly deals with the repercussions of this publication.

Ultimately I could only give this book three stars. The book is well written in a lively manner. However, I think it is a flawed book by centering on a rather fanciful drama called: And the Sun Stood Still about the initial 2-year relationship between Rheticus and Copernicus and how Rheticus ultimately persuaded Copernicus to publish his work. I applaud Sobel for trying something different. I think the drama could stand on its own just fine but here it takes up a lot of the text, takes some license with chronology, and borders on historical fiction rather than actual history, which this book is supposed to be. There are some iffy, in being factual, romantic subplots that humanized the subjects but ultimately were unnecessary.

I probably would not have read this book, I enjoy either more historical depth or more science, but it was a gift and I always feel obligated to reading books people give me, especially family and good friends.

Another thing I want to whine about is how cheap hardcover bindings have become. This is a $25 list price book. The numbers are sewn in, so that is good, but the cover is the cheapest sort of red paper and cardboard affair. There isn't even an attempt to put an additional layer to the spine for reinforcement. ( )

Dava Sobel ticks all the boxes for me. Not only is the book informative, but the play she wrote was funny and enjoyable. Unlike some texts, the author assumes the reader knows nothing, and explains everything. Just as I was wondering where the fact came from, it would be expanded, explored in the remaining paragraph. Indeed, this is the fourth or fifth book of hers I have read, and am very happy to read her books. ( )

I thought that I'd dislike the middle third fictional portion of this non fiction book but was surprised that had such a positive assistance to my understanding of Copernicus's life and times. ( )

I was surprised at how many documents and letters Dava Sobel seemed to discover researching this book. Most people know something of Copernicus, but Sobel rounds out those facts by providing background on his scientific research. Like Darwin, who waited many years before publishing his Origin of Species, perhaps partly to avoid the inevitable criticism for going against theological teachings, Sobel points out how Copernicus was similarly reluctant to release his papers for many years. Another interesting element in this book is the insertion of a theatrical play, "And the Sun Stood Still" into the middle of the book. The play, while a simplification of the elements of the Copernicus story, was an interesting change of pace in the book. Sobel creates imagined dialogue of the primary characters from Copernicus, the German mathematician Rheticus, the Bishop, his housekeeper, and a few other minor characters to create an image of how the Copernicus theory about the sun being at the center of our planetary system was discovered and subsequently published. As stated on the book jacket, this technique expands the bounds of narration, giving us an unforgettable portrait of scientific achievement, and of the ever-present tensions between science and faith.
( )

Dava Sobel’s A More Perfect Heaven has called attention to Copernicus’ historic scientific findings and the events leading to their publication. Unfortunately, her account is marred by inclusion of a "play" that obscures the relevant history while portraying events that never happened. In a monumental blunder, she has her fictional Rheticus engage in child abuse while her fictional Copernicus turns a blind eye to his malfeasance. Her misguided attempt to entertain her readers is an astonishing lapse of judgement that irreparably harms the book.

The play in question is not an afterthought, but the main rationale for the book. As Sobel reveals in the book’s introduction, she had written an 80 page play to dramatize how she imagined a key event in Copernicus’ life. The rest of this book was written as a vehicle for the play. While the blending of fact and fiction is controversial in its own right, Ms. Sobel’s attempt is clumsy, amateurish, and a gross libel on the names of two eminent scientists.

The centerpiece of Ms Sobel’s account is the historic collaboration between Copernicus and the young mathematician Georg Joachim Rheticus. The latter had heard of the unpublished work of the aging Copernicus, and in spring of 1539 traveled to Poland to become his student. Rheticus published a “First Account” of Copernicus’ theory in 1540, and over the next two years of studying with him, convinced him to publish his full account. Following Rheticus’ final departure, Copernicus arranged to have his book sent to Nuremberg to be printed under Rheticus’ supervision. The famous De Revolutionibus was published prior to Copernicus' death in 1543. According to legend, a copy was delivered to the dying Copernicus, who awoke from a coma, looked at his book, and expired.

Sobel presents a serviceable recounting of the major events, told with style. She excels at presenting the historical events in the context of the political and religious turmoil of 16th century Europe. As a resident of Lutheran Germany, Rheticus risked his freedom (if not his life) in traveling to Catholic Poland to work with the famed astronomer. Given the role that Rheticus played in assisting Copernicus to publish, the reader is forced to wonder whether Die Revolutionibus would have ever come to light without the young mathematician’s help.

As for the play, which occupies the central 1/3 of the book, it is an amateurish farce that simplifies, conflates, and ignores the very historical events Sobel took pains to recount elsewhere. In her imagined account, Rheticus is hardly a pupil -- rather, he guides a great scientist more than 40 years his senior in how to write his work and advises him on how to ensure it passes muster with the political authorities. In Scene xv, Rheticus is being forced to leave, and literally tries to wrestle the book away from Copernicus in order to take it to be published. At Copernicus’ resistance, he assents to taking a portion away – presumably this is to become the 1540 “First Account.” The scene ends with Copernicus suffering a stroke. The next scene, the final one, has Copernicus on his deathbed, comatose from his stroke, but reviving in time to receive a copy of his published book. The play misrepresents the events, because years must pass between these two scenes. During this time, Rheticus travels back to work with Copernicus for another two years, followed by his final departure. And so, three years are constricted into a few months, the successive publication of aspects of Copernicus' work is ignored, and events are invented wholesale for entertainment purposes.

And then there’s the unavoidable issue of character assassination. First, to spice things up, Sobel gives Copernicus a mistress. Second, over the course of scenes 9 through 15, Sobel has her fictional Rheticus engage in the pederastic seduction of a 14 year old houseboy named Franz. After episodes of embracing and bottom- fondling , the subplot culminates in the two being discovered in bed together, unclothed and kissing, by Copernicus himself. Little Franz scampers away in fear.

Rheticus: You’ve known all along, haven’t you?
Copernicus: I wasn’t sure.
R: But you suspected.
C: I prayed that my suspicions were unfounded.
R: Now you know the truth
C: Yes.
R: And you despise me
C: No Joachim. Neither do I judge you.
R: You needn’t pretend to understand.
C: But I can no longer protect you.
R: From myself?....
C: You’ve got to get out of here. Go now, before anything else happens.

What is there to say? Even for historical fiction this is far beyond the pale. The reader, if his critical facilities are not too numbed by disgust and outrage at the libel of Rheticus, will note that Sobel’s Copernicus (a canon in the Catholic church) adopts a 21st century tolerance of homosexuality, seeks to protect the perpetrator of child abuse, and gives no thought to the young victim. Historical anachronism is the least of her errors. To view her account as an ironic commentary on institutionalized pederasty of the contemporary church is certain to give the author far more credit than she deserves.

This is surely one of the most ill-conceived literary devices of our time. The so-called "play" contained in this work violates minimal standards of acceptability for a respectable work of history. It irreparably damages what could have been a serviceable historical account.

___________
Note: Many years later, following a mental breakdown, Rheticus was accused by a person of having had carnal relations with a 17-18 year old male. A male of that age was considered to be a man. Whether or not Rheticus was involved in the alleged, consensual activity is not known and never will be. The claim should have no bearing on the libelous, fictional episode of child abuse invented by the author. ( )