Search This Blog

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Schöpffer: found by old Missouri, few historians; Stimson's account; Copernicanism, Part 18f

      This continues from Part 18e, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      In 1871 Lehre und Wehre, the theological journal of the old Missouri Synod, announced Schöpffer's last book by quoting approvingly the comments of German theologian, Stroebel in a German periodical, who had also been quoted in 1868 regarding the Knak-Lisco Affair:
Literary announcements.
In 1869, the following writing appeared:
Dr. C. Schöpffer, The Contradictions in Astronomy [Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie]. Berlin by Beck. XVI and 144 pages, gr 8. (121 Gr.).
Stroebel  reviewed this writing as follows:
This brave book, vigorously against the “modern Edomites" and “people's toadies", prefaced by Dr. A. Frantz, and provided with a lithographed figure panel, reveals the contradictions that “arise when adopting the Copernican system, but disappear in the opposing one.”.  We received many interesting, instructive, and surprising reports regarding the “Copernican hypothesis” and its exhibitors, finishers, followers, opponents etc.  The total result of the discussion of this “orthodox astronomy, that well will not tolerate any contradiction, Dr. Schöpffer gives finally in the following heterodox words [page 128]: “Let's be honest, we must admit that one can not understand how educated people could get lost to such outlandish fantasies, even more, that one can not see how the world could admire these empty dreams as lofty and awe-inspiring research, as results of science.  Besides, also no reasonable person has ever given the least thought to such chimeras, rather every thinking researcher has always been surprised how one could develop such an adventurous system with such seriousness.  Cicero once spoke out his astonishment moreover, how two augurs [page 119] could meet each other without laughing at each other's face, so it is surprising to a far higher degree, how two astronomers can look at each other seriously,” etc.  Honor to such men as Schöpffer and Frantz who, undeterred by mockery, arrogance and puffery, with Protestant courage and understanding, defend what is their truth and castigate the "humbug" of Copernican priestdom!  The applause of Goethe, Schiller, Gauss, Schelling, Hegel, Franz von Baader, Alexander von Humboldt, Karl von Raumer and a Tycho Brahe, which Copernicans hardly hold a candle to when all are taken together, was already shared, and they can also be certain of the applause of the educated foreign community; since only in Germany, not in France, England or elsewhere, one stamps the "Copernicus'" hypothesis as dogma.

I had to burst out laughing at the comment of Cicero.  But Stroebel's last comment was perhaps overly harsh with his German countrymen, since France had already produced a Fontenelle...  and America was spawning the likes of Andrew Dickson White. —  By this announcement in Lehre und Wehre, I am certain that C.F.W. Walther was well aware of Carl Schöpffer and Dr. Alexander Frantz.  And Walther would nine years later make a bold statement about Copernicus's own faith that no one else claimed... but that comes in my later blog post.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Prof. Dorothy Stimson
      Schöpffer has not been totally ignored by some modern historians of science.  Notable is Dorothy Stimson's account of Schöpffer in her 1917 book The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universepgs 102-103:
A Carl Schoepffer had taken up the defense of the Tychonic scheme in Berlin before this (1854) and by 1868 his lecture was in its seventh edition. In it he sought to prove that the earth revolves neither upon its own axis nor yet about the sun. He had seen Foucault's pendulum demonstration of the earth's movement, but he held that something else, as yet unexplained, caused the deviation of the pendulum, and that the velocity of the heavens would be no more amazing than the almost incredible velocity of light or of electricity.
Unfortunately we see that Stimson's history is disappointingly superficial (including incorrect dates, misspellings regarding Pastor Knak) and, like most other science historians, lacked objectivity and overlooked Schöpffer's last great work The Contradictions in Astronomy (Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie, 1869), which included his firsthand "List" of great German scientists...  too bad.  But to all historians of science who have ignored Schöpffer, I say:
Humboldt and Gauss did not ignore Schöpffer. 
Die Widerspruche in der Astronomie
    Dr. Gerardus Bouw (p. 362) called Schöpffer's last book:
"the foundation of almost every geocentric work published from then to 1950".  
In order to begin to correct today's history, I want to publish the full text of this book here:
——— >>> Full text Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie in Google Docs, available for immediate automatic Google Translation in Chrome browser.  The text in this document has been polished somewhat, corrections made, spellings updated, all for the ease of fast automatic translation.


      Schöpffer's name became so detested by the publishing trade that he needed a pseudo-name from 1856 to 1868 in order to keep publishing his scientific works: L. F. Dietrich (see here and here).
This is revealed on page 18.  But we see that Schöpffer cast off that pseudo-name in his last book of 1869 and went back to his real name... with a holy vengeance!

As badly as Schöpffer was treated for his scientific stand, yet Pastor Knak's confession, based purely on the Holy Scriptures, set the world on fire.  Schöpffer suffered much – Knak suffered more, for his response was based purely on faith in God's Word.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> A challenge to Cornell University and Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison: <<
I would like for you, as large prestigious institutions, to obtain a photocopy (a PDF file will do) for me of the book Doctor Schöpffer, der grosse Reformator der Astronomie.  WorldCat shows that it is available in Europe in two places: Switzerland and Great Britain.  You would then be able to expand your collection on "pseudo-science" and I would gain more knowledge of the scientist that Dr. Gerhardus Bouw calls "the greatest geocentrist of the nineteenth century".  You know... the scientist that Humboldt and Gauss received kindly...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      This concludes my posts directly about Schöpffer, yet I want to reveal the other writer who provided a preface to Schöpffer's last great book: Dr. Alexander Frantz ... a Lutheran?... in Part 18g-1.

Schöpffer: beaten down, rises again; Copernicanism, Part 18e

      This continues from Part 18d, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      We conclude our translations from Dr. Carl Schöpffer's book Die Widerspruche in der Astronomie, pages 17-19:

When I had returned at Easter 1855 from Göttingen to Quedlinburg, I started to process the rich collections which I had invested in Göttingen.  However, as these collections referred to very different sciences, and the processing of a complete work on a reform of astronomy could not be completed as fast as the impatience of my friends wished, so I tentatively put together the most important of my observations and research in a brochure under the title Der Schein der Wahrheit [The Appearance of Truth] in 1855 by Oehme and Müller in Braunschweig. Then in 1856 followed a more complete work entitled: Uranos. Populäre Vorlesungen über Sternkunde [Uranus. Popular Lectures on Astronomy] which experienced three editions, but is now fully sold out.
I wanted to conclude my work with Uranos [Google Books], because, I confess, the continuing mockery, the continuing attacks of my opponents wearied me.  Indeed, one seemed to wage a war of destruction against me.  Whatever I [page 18] undertook, it was thwarted as I was made to look ridiculous as the one who indeed maintained that the earth stands still.  It was most outrageous that a Dr. Robert Giseke, who edited at that time the Novellen-Zeitung, in this newspaper whose staff I was on, sought a special request of the publisher to make a fool of me.  A reply that I sent was no exception.  I was now forced to cover my literary livelihood with the greatest secret, if I did not want to see myself slandered with my publishers and my work made to be seen as ridiculous to the world. My Garden Encyclopedia appearing in Arnoldi Publishers-Booksellers in Leipzig, which even the sternest judges of such works, the imperial Garden Director ruler in Petersburg, had declared a masterpiece, I had to publish under the pseudonym Dietrich. [L.F. Dietrich]  When Payne in Leipzig, in recognition of my knowledge, my industriousness and my diligence, wanted to transfer me to the editorship of a scientific journal, men of whom I never expected this, such as Professor Maßmann in Berlin, declared that he would not provide contributions to a journal edited by me.  Another publisher, Albert Hoffmann in Leipzig wanted to transfer to me the editorship of a patriotic weekly paper; but immediately resounded through all the magazines the remark: "I was the one who maintained that the earth stood still," and that was enough to make even dignified men suspicious and looked at me as a fool.  Of course, the intended enterprise was thus made impossible.  And so it went on and on.  
F. von Raumer
"afraid of you!"
The Royal Prussian Minister of Education Herr [Friedrich Ludwig Georg] von Raumer had said to me: "One is afraid of you!"  And indeed probably the fear of me had to be great, otherwise they would not have sought with such zeal to make it impossible for me. Yet in [January] 1866, after I had for ten years no longer grieved myself with astronomical matters, the famous astronomer Mädler poured out his bile against me in Westermanns Monatshefte (pgs 376-381).  I wrote a reply, but received it back with the remark that the [page 19] editors could not take anything away from one of its most esteemed collaborators.  So I was attacked everywhere and nowhere was I permitted to defend myself.
Then the well known dispute broke out between Pastor Knak and Preacher Lisco in Berlin.  Soon I received letters from various sides, my name was again mentioned in the newspapers, Sacco's successors allowed, even without my knowledge or consent, the reissue of my long outdated first work Die Erde steht fest [or “The Earth Stands Fast”, 1868 7th edition].  Now I could no longer refuse the publisher to edit with him an extract from the work of my out-of-print "Uranus", which should be printed as an inexpensive popular edition, but I also decided at the same time, because I was again drawn forcefully onto the stage, so to speak, to swap my previous role of a sufferer with that of an attacker.  And as such I step onto this stage from now on: I will with God’s help attack all superstition of this century, I will draw the charlatanism of our time, where I meet her, to the light.

Let me repeat Schöpffer's courageous cry:
“And as such I step onto this stage from now on: I will with God’s help attack all superstition of this century, I will draw out the charlatanism of our time, where I meet her, to the light.” — Dr. Carl Schöpffer
Schöpffer had been beaten down, wearied from attacks and ridicule, by a famous astronomer Mädler no less, – a war of so-called "science"  against science – driven to use only a pseudo-name for his subsequent science publications.  Ah, but God had more in mind for Dr. Schöpffer and pulled him back out “onto the stage”... but how did God do it?  He did it by the 1868 public confession of Pastor Gustav Knak who stated
“Yes! that I believe; I know of no other world view than that of the Holy Scriptures.”
Somehow I knew that old Missouri could not ignore one so prominent in Germany who defended against Copernicanism, another one besides Pastor Knak.  So I decided to do a search of Missouri's periodicals from that period... and voilà!  In 1871, there was a notice in the theological journal of old Missouri on Schöpffer's book, and I found the tie between Walther and Schöpffer.  The old (German) Missouri Synod in St. Louis Missouri, America said: "Amen!" to Schöpffer in Germany... in Part 18f.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Schöpffer: Gauss doubts, Fontenelle dreams: Copernicanism, Part 18d

      This continues from Part 18c, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      We conclude Carl Schöpffer's narrative:

To my justification.
(concluded from Part 18c)
I began my studies in Göttingen in earnest and presented the results of my research in a monthly Blätter der Wahrheit [Journal of Truth, no WorldCat] but only nine issues were published, partly because I myself had awkwardly taken over the distribution by hand, partly because most of the distribution handlers were hostile to the venture.  If I had written “Journal of Lies”, so I would certainly have had more luck —  Journal of Truth was  not wanted.
Carl Friedrich Gauss
"new doubts"
Very soon I became acquainted with the famous astronomer of Göttingen [Carl Friedrich] Gauss.  He met me in the most friendly way, supported me with books and allowed me to turn to him anytime if I needed his advice.  Truly a great consolation for me!  The friendship of Humboldt and Gauss compensated me abundantly for the cold reception that I found with Encke and Lamont; the encouraging words of [King] Ludwig of Bavaria and Karl von Raumer had to be more valid for me than the threats of the small Berliner who wrote in the Magdeburg newspaper that he wanted to destroy me.  
Baader    Schelling    Hegel
I shared with Gauss the previous course of my research; I told him how I found that all great thinkers, a Franz von Baader, Schelling, a Hegel, had rebelled against the exuberant assumptions of the Copernicans, while only the smaller spirits and the uneducated arrogated to themselves the right, not only to mock as a fool, but to even follow with wild fanaticism those who had not joined in the chorus of the current assumptions of the day; [page 9] I told him that this very fanaticism, far from deterring me, rather strengthened me in my quest because it demonstrated the weakness of my opponents; I confessed that I was convinced that there was nothing more suitable to suppress in large part the development of reason and the formation of a sound judgment, than the dedication of these in the Copernican hypothesis and its conclusions; whoever, against the daily inspection and without having the slightest evidence, merely on blind faith, could assume that the Earth rotates, must be thereby enabled to accept every conceivable nonsense as bare truth, and has once and for all forged their reason and understanding in the tightest bondage;
Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle
"Plurality of Worlds"
NASA's mascot?
needless to say, how much the imagination of mankind must be misled by the dreams inferred from the Copernican hypothesis, as especially our youth, fed from the tenderest years with the silliest mythical stuff [Märchenkram], willingly they, as all poets borrowed, suffered Fontenelle dreams of the inhabitability of the stars, but so also their minds would be poisoned so that they would be unable to have serious notions, unresponsive to all things high and holy.  Gauss, the most famous and greatest of the astronomers then living, argued nothing against all these remarks, on the contrary he gave me to recognize his perfect applause.  He even confessed to me that every new discovery in astronomy filled him with new doubts about the dominant system.  But when I told him that Alexander von Humboldt had stated that he would also immediately object to the present views if an astronomer with a name would declare against them, he replied: “If I were twenty years younger!
=============================

Schöpffer calls on three philosophers who "rebelled against the exuberant assumptions of the Copernicans".  It should be noted that C.F.W. Walther also called on some astronomer/philosophers in 1868, including Schelling and Carol Grande, but would likely not have mentioned Baader or Hegel.  Walther stated:
"It should be noted that recently some astronomers acknowledge that the Copernican system is only a hypothesis (assumption), and that some have returned to this, that the sun goes around the Earth, for example Schelling, and Carol Grande..."
I suspect that Walther knew of practically all literature coming out of Germany through his time and would know of any authors who fought against Copernicanism.  I strongly suspect that he had also read Schöpffer's lectures published in the 1850s, maybe even had drawn on what he learned there.
      For all the supposed support for the "sciences" in the world today, isn't it more true that much of today's "science" is really Fontenelle's Dream, a dream of other worlds beside ours?  Much of what passes for content on the "Discovery Channel" should be rather called "Delusion". —  The dreams of the Frenchman Fontenelle caused me to remember how Walther had also spoken against French ideas and customs, ensnared as the French people are under the Pope  go >here< on Dance, search for "French".
      Dr. Gerhardus Bouw calls Carl Friedrich Gauss "one of history's greatest  astronomers" – quite a statement!  I would say that trumps Fontenelle, wouldn't you?
      In the next Part 18e, I want to publish a few more items from this book of Dr. Carl Schöpffer, and later conclude my chapter on him.

Schöpffer: King, Lamont question Copernicanism; Part 18c

      This continues from Part 18b, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      We continue with Carl Schöpffer's narrative as he departed from Karl von Raumer.  Here he meets with a King and an astronomer.  Schöpffer then tells of two startling events in his life, yet in a comforting way... for a Christian:

To my justification.
(continued from Part 18b)

King Ludwig I
"ridiculous"
From Erlangen I went to Munich, where the aged King Ludwig I conversed with me in a friendly way and for a long time, and expressed in his guileless manner: “I do not understand it, but it's always seemed ridiculous to me that we should so tumble about head over heels in the world.”  Finally he requested of me: “Nevertheless, speak also with [page 6] [Johann von] Lamont who is a very clever man.  Just say that I recommended you to him.”
Johann von Lamont
hypotheses –
superstitions
It was actually not my intention to go  to Lamont, the Munich astronomer at that time, because I already knew that from these kind of people nothing was to be learned.  Even the astronomers are in a bad situation — although it would indeed be certainly nobler and simpler to free themselves by frank confession of the same.  Lamont allowed, due to the recommendation of King Ludwig, not to oppose me so gruffly as Encke had done, but he betrayed his embarrassment and just said, “You and the world in general, are in error: there has never been a real astronomer to speak of a Copernican system; we know only a Copernican hypothesis.  Whether this is true or false, any real astronomer is quite indifferent.” — “I know that quite well,” I replied, “but you should then not let the laity be under the delusion that astronomers consider the Copernican hypothesis as a truth.” — “I have never dealt with amateur astronomy,” replied Lamont; “if Littrow and Mädler teach the people superstitions by selling hypotheses for truths, so that's their business.”
J. v. Littrow  ––––  J. H. v. Mädler
superstitions?
 selling hypotheses for truths?




From Munich I went to Württemberg, where a high and truth-loving Lady had invited me to spend a few weeks at her lovely mansion on the Neckar river. Although it does not belong here, I can not refrain to tell how I was saved on that journey from apparent threat of death.  Between Augsburg and Ulm, the railway was not yet finished, and for a distance of a few miles, the travelers were transported in mail carriages.  The path that this mail wagon drove went quite steeply down at one point and was close to a towering steep slope. The road was covered with slippery ice and therefore placed an ice chain on a rear wheel, but in the wrong way so that the ice chain even caused the car to be dragged closer and closer to the abyss.  The coachman tried everything possible, but the carriage was not to be brought to a halt and [page 7] slipped continuously toward the deep.  Three Jews who were sitting with me in the carriage began to scream loudly when they saw death facing them — because the life we ​​thirst for had no hope of coming when we plunged down into the abyss.  As serious as the situation was, so I could only but smile when I saw the great despair of my neighbors.  No sparrow falls from the sky without the Father's will [Matt. 10:29]; were my end secured, so it would have affected me in the same moment in a room the same as in the mail car. With such conviction looking forward, I never knew fear in my life.  The fateful moment, however, appeared; the car slid off from the edge of the road, laid down, — a strong crack, a loud cry of three Jews, then deep silence.  Just where the carriage had fallen down, there stood an old cherry tree.  The carriage had landed on it, the horses stopped at the same moment, and we were saved.
I will not detain you with the story of my stay in the Neckar valley, not even with the release from a second mortal danger in which I came to return to my home and from which I was also saved by a miracle, — but note presently that I had made the decision to go for a year to Göttingen to use the resources of the local library.  And there I wanted to come to a serious decision on the questions of whether Copernicus or Tycho? and likewise another question for me: whether Volcanism or Neptunism?
What I experienced during my stay in Göttingen borders so strongly to the fictional that I hardly dared the message. The first day in Göttingen proceeded in a most ominous way for me. I went over Groner Street.  Suddenly a red light flared up, a terrible crash shook the air, thick darkness surrounded me while I heard a strange rattling and crackling around me.  I could smell that the darkness that surrounded me was caused by powder smoke and thick dust, and stopped in amazement [page 8] at the outcome to be expected of this adventure. When the smoke and dust had cleared enough so that I could see, I noticed that a home was missing its roof and on the other hand, the road was covered with bricks and debris of various kinds. There with his teaching master the apprentice of a merchant disgruntled with his teaching master had placed himself in a powder keg, ignited the powder and blown himself up with the roof into the air. Three people on the street were injured, I had remained untouched, although just around me the bricks were the most dense.
(conclusion follows next)
============================

    The two harrowing events that Schöpffer describes might seem to be out of place, but he would rather have his readers know the peace that a Christian knows, the peace in knowing a Father who does not miss a sparrow falling and numbers the hair of our head, Matt. 10:29-30.
      Some might say that Lamont would not be one to count among those who questioned Copernicanism, but didn't he call some hypotheses "superstitions"?  And what adds to this account is that Lamont was still living († 1879) when Schöpffer's book was published in 1869.  Lamont could have publicly renounced Schöpffer, but there does not seem to be any publicity about this. —  Ah, but we are not quite finished with "Schöpffer's List"... in the next Part 18d, we conclude with another astonishing name, on the same high level as Humboldt.

Schöpffer meets Encke, von Raumer– questions Copernicanism; Part 18b

      This continues from Part 18a, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      We continue with Carl Schöpffer's narrative after he finished his visit with Alexander von Humboldt.  In between his visits with the great scientists, he describes his (in)famous lectures "The Earth Stands Fast" which came to be published, and the reactions he received from them:

To my justification.
J. F. Encke
hypotheses; no advice
(continued from Part 18a)
From  Humboldt I went to [Johann Franz] Encke.  I was certainly not well received.  Gruffly Encke explained that astronomers have other things to do than to bother with hypotheses; he had not the time to instruct anyone who had any doubts; there were books enough about astronomy, which I should read. I replied that I had already read the books written for a wider audience by Littrow and Mädler, but could find no real information in them.  Encke remarked then that if these books were not enough for me, he could also not advise me further.  Whereupon I left him and bravely gave a lecture in which I expressed my concerns about the Copernican hypothesis.  I had expected opposition, hoping instruction — but none of this.  A newspaper editor who was in the audience tried to make me mad and make himself  important by only smiling mockingly, and then he left the hall; an old gentleman stepped up to me after completion of the lecture and asked me if I knew calculus, — that was everything that I achieved.  My appearance would probably have passed without a trace and would have had no farther consequences for me, except that I lost my wallet.  I don’t know how it happened except that it probably was stolen in a crowd.  I was much embarrassed by this because I did not know how I was to pay the bill and for my return trip.  I turned to the bookseller Sacco whom [page 4] I had already known fourteen years earlier in Magdeburg, and asked him for a loan. Sacco used my momentary embarrassment and demanded that I sell him the manuscript of my presentation.  This came about and so it was held as a lecture by me, although it was still very premature, under the title: Die Erde steht fest [The earth stands fast].  It was printed and sold in the course of the year 1853 at least 50,000 copies, while the attacks of the Kladderadatsch and of other newspapers only became just so many advertisements.
The wide distribution which my little booklet achieved was the reason for numerous and sometimes strange acquaintances.  Almost all enthusiasts and maniacs with fixed ideas appealed with letters to me, believing to have found in me their man.  But most nobly, I met people persecuted unjustly because of their faith and it opened up my eyes to a picture of hostility, which had to appear more horrible therefore than everything that one knows of what was similar from other countries and from past centuries, because one understood that by disseminating untrue information one could falsify the judgment of the world. I recall only one instance of the reports of fraud which came out most recently about the so-called Königsberger Mucker.
Meanwhile, some rebuttals of my assertion of the fixedness of the Earth were tried [see here for one example, here for another], but failed so sorrily that it was evidence to me that I could not be refuted.  My courage could be only increased, and I wrote the brochure: Die Bewegungen der Himmelskörper [The movements of the heavenly bodies], which appeared in the last days of 1853 by Oehme and Müller in Braunschweig and contained a bit more than the first brochure: “The earth stands fast.”   In addition, I revealed the vulgar, clumsy, irritable attacks and failures that several magazines allowed themselves against me, the great weakness of my opponents.  Where there is bitter scolding, where one proceeds with inquisitions and persecutions, there one is never entitled, [page 5] but only has the feeling of weakness, the awareness of injustice.  Earlier I was often attacked when I rebelled against the errors of Pharmacology, against the aberrations in politics; I had already endured some harsh persecution when I appeared with strength for justice and truth; only now I had never experienced anything like it.  In the Magdeburg newspaper a correspondent stated outright that he wanted to destroy me.  Such a wild rage has always been to me inexplicable.  I allow each his view, but why does one not acknowledge the same right for me?
Karl von Raumer
gentle hints
G. F. Brandes
Tycho over Copernicus

The year 1854 was particularly eventful for me.  I made a trip to southern Germany at the beginning of this year and on this occasion also visited the wonderful Karl von Raumer in Erlangen. He frankly confessed to me that he was also no friend of the Copernican hypothesis, but had never dared to give more than gentle hints against it.   So in his Kreuzzüge [Crusades] p.119, he writes: “Yet now every schoolmaster teaches according to hearsay, that the earth moves around the sun, without thinking or laboring even remotely for himself and his students to understand the planetary motions. Not so lightly, of course, did the great minds of the earlier time make of it, a Tycho Brahe, Riccioli, Baco.”  And in his Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Geographie [or Textbook of General Geography] 2nd edition, p. 101 [sic p. 102], he argues that according to the remark of astronomer Brandes [† 1791] “the Tycho Brahe system has for himself more of an appearance of truth than the Copernican system.”   As I departed from von Raumer, he sincerely wished me luck in my efforts to establish the truth of their cause but doubted that it would soon be possible to win against the fanaticism of the world.
...(to be continued)
======================

A sympathetic scientist (von Raumer), and an unsympathetic one (Encke) Schöpffer met a range of responses.  The irony with von Raumer is that his brother, Friedrich Ludwig Georg von Raumer, the great historian, fought bitterly against Pastor Knak and his confession of Holy Scripture.
      It amazes me how Schöpffer could himself meet with such great names of science.  But we are not yet done with our travels alongside... Dr. Carl Schöpffer.  Next up, Part 18c.