Edward Rosen

The Commentariolus of Copernicus

Some years before COPERNICUS consented to the publication of his large work De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium (i), he wrote a brief sketch (Commentariolus) of his astronomical system. The Commentariolus was not printed; a number of handwritten copies circulated for a time among students of the science, and then disappeared from view for three centuries. A copy found in Vienna was published by MAXIMILIAN CURTZE in I878 (2); this Vienna MS will be referred to as V. A second copy found in Stockholm was published in i88i (3); this will be referred to as S. On CURTZE s collation (4) of these two MSS LEOPOLD PROWE based the text (5) from which the present translation was made. It has been necessary to depart from PROWES text in a few instances; these have been indicated in the notes. A third MS (6) is believed to exist in Leningrad; so far as I know, it has never been published. A translation of the first section of the Commentariolus appears in PROWE (7). BIRKENMAJER published a partial translation of the work into Polish (8). A complete translation by ADOLF MULLER (Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte und Alterthumskunde Ermlands, Braunsberg, i899, vol. I2, pp. 359-82) came to my notice too late for use in this paper.

In defense of Tycho Brahe

Nicholas Copernicus On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, in Six Books (Basel Edition) with Annotations Written by the Hand o f Tycho Brahe i was published in facsimile (Prague, 1971), as volume XVI, Editio cimelia Bohemica (cited hereafter as Cimelia). On Cimelias title page an unidentified hand wrote: Property of the Imperial College of the Society of Jesus in Prague, in the year 1642o z The same hand added, just below: From the Library and Scrutiny of Tycho? 3 On the flyleaf preceding the title page a different hand pointed out: Observe: There are present marginal notes written by Tyeho Brahes own hand. 4 At the top of this flyleaf a third hand wrote some entries, which were ignored by Cimelia, although they throw valuable light on the history of this copy and will be considered later on. In a brochure accompanying the facsimile, Cimetia conceded that the Jesuit attribution of its marginal notes to BgAnE was not entirely free of possible doubt. s Nevertheless, it came down on the affirmative side, maintaining that

Rheticus as Editor of Sacrobosco

In his recent three-volume study of Copernicus’ disciple Rheticus, K. H. Burmeister1 discussed an edition of Johannes Sacrobosco2 which contained both his Sphere 3 and his Computus (Wittenberg: Klug, 1538). Referring to Rheticus’ professorship of astronomy at Wittenberg University, Burmeister continued:

Essay Review: Koyré in Translation: The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus—Kepler—BorelliThe Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus—Kepler—Borelli.KoyréAlexandre. Translated by MaddisonR. E. W. (Hermann, Paris; Methuen, London; Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1973). Pp. 531

Three years before his death the late Alexandre Koyre (1892-1964) published the French original of this important work, which has now been translated into English by the librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dr R. E. W. Maddison. Since this English version is likely to be widely used henceforth, instead of the meretricious best-seller commonly consulted heretofore, a careful examination of Koyre-Maddison may not be amiss. Our hope is that, by identifying errors, we shall enhance the usefulness of the work. In one instance (pp. 82-83) Maddison calls attention to valuable material that first became available after Koyres death. But Maddison makes no systematic effort to bring Koyre up to date and he makes little or no effort to clean up Koyres mistakes. Thus, the second edition of the Revolutions is still misplaced in Frankfurt, instead of Basel (p. 95). The first edition of Copernicuss Commentariolus is still misdated in 1854 (p. 76). The astronomers military activities and monetary reforms are still too late by a century (p. 80). He still refers to Pythagoras at every turn (p. 80), although no such turn has ever been noticed. The recommendation to impetuous authors to delay the publication of their work for nine years is still attributed to the Pythagoreans (p. 25) instead of to Horace, who was hardly a Pythagorean. Domenico Maria da Novara, the professor of astronomy at Bologna University, who was assisted by Copernicus, is still an earnest exponent of Pythagoreanism and neo-Platonism (p. 22). By placing the Sun at the centre of the Universe ... Copernicus returned to the Pythagorean conception (p. 114). But the Sun is not at the centre of the universe in the Pythagorean conception quoted by Copernicus in the original Greek from an ancient author: Philolaus the Pythagorean says that it [the Earth] moves around a [more properly, the] central fire in an oblique circle, as do the Sun and the Moon (p.39). The Sun ... is placed [by Copernicus] at the centre of the Universe in order to give it light, and hence life and motion (p. 65); Copernicuss Sun is in the last analysis the source of life and, consequently, of motion, because it is the source of light (p. 114). In Copernicuss Universe, however, the Sun is the source of light, but not of motion: the spheres and circles of Copernicus ... revolve because they are round, and because their very nature, their (geometric) shape, expresses itself in their circular motion (p. 113). According to Koyre (p, 391), in a letter written to Kepler, Tycho Brahe revealed his belief that the destruction of the solid spheres condemned Copernicanism by excluding the possibility of the Earths orbital motion. But in that letter Brahe says: I do not deny that there are reasons why the planets perform their circuits about one centre or another and at different distances from the Earth or the Sun (p. 162). Maddison has intruded the word and, which does not correspond to anything in the French original (also p. 162). But even the French original fails to make it clear that Brahe placed at different distances from the Earth or the Sun the various centres of the planetary motions. In that same letter, when Brahe said I do not approve (nonprobo), his disapproval does not justify Koyres italicised condemned. Nor, by placing the various centres of planetary motion at different distances from the Earth or the Sun was Brahe excluding the possibility of the Earths orbital