11. Preparations for the Printing
Rheticus wrote the narratio prima under the watchful eyes of Copernicus. From Loebau Castle, master and disciple had returned to Frauenburg, from where the narratio is dated: 23 September, A.D. 1539. When the manuscript was finished, Rheticus went off to Danzig, where the nearest printing press could be found, to have it published.
The first copies of the first printed account of the Copernican system were dispatched from Danzig in February, 1540. Melanchton received one of them; another copy was sent, by Giese, to the Protestant Duke Albert of Prussia, who subsequently did much to help promoting the Copernican system. Rheticus also sent a copy to a scholarly friend of his, by name of Achilles Perminius Gassarus, who at once caught fire and arranged for an independent edition of the book to be printed in Basle, only a few weeks after the Danzig edition had come out. Thus the narratio prima made its inroads simultaneously from the North and the South, and it caused a certain stir in the learned world. The gentle Giese was no longer alone in pleading with his obstinate friend; Canon Koppernigk was urged from every side to publish his book.
He held out for another six months. He probably thought of more subterfuges and evasions. Yet, once he had permitted that a resumé of his manuscript be published by another hand, his continued refusal to have the manuscript itself printed would have exposed him to an even greater risk of ridicule than publication could entail.
As soon as the printing of the narratio was completed, Rheticus had hurried back from Danzig to Wittenberg, to resume his lectures at the University. When the summer term ended, he rushed again to Frauenburg, at the opposite end of Germany, ostensibly for the purpose of adding a "Second Account" to the "First". In fact, he was preparing the final onslaught on Copernicus, which would wrest the Revolutions from his trembling hands. This time he succeeded. Some time after Rheticus' second arrival at Frauenburg, Canon Koppernigk's resistance at long last collapsed.
Rheticus stayed with him from the summer of 1540 to September 1541. He spent this time copying out, in his own hand, the entire manuscript of the Revolutions, checking and correcting dubious figures, and making various minor alterations. 54 He also did other chores for his master. More than ten years earlier, the previous Bishop of Ermland had asked Canons Koppernigk and Sculteti to draw up a map of Prussia. 55 Copernicus had started on the task, but never finished it. Rheticus did it for him; and since he was an incorrigible enthusiast, he not only drew up a map, but added to it a gazetteer and a treatise on the art of map-making. He sent these to Duke Albert of Prussia, accompanied by a letter of dedication, in which he took pains to bring in a reference to the forthcoming publication of his Teacher's magnum opus.
Rheticus also made for the Duke "a little instrument" – ein Instrumentlein – "indicating the length of the day throughout the year". The Duke thanked him warmly, sent him a Portugal ducat as a gift, but later complained that he could not make head or tail of the Instrumentlein, and added that "in my opinion the master goldsmith who made it did not show much subtlety." He asked Rheticus to give his, the Duke's love to Luther, Melanchton and all other German Protestants in Wittenberg. Throughout these amiable transactions, Rheticus stubbornly pursued one aim: to enlist the Duke's support for the publication of the Revolutions. A few days after sending off the map and the Instrumentlein, he let the cat out of the bag: he asked the Duke for letters to the Protestant Elector of Saxony and to the University of Wittenberg, recommending that Rheticus should be permitted to put the book of Canon Koppernigk into print. The reason for this request was that Rheticus wanted the Revolutions to be printed in the famous printing shop of Petreius, who specialized in works of astronomy, in Lutheran Nuremberg. Since Luther and Melanchton were opposed to the Copernican theory, and since the Duke of Prussia carried much weight in the Protestant world, it might be just as well to have his support in writing. The Duke willingly complied; but owing to some muddle in the ducal Chancellery, the two identical letters to Johan Friedrich of Saxony, and to the University of Wittenberg, recommended that Rheticus should be given permission and help to print his own "admirable book on astronomy". Perhaps the scribe in the Chancellery thought he had misunderstood his instructions, for no astronomer could be crazy enough to want to publish another astronomer's book. However, the mistake was explained, and the letters had their effect.
In August, 1541, some fifteen months after Rheticus' return to Frauenburg, the copying of the 424 pages in small handwriting was completed; with the priceless text in his bag, the faithful disciple once more rode post-haste across Germany back to Wittenberg, to arrive in time for the beginning of the winter term. He would have preferred to go straight to Nuremberg and to start with the printing, which could not be done without his personal supervision. But he had been absent long enough from his duties; moreover, no sooner was he back, he was elected Dean of his faculty – another proof of the large-mindedness of an age which, alas, was now approaching its end.
To fill in the time of waiting, he had two chapters of the Revolutions separately printed in Wittenberg. 56 They were chapters dealing with trigonometry in general, and with no direct bearing on the Copernican theory: but Rheticus probably thought that the publication of this small treatise might help to draw attention to his Teacher and pave the way for the magnum opus. In the dedication, he congratulated the sixteenth century on the privilege of having Copernicus among the living.
In the spring he was, at last, free. On 2 May, 1542, Rheticus set out for Nuremberg, equipped with several letters of recommendation by Melanchton to the leading patricians and Protestant clerics of that town.
A few days later, Petreius the printer started the setting up of the Book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs.
12. The Scandal of the Preface
The printing made quick progress. On 29 June, less than two months after Rheticus' arrival in Nuremberg, a certain T. Forsther, citizen of Nuremberg, wrote to his friend J. Schrad in Reutlingen:
"Prussia has given us a new and marvellous astronomer, whose system is already being printed here, a work of approximately a hundred sheets' length, in which he asserts and proves that the Earth is moving and the stars are at rest. A month ago I saw two sheets in print; the printing is being supervised by a certain Magister from Wittenberg [ Rheticus]." 57
I have italicized the above words because they provide a clue to what became perhaps the greatest scandal in the history of science. If the printed sheets were circulated to interested persons like Herr Forsther, as soon as they came off the press, then we may reasonably assume that they were also sent on to the author; and that Copernicus was thus able to follow the progress of the printing. If this hypothesis (which is supported, as we shall see, by the testimony of Rheticus) were admitted, then it would follow that Copernicus knew the Preface by another hand which was added to his book, and which is the cause of the scandal.
It would never have arisen, had Rheticus been able to finish the job he had started with such enthusiasm and devotion. But, unfortunately, he had to leave Nuremberg before the printing was completed. In the spring, he had applied for a new post: the important Chair of Mathematics at Leipzig University. Melanchton again supported his application, and a private letter of Melanchton's to a friend darkly hints at the reason why Rheticus needed a change of universities: there were rumours (fabulae) current about him in Wittenberg "which cannot be mentioned in writing". 58 The rumours evidently concerned his homosexuality.
His application was successful, and in November Rheticus had to leave Nuremberg to take up his new post in Leipzig. He left the supervision of the printing of the Revolutions in the hands of a man whom he had every reason to consider reliable – the leading theologian and preacher of Nuremberg, Andreas Osiander, one of the co-founders of the Lutheran creed. In contrast to Luther and Melanchton, Osiander was not only favourably disposed towards Copernicus, but took an active interest in his work, and had been corresponding with him for the past two years.
In the belief
that everything was thus arranged for the best, Rheticus left for Leipzig; whereupon Osiander, now in charge of the printing, promptly wrote an anonymous preface to the Revolutions and inserted it in the book. The preface was addressed TO THE READER, CONCERNING THE HYPOTHESES OF THIS WORK. (Its full text is printed in Note 59.) It started by explaining that the ideas of the book need not be taken too seriously: "For these hypotheses need not be true or even probable"; it is sufficient that they should save the appearances. The preface then went on to demonstrate the improbability "of the hypotheses contained in this work" by pointing out that the orbit ascribed to Venus would make that planet appear sixteen times as large when closest to the earth as when farthest away – "which is contradicted by the experience of all ages". The book, furthermore, contained "no less important absurdities, which there is no need to set forth at the moment." On the other hand, these new hypotheses deserved to become known, "together with the ancient hypotheses which are no more probable", because they are "admirable and also simple, and bring with them a huge treasure of very skilful observations." But by their very nature, "so far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose [i.e. as mere calculating aids], and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it. Farewell."
No wonder that the emotional shock caused by reading this preface (assuming that he did read it) is supposed to have hastened Copernicus' end. Yet there can be no doubt that Osiander was acting with the best of intentions. Two years earlier, when Copernicus was still hesitating whether to publish the book, he had written to Osiander to pour out his anxieties and to ask for advice. 60 Osiander had replied:
"For my part I have always felt about hypotheses that they are not articles of faith but bases of computation, so that even if they are false, it does not matter, provided that they exactly represent the phenomena... It would therefore be a good thing if you could say something on this subject in your preface, for you would thus placate the Aristotelians and the theologians whose contradictions you fear." 61
On the same day, Osiander had written on the same lines to Rheticus, who was then in Frauenburg:
"The Aristotelians and theologians will easily be placated if they are told that several hypotheses can be used to explain the same apparent motions; and that the present hypotheses are not proposed because they are in reality true, but because they are the most convenient to calculate the apparent composite motions."
Prefatory remarks of this kind would induce in the opponents a more gentle and conciliatory mood; their antagonism will disappear "and eventually they will go over to the opinion of the author." 62
Neither Copernicus' nor Rheticus' answer to Osiander's suggestion has been preserved. According to Kepler, who saw some of the correspondence before it was destroyed, Copernicus rejected Osiander's proposal: "Strengthened by a stoical firmness of mind, Copernicus believed that he should publish his convictions openly." 63 But Kepler did not quote the text of Copernicus' answer, and his remark, which occurs in a polemical text, should not be given undue weight. * Kepler fought fanatically for the heliocentric theory, worshipped Copernicus, and credited him with a "stoical firmness" which he did not possess.
______________
*
See below, p. 170.
The wording of the preface was certainly most unfortunate. For one thing, it did not make it sufficiently clear that it was not written by Copernicus himself. It is true that in one sentence it referred to the author of the book in the third person and in a laudatory manner; but the scholars of that age did not suffer from undue modesty, and it required close scrutiny of the text to discover that it was written by an alien hand. So much so, that although Osiander's authorship was discovered and revealed by Kepler in 1609, and mentioned in Gassendi's biography of 1647, the later editions of the Revolutions ( Basle 1566, and Amsterdam 1617) took over Osiander's preface without comment, leaving the reader under the impression that it was by Copernicus. Only the Warsaw edition of 1854 mentioned Osiander's authorship.
The mystery of the preface, which survived three centuries, is, of course, quite in keeping with Canon Koppernigk's oblique ways, his cult of Pythagorean secrecy, and the esoteric motto of his book: For mathematicians only. Legend has it that Copernicus was the victim of a perfidious trick by Osiander; but the internal evidence, and also a statement by Rheticus, to which I shall come presently, speak against this. Since Osiander knew of Copernicus' hesitations to publish his manuscript for "four times nine years" 63a ; of his insistence that in the narratio prima his authorship should remain anonymous; of his attempt to publish only his planetary tables without the theory behind them, he must have assumed that Copernicus would agree with his cautious and conciliatory approach, which was merely reiterating the classical doctrine that physics and sky-geometry were matters apart. We have no reason to doubt that Osiander acted in good faith, intending both to reassure the anxious Canon, and to smooth the path for his work.
The next question is, whether Copernicus actually read the preface, and what his reactions to it were. We have two contradictory statements on this point: one from Rheticus, one from Kepler. Kepler's text runs as follows:
"It is a most absurd fiction, I admit, that the phenomena of nature can be explained by false causes. But this fiction is not in Copernicus. He thought that his hypotheses were true, no less than did those ancient astronomers of whom you speak. And he did not merely think so, but he proves that they are true. As evidence, I offer this work.
Do you wish to know the author of this fiction, which stirs you to such great wrath? Andreas Osiander is named in my copy, in the handwriting of Jerome Schreiber, of Nuremberg. Andreas, who supervised the printing of Copernicus' work, regarded the Preface, which you declare to be most absurd, as most prudent (as can be inferred from his letter to Copernicus) and placed it on the title page of the book when Copernicus was either already dead or certainly unaware [of what Osiander was doing]." 64
Rheticus' evidence is contained in a letter by the Professor of Mathematics, Johannes Praetorius, to a correspondent. Praetorius was an intimate friend of Rheticus and a reliable scholar. His letter says:
"Concerning the Preface in Copernicus' book, there has been uncertainty about its author. However, it was Andreas Osiander ... who did the Preface. For it was under his charge that Copernicus' book was first printed in Nuremberg. And some of the first pages were sent to Copernicus, but a short while later Copernicus died, before he could see the whole work. Rheticus used to assert with seriousness that this Preface of Osiander's was clearly displeasing to Copernicus, and that he was more than a little irritated by it. This seems likely, for his own intention was different, and what he would have liked the Preface to say is clear from the contents of his Dedication [to Paul III]... The title also was changed from the original beyond the author's intentions, for it should have been: De revolutionibus orbium mundi, whereas Osiander made it: Orbium coelestium." 65
Praetorius' letter was written in 1609. Kepler's Astronomia Nova, in which the quoted passage appears, was published in the same year. It was sixty-six years after the event. Which of the two opposite versions should we trust?
To solve the puzzle, we must compare (a) the contents, (b) the source, and (c) the motive behind each of the two statements. The content of Kepler's is vague: Copernicus was "either already dead or certainly unaware of" Osiander's preface. It is based on hearsay: Kepler's source is his old teacher Michael Maestlin, whose own knowledge of the events was third-hand. 66 Praetorius' statement is precise, the incidental detail about the changed title is convincing, and his information came straight from the horse's mouth, as it were: from Rheticus, whose guest he had been on two occasions, in 1569 and 1571. 67 As for motive, Kepler's statement on Copernicus' beliefs appears as a motto at the beginning of Kepler's Astronomia Nova (which is based on the Copernican hypothesis) and clearly serves a propagandi
stic purpose; 67a whereas Praetorius' version is contained in a chatty letter, with no apparent motive at all.
The balance is thus clearly in favour of Praetorius, and the conclusion seems to be that, contrary to accepted opinion, Copernicus was acquainted with Osiander's Preface. Oddly enough, the Praetorius document, as far as I know, escaped the attention of all biographers, except the most recent and scholarly among them, the German astronomer Ernst Zinner. As I felt doubtful about my own conclusions, I wrote to Professor Zinner and received the following reply:
"I do not share your doubts. We can regard it as certain that Copernicus knew Osiander's preface for which he was prepared by Osiander's previous letters of 1540-41. Praetorius' statements are trustworthy for they were based on direct communications from Rheticus, who knew best. Praetorius ... was a conscientious scholar and left us important information and works. At any rate, his testimony is more important than the vague testimony of Kepler, who derived his information from Maestlin, who in turn was too remote from the whole affair... Is it not self-evident that Rheticus, who had snatched the manuscript from Copernicus almost by force, as it were, did forward its galleys to its author? I imagine that all the galleys were sent to Copernicus in the course of time, so that at his death the whole book was assembled in print, as Giese states..." 68
Canon Koppernigk had, of course, every reason to be furious about Osiander's unfortunate remarks that his Venus-orbit was "contradicted by the experience of all ages", that the book contained other "absurdities", and so forth. That indeed was carrying the diplomacy of appeasement too far. But on Osiander's more fundamental point that his system was merely a computing hypothesis, he had no grounds for complaint. Copernicus did believe that the earth really moved; but it was impossible for him to believe that either the earth or the planets moved in the manner described in his system of epicycles and deferents, which were geometrical fictions. And so long as the why and how of the heavenly motions rested on a purely fictional basis, with wheels-on-wheels which the astronomer manipulated with happy unconcern for physical reality, he could not object to Osiander's correct statement about the purely formal nature of his hypotheses. 69